Wednesday, 10 November 2021

WEDNESDAY, 10 NOVEMBER 2021

WEDNESDAY, 10 NOVEMBER 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 select committee reports have been presented. A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK: Petition of Erica Rowlands requesting that the House pass legislation requiring all domestic cats to be registered via microchip, and desexed unless kept contained by registered cat breeders.

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

CLERK:

New Zealand Blood and Organ Service, statement of performance expectations 2021-22

Vote Business, Science and Innovation, digital economic communications portfolio

report in relation to selected non-departmental appropriation for the year ended 30 June 2021.

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

CLERK: Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading. Once again I’m going to remind Mr Mitchell, who’s spent some time away from the House, that we do have some rules about what’s allowed on desks and what’s not.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Health

1. Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that more than 100,000 hospital procedures have been deferred in the current outbreak, and how many of these were on the Faster Cancer Treatment pathway?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): No. The member is not correct when he refers to 100,000 deferred procedures. It is correct, however, that 100,000 hospital events have been deferred during the current COVID-19 outbreak, which is not the same as procedures. The 100,000 events include diagnostic tests, outpatient appointments, first specialist assessments and follow-ups, as well as in-patient surgery and minor surgical procedures. I can confirm that urgent and non-deferrable care has continued throughout the lockdown, with approximately 50 percent of normal volumes in the northern region and 85 to 95 percent for other regions. Decisions to defer procedures continue to be made on a clinical basis by clinicians, with the patient’s medical needs and medical history in mind, in making these clinical judgments in the broader context of a global pandemic and the need for patient and wider hospital safety. The reality is that, as I have said to the House before, pandemics cause disruptions to health services. The best way to address this, of course, as we know, is to continue our vaccination campaign.

Turning to the second part of the member’s question, because the data on this is reported on a six-monthly basis, and I don’t have raw figures, I can say to the member, in the six months to the end of September 2021, the 62-day target for the Faster Cancer Treatment pathway was, on a nationwide basis, achieved at a rate of 85 percent against the national target of 90 percent.

Dr Shane Reti: What is his plan, then, to catch up on the more than 100,000 delayed events?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Some of those events will be caught up with, as required, through the ministry’s negotiated plans with DHBs, through phone consultations where that is possible, and through providing additional support to get those procedures happening. That is why last year the Government provided an additional $282.5 million to DHBs, over a three-year period, to catch up with deferred planned care. Ongoing effort is being made, particularly in the northern region, because of the ongoing delays as a result of this extended lockdown to make sure that as many of those procedures are carried out as quickly as possible.

Dr Shane Reti: Has he asked officials for an estimate of how long it will take to clear the whole hospital waiting list, and, if so, how long?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I get regular reports on the impact of the lockdown on planned care and the delays that that is causing, and I’m in constant discussion with officials about the steps that are being taken, including the effort right now being focused on the northern region because of the impact of the extended lockdown on what is required to get those deferred planned care events returned to schedule.

Hon Stuart Nash: What would the impact on the health system have been if the Government had adopted the Opposition’s policy of opening the country at 80 percent—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise. He’s been here a long time. He knows that question is out of order.

Hon Stuart Nash: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: And I’m going to say to the Hon Stuart Nash that was actually egregious; it wasn’t even a decent attempt.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

SPEAKER: Order! Well, I was going to take some further action and I won’t because of the noise from Matt Doocey.

Dr Shane Reti: Can he guarantee that every one of the more than 100,000 people, along with the 30,000 who were already on wait-list before the outbreak, will be treated before he disestablishes DHBs in eight months?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can’t give any guarantee about when any particular thing will happen when it comes to catching up with the deferred planned care. There were waiting lists that were in place well before the whole pandemic even commenced. So that’s why we do everything we can to support both the ministry and the work it is doing with DHBs to catch up on that planned care, but no one will miss out on hospital care that they ought to expect to get, regardless of whether the DHBs are in existence or when Health NZ takes over.

Dr Shane Reti: What was his response to the man with bladder cancer who recently contacted his office regarding his delayed treatment, and did that response include an apology for not building enough ICU beds over the last 18 months?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not familiar with that particular piece of communication, but I do know that when a Government is in place for nine years and spends barely $1 billion on capital upgrades and expansion and actually runs down the health system, I know that the Government that follows has a lot of work to do to catch up, and that’s what we’re doing.

Dr Shane Reti: What advice has he received, if any, on the harm to health in the number of premature deaths expected from those 100,000 people, as a consequence of having their treatments delayed?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: One of the reasons why pandemics cause disruptions to health services, particularly at the height of an outbreak, such as we saw from 17 August, or 18 August, for a period where we were all in level 4 lockdown, is that it is simply unsafe for people to turn up to hospital—unsafe for them, unsafe for their staff—until the outbreak is under control. So there is deferral of planned care. That is in everybody’s best interests. The unexpected increase in mortality would be much greater if we’d just carried on as if nothing had happened, and a whole bunch of people turned up to hospital and both themselves and hospital staff got infected.

Question No. 2—Education

2. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What action is the Government taking to give school students in alert level 3 areas the opportunity to return to onsite learning?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Today, I’ve confirmed that Auckland and Waikato students in years 1 to 10 can return to face-to-face learning at schools and kura from 17 November. Students in years 9 and 10 will be able to return full-time, alongside those already back at high schools in years 11 to 13. Most students in years 1 to 8 will be returning part-time. Each school and kura will decide what works best for their learners and their community, consistent with the public health guidance that we have issued. That might be by alternating days or half-weeks through year levels or through whānau groupings. Full-time learning will continue onsite for students whose parents have needed it—for example, if they’ve been back at full-time work.

Angela Roberts: What reassurance can he give to students and their families that it is safe to return to onsite learning?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Public health advice supports a return to onsite learning. It’s clear that the risk of reopening schools is outweighed by the benefits of kids re-engaging in their learning face to face. Measures to help minimise the risk of COVID-19 will include mask wearing from year 4 up in most cases, ventilating classrooms, limiting the number of students onsite, and making sure groups of children distance from each other, and, with really strong vaccination rates, the balance of risk has shifted. As vaccination rates continue to increase, including the requirement for teachers to have at least one COVID-19 vaccination by Monday, the risk to children and students continues to lower.

Angela Roberts: Why is it important to bring younger students back onsite now?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I acknowledge that lockdowns can be stressful for children and young people, so returning to some onsite learning will mean that they can reconnect with their teachers and with their friends. Starting this month, that provides certainty ahead of the Christmas break and before the new school year starts. Parents, caregivers, and teachers have been doing an incredible job, helping children to adapt and to learn online, and I want to thank them for that and acknowledge those school leaders and teachers, who’ll be working hard from here to prepare for a different way of teaching and learning from 17 November.

Teanau Tuiono: Is he confident that health protections proposed will be strong enough to prevent the spread of COVID-19 at schools?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In the new environment that we are moving into, it is impossible to completely prevent the spread of COVID-19. The public health measures that we’re putting in place in our schools and our kura are designed to minimise the risk of COVID-19 spreading, but I do want to be really, really clear that COVID-19 will spread throughout New Zealand over the coming months. People need to be prepared for that. The public health protections that we put in place are designed to minimise that.

Teanau Tuiono: Will he instruct the Ministry of Education to roll out high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters to improve ventilation in schools so students and teachers can be as safe as possible?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It is important to recognise that most schools do not have artificial ventilation systems; they have windows and doors. They don’t have air conditioning, they don’t have ducted air ventilation, and it is through ducted air ventilation that HEPA filters are used. So, in most cases, the best way of ventilating those spaces is going to be to have the windows and doors open. Where it’s not possible to open the windows and doors or where ventilation opportunities are very poor, or where there are structural ventilation systems, we’ll work with schools on a case by case basis to identify what’s best for their needs.

Question No. 3—Finance

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr squeak—Mr Speaker.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I withdraw and apologise.

3. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Finance: Can New Zealand afford to pay for all of the Government’s policy promises; if so, how?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The strength and resilience of the New Zealand economy has put us in a strong position to deliver a policy programme that, in turn, supports sustainable economic growth, reduces child poverty, and sees strong investment in health, housing, and education, among other areas. In answer to the second part of the member’s question, the Government gets the money it spends through revenue from tax, levies, fees, investment income, and the sale of goods and services. The Government also funds its commitment by raising debt, by issuing bonds. This is standard practice for this and past New Zealand Governments and, indeed, for most Governments around the world. As we have demonstrated, we will continue to roll out our policy programme in a careful and balanced way to achieve our goals while managing resources in a sustainable way.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will he rule out raising taxes in order to pay for the extra spending promises made, and, if so, does that mean that the extra money will need to be borrowed?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has made clear that we will not be raising taxes in this term. The way the Government will continue to make sure that we pay for the commitments we have will be a combination of all of the things I answered in my primary question.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does the Government remain committed to light rail in Auckland, the preferred option of which has an estimated cost of $14.6 billion, and, if so, how does he plan to pay for it?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does the Government remain committed to rapid transport in Wellington, the cheapest option of which being $5.8 billion, and, if so, how does the Government plan to pay for it?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Can he confirm that since he has been finance Minister, New Zealand’s debt has increased over $40 billion—that’s public debt—but in just one week of announcements, he’s added another $35 billion worth of spending on to the debt pile he’s already incurred?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm there’s been a global pandemic, and, in light of that, the Government has indeed taken on more debt in order to support New Zealanders’ lives and livelihoods through that. We continue to have one of the lowest levels of net debt in the world—lower than Australia, lower than the UK, lower than the US, lower than the euro area. We will continue to borrow where we need to. In answer to the second part of the member’s question, he should actually take a look. Money has already being provisioned for Wellington’s rapid transit and also for parts of the Auckland rapid transit as well.

Question No. 4—Health

4. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What medicines does New Zealand now have available to treat those with COVID-19?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): The Government recently secured access to two new pharmaceutical drugs for treating COVID-19—Ronapreve and baricitinib. Baricitinib is the fifth drug Pharmac has secured and sits alongside remdesivir, tocilizumab, molnupiravir, and Ronapreve as treatments doctors can turn to to help people with a range of COVID-19 symptoms. The addition of new drugs to the suite of COVID19 medicines is good news for patients and for the health system as they help to reduce the severity of symptoms, cut time in hospital, and reduce the likelihood of death. All of these treatments are in addition to vaccination, which, of course, remains the best protection against COVID-19.

Dr Liz Craig: How can these be used to treat COVID-19?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Some of these newly secured pharmaceutical treatments can help save lives and cut time in hospital, like tocilizumab, baricitinib can be used to help patients who are very sick. Ronapreve is a monoclonal antibody drug, and there is a lot of excitement about it—

Hon Member: Yes!

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —including in this House. The clinical advice is that it is a massive advance because it reduces the severity of COVID-19 and decreases the risk of patients passing the virus on to other people. Again, these treatments are in addition to the best defence against COVID-19, which is getting vaccinated.

Dr Liz Craig: When will these new treatments be available to the public?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Therapeutic treatments will only become available to the public once Medsafe has completed their approval process. Tocilizumab and remdesivir are approved by Medsafe for use in New Zealand for other purposes than COVID-19, but currently Medsafe is considering their approval process for those drugs for COVID-19. Molnupiravir, Ronapreve, and baricitinib are yet to be approved. All are currently undergoing the Medsafe approval process. However, it is important that we continue pursuing purchases ahead of the approval process to ensure availability as soon as possible, something that I know the Opposition has been concerned about in relation to other treatments. For example, Pharmac expects to receive 500 doses of baricitinib this month, which is important because there’s a global shortage of tocilizumab, and this gives clinicians another option. We’ve also secured 60,000 courses of molnupiravir as well as enough doses of Ronapreve to be able to treat 5,300 people, and we expect to be able to buy more next year.

Chris Bishop: Has New Zealand signed an advance purchase agreement for Pfizer’s new antiviral pill called PAXLOVID, which early studies show is 89 percent effective in reducing risk of hospitalisation or death from COVID-19, and if not, why not?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not aware that an advance purchase agreement has been signed at this point but I’m very confident that Pharmac, as our drug procurement agency, has been out in world markets making sure that we get the best opportunities that we can to make sure we have a good suite of drugs in our COVID-19 armoury, and they’re doing a very good job.

Question No. 5—Health

5. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Associate Minister of Health: Has she seen the recently published research that estimates up to 100 colorectal cancer cases per year may be attributable to nitrates in drinking water; if so, what is her response?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): I assume the member refers to the paper Nitrate contamination in drinking water and colorectal cancer: Exposure assessment and estimated health burden in New Zealand by Richards et al. in the journal of Environmental Research. That study relied on previous epidemiological studies suggesting an association between nitrates and colorectal cancer and assumed these associations were true to project the number of cancers that could occur in the New Zealand population. It did not directly assess the relationship between individual exposure to nitrate and colorectal cancer in New Zealand. The authors and their paper and their press release acknowledge this is one of the limitations of their study. I am aware of emerging research in this field and have instructed health officials to monitor new evidence as it comes to light, and to report back to me as appropriate.

Hon Eugenie Sage: When she said, in answer to written question No. 4695, that the Ministry of Health will “respond appropriately to identified risks to public health.”, what action is the ministry taking in response to the growing number of studies about the potential health impacts of nitrate levels in drinking water?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The Ministry of Health has reviewed the association between nitrates and colorectal cancer this year, and, in addition, in response to other questions about a hypothesised relationship between nitrates and perinatal outcomes, has commissioned a systematic review of the evidence by the Liggins Institute of Auckland University into that association. That report, I believe, will be published soon.

Hon Eugenie Sage: What reports, if any, has she had from the now-disbanded informal working group established in late 2019 to consider possible links between nitrates and bowel cancer in New Zealand?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The process that I outlined in my previous answer is the process that we have used to evaluate the scientific evidence of any association between nitrates and drinking water. Other work may be required if other associations come to light, but, for the time being, I am happy with the process that the ministry has been through.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister agree with Dr Chambers’ statement: “the results support the need to take a precautionary approach towards nitrate contamination in New Zealand”; if she does agree with Dr Chambers’ statement, what does she consider a “precautionary approach” to chronic exposure to nitrate in drinking water sources requires?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: This Government takes the importance of safe drinking water extremely seriously, and that is the basis of our three waters reforms, which include alterations to the regulations of drinking water in response to the events of drinking-water contamination at Havelock North. With respect to the question about the precautionary principle, we will act on evidence, and, as I have mentioned, the evidence in this issue is unclear. I’ve had the experience in this role of having to stop a town from drinking its drinking-water supply, and it is incredibly disruptive. So I am happy with an approach where we act on conclusive evidence.

Hon Eugenie Sage: So how much more evidence of risks to human health from nitrate contamination in drinking water is needed before the Government takes action to protect the public and drinking-water supplies from nitrate pollution?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The evaluation of an environmental exposure with a public health outcome is incredibly complex and usually requires evaluating multiple different features of the evidence. I continue to ask the Ministry of Health to review that. I do note that two other university epidemiologists, in relation to this issue, have also tried to contextualise the scale of the risk here. For example, Professor Brian Cox said, “At this stage, there is no cause for alarm. Even those drinking nitrate-rich water, the risk is small compared to eating a high diet in processed meat.” Professor Michael Baker said, “We need to have a reasonable sense of proportion. The evidence is on the weaker end of the spectrum, and the association does not necessarily mean causation.”

Hon Eugenie Sage: Supplementary [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister consider that nitrogen pollution in rivers and aquifers from intensive dairying in Aotearoa New Zealand is a risk to human health?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I believe that nitrate pollution of fresh water is an environmental problem that I am concerned about. I support this Government’s action to clean up fresh water for the reason that it is an environmental problem.

SPEAKER: Now, I haven’t done this for a long time, but after I called order then, three National Party members interjected while Eugenie Sage was on her feet. I just want to indicate to members that that is not acceptable and the consequences of it—and it might have been two National and one ACT, just to be absolutely fair. There were at least—I’m getting negatives from the front and positives from the back, so some people need to get the story constant. Is there a further supplementary?

Question No. 6—Transport

6. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of Transport: Has he received advice from officials relating to the possibility of Aucklanders being given allocated timeslots to leave Auckland over the summer period, and what other options, if any, is the Government considering about Aucklanders leaving the region over summer?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I received advice on a range of options that would support this Government’s commitment to ensuring Aucklanders are able to leave the region for Christmas and the summer holidays. At the same time, we need to strike the right balance and do what we can for the rest of the country, to try and ensure that it’s people and not the virus that move beyond the Auckland boundary. No system will be perfect, and it will be challenging, but we’re looking at how we can use tools like vaccine certificates and testing to achieve these goals. While no decisions have been made, we are talking with different sectors and groups who will be key to making any land boundary work safely and smoothly, and we’ll keep the public up to speed with developments.

Chris Bishop: Is the proposal of giving Aucklanders an allocated timeslot in order to leave Auckland during summer still under active consideration?

Hon Chris Hipkins: As I indicated in my primary answer, on behalf of the Minister of Transport, no decisions have been made at this point.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. The question wasn’t whether any decisions have been made but whether they were still under active consideration, and that hadn’t been addressed.

SPEAKER: Well, I think it has been addressed. It might be slightly coded, but I’ve been here for a long time, and if decisions haven’t been made, they are under active consideration, or passive consideration, or not being considered at all.

Chris Bishop: On what date did he first instruct the Ministry of Transport to look at options of Aucklanders being able to cross the border should the region have transitioned to the new COVID-19 Protection Framework but the rest of the country is at the old alert level framework, and has he received that advice yet?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: On behalf of the Minister of Transport, officials have been working on a range of options around how to manage the Auckland boundary once the country transitions to the new COVID-19 Protection Framework, and that work has been under way since before the protection framework was announced. It started while the protection framework was being developed.

Chris Bishop: Will New Zealanders outside of Auckland be able to travel into Auckland post - 29 November, irrespective of what framework is in place on either side of the border?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It is the Government’s intention to allow people to move in and out of Auckland in time for the summer holidays.

Chris Bishop: On what date did he ask for official advice in relation to options to allow Aucklanders to leave Auckland over the summer period?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated in my answer to the previous supplementary question, discussions around movement across the Auckland boundary have been ongoing since the COVID protection framework was under development. I don’t have a particular date, but it has been several months’ worth of discussion.

Question No. 7—Building and Construction

7. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent reports has she seen regarding building consents?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I’ve seen a report from Statistics New Zealand which shows the number of new homes consented in the year ended 30 September 2021 is at a record high of 47,331. This is an increase of 25 percent from the September 2020 year. We reached a milestone earlier this year in March 2021 when we consented more homes to be built than any other Government in a year since the 1970s. Now, for a seventh month in a row, we have continued to outperform these records while the sector has remained resilient in spite of the challenges posed by COVID-19.

Shanan Halbert: What does this report show for Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The report has also shown the number of consents in Auckland has continued to rise and is now up 29 percent on this time last year. The groundbreaking levels of demand for residential construction we are currently experiencing, paired with the strong Government investment in infrastructure, has meant the sector has been in a stronger position to front our recovery from COVID-19.

Shanan Halbert: How is the Government supporting the building and construction sector to build on this growth and its consents?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This Government’s investment in the construction sector—it’s creating more jobs; helping us to retain and grow construction skills; and building warmer, dry, secure housing at a critical time. Already, the sector has had a 5.1 percent increase in employees over the last year with approximately 10 percent of the national workforce working in the sector.

Question No. 8—Education

8. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all of his actions and statements in education?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Which statement is correct—his reported comment on RNZ that teachers would not be “pitched out of the classroom” if they had not had their first dose by Tuesday, or his ministry’s guidance that said staff who “refuse to meet vaccination requirements cannot return to work on site from Tuesday, 16 November”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Both are correct, but the latter one is more correct. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Quite the opposite.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is that the new legal standard that he’s operating for, so after all the time he’s had to prepare for a vaccine mandate, the current advice to each of the 2,500 schools is they have to go and get some legal advice on how to handle the employment issues?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, the reason I’m not absolutely definitive in choosing between the two statements is that there are some exceptions.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What exceptions?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If people get an exemption.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Having swiftly adopted two parts of National’s education plan, reopening schools and postponing the curriculum review, when will he adopt the rest—specifically, a plan to catch up on lost education ground?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I would instead describe National’s plan as a return to the failed policies of the past.

SPEAKER: For which he has no responsibility.

Question No. 9—Economic and Regional Development

9. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What changes has the Government made regarding the payment of the living wage to Public Service contractors providing cleaning, catering, and security services?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): I have today announced a Cabinet decision to direct core Public Service departments to ensure that contracts for cleaning, catering, and security guards pay at least the living wage rate of $22.75 per hour. These contractors are employed via third parties and are some of the lowest-paid workers in Government. It was a manifesto commitment to extend the living wage guarantee to these workers to address significant disparities in wages across the State sector. The changes will take effect for contracts signed or renewed after 1 December. I want to acknowledge the amazing work of advocates in the living wage movement and its allies in pushing for this change.

Ibrahim Omer: What levers does the Public Service have to drive change for vulnerable workers through its purchasing practices?

Hon STUART NASH: Government agencies have incredible buying power. We’re using our procurement levers to drive real and progressive change across a number of areas, from climate change goals to providing work for a more diverse range of businesses that supply the Government. In this case, we are using it to pay people a wage they can live on. The Government wants to send a signal to the market that improving the conditions of workers is something that we want to make progress on, and to do that we have to lead by example.

Ibrahim Omer: What other parts of the Public Service are paying the living wage to their contractors?

Hon STUART NASH: I would like to shout out once again to those working on our COVID response and in our managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s own procurement team has recently ensured the living wage was implemented through their procurement of MIQ commercial contracts. This means all staff across all 32 facilities are now on the living wage equivalent or higher, and there is a provision built in that the wage will continue to increase as the living wage increases. The living wage will improve living standards for workers and their whānau, which is even more important during a global pandemic. We absolutely recognise that low-paid workers are particularly vulnerable to economic impacts of the crisis.

Question No. 10—Local Government

10. SIMON COURT (ACT) to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by her statement regarding Three Waters reform, “There are about 30 various models that we tested against the Government’s objectives”; if so, against what criteria were they tested?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I stand by the full statement I made. There were a wide range of models tested during the policy development process, including modelling of 30 aggregation scenarios. These ranged from a one entity scenario covering the whole of New Zealand to a 13 entity scenario. These are summarised in the final report by the Water Industry Commission for Scotland, which was published by the Department of Internal Affairs as part of the national evidence base supporting the reform proposals. In addition, a wide range of alternative policy options were considered, including not pursuing aggregation. These include, for example, support for voluntary reform proposals by local government and Waka Kotahi - style funding models. The range of options considered are also outlined in the department’s regulatory impact statement.

In answer to the second part of the question, the options were assessed against the criteria of whether the reform proposals improve economic efficiency and support a financially sustainable system—including achieving balance sheet separation, improving infrastructure delivery, improving decision making and performance—and can be easily implemented. The current system of 67 different council water providers is clearly not meeting delivery of safe, affordable, and sustainable three water services, and this is something that most people agree on. Aggregation is required to achieve the outcomes we want, and we are confident that the model we have chosen is the right way forward.

Simon Court: What, if any, input did councils have into generating or testing the 30 models against the Government’s objectives prior to Cabinet signing off on the Government’s preferred model?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, over the course of the last four years, the Government has been consulting across the community, including with local government, about the reform process. A series of workshops have been held around various options and scenarios, in which local government has participated.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question about the 30 models that were on notice. Now, he’s given a bland answer that there’s lots of consultation. He did not address the question about the 30 models that the primary question put him on notice to answer about.

SPEAKER: Well, I think it is unreasonable to suggest as part of an answer to an oral question in this House that the consultation on each of the 30 models is outlined in any detail whatsoever. In this particular case, on the supplementary question, the Minister did indicate that there were workshops involving local government consulting on this matter.

Simon Court: Can the Minister give an example of a change that was made to the proposed model because of council concerns?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, it’s not just the concerns of councils. Throughout this process, the Government has looked at the model, modified the model as we’ve gone through. It would be impossible for the Government to be able to accept all of the issues and all of the concerns raised by local government. But we have continued to look, for example, at where entity boundaries sit, as a result of conversations with local government. I would say, on behalf of the Minister, that there definitely is an easy path forward here: that’s to do nothing. And the result of that path is more people getting sick, people paying more for their water, more sewage spills. The Opposition by all means can take that position, but it is irresponsible.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked to give an example. He’s addressed that and he’s now going on a tirade about alternatives which is irrelevant.

SPEAKER: Yes, yes, and that member, as I indicated yesterday, is one of the more knowledgeable people in the House on the Standing Orders, and he knows absolutely that the length of the ministerial answer is a matter for my judgment and not for point of order.

Simon Court: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: No. Well, the Minister was interrupted.

Hon Grant Robertson: No, no.

SPEAKER: He’s said enough. All right.

Simon Court: Why didn’t the Cabinet papers that Cabinet signed off to decide Government policy on three waters on 14 June refer to or analyse any of the 30 models?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, Cabinet has had many discussions about the three waters reforms. There have been subgroups of Ministers, there have been Cabinet committees, there have been papers going to Cabinet. The member shouldn’t just focus on one paper.

Christopher Luxon: Does she stand by her Cabinet paper that said Standard & Poor’s had ruled out a council-controlled organisation (CCO) model when Standard & Poor’s own advice never mentioned a CCO model at all?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, six scenarios were tested with Standard & Poor’s. Among these included scenarios that are akin to a CCO model, including where councillors have approval rights over the statements of intent, where there would be no independent selection panel or councillors voting on the appointment, and where councillors could remove members of a water service entity. There is no one single CCO model.

Simon Court: Did any of the 30 models look at different governance or financing structures like Auckland’s Watercare model, and what is the Minister’s response to the Mayor of Auckland, who’s been reported saying that Government declined an invitation from Auckland to jointly analyse alternative models?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I’ve just said in the previous answer, a number of models were analysed. Six scenarios were put to Standard & Poor’s that mirrored a CCO-style model. Watercare is one example of a CCO model, and I would note that all of its debt sits on the Auckland Council’s balance sheet, which is one of the significant issues we were trying to address—balance sheet separation.

Simon Court: Is it correct that of the 30 models that were analysed, really they were just different groupings and numbers of entities, and none of them considered alternative governance or investment models such as the Watercare option?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my primary answer, there were 30 aggregation scenarios, but other alternative policy options were also considered.

Question No. 11—Local Government

11. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany) to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by all of her statements and actions regarding the Three Waters reforms?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: Yes, including the statements that there is widespread agreement that the status quo is unsustainable and that the case for change is urgent, that it is irresponsible to not act given that we all know that this issue affects every New Zealander and, as we’ve seen, can cause serious health issues and even death. I’ve seen an alternative put forward by the member’s party that would deliver safe drinking water, ensure value for money—an estimated $180 billion investment over 30 years—but that has not been made available. I also stand by the statement that families and communities who suffer when three waters infrastructure fails are not interested in endless debate; they want action.

Christopher Luxon: Does she agree that ownership rights entail financial recognition, a formal shareholding, and control of assets; and will councils have those rights under her model?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, the member is aware that, for example, formal shareholding rights are not part of this. The only reason to have those would be if you intended to sell those shares.

Christopher Luxon: Does she agree that businesses are owned by shareholders, who have a defined number of shares and know how much of the business they actually own, and, if so, how can her collective ownership model seriously be described as ownership?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, it’s called public ownership; but I’m not surprised that the member doesn’t understand that.

Christopher Luxon: Which of her Government’s various definitions of Crown ownership, public ownership, local ownership, and now collective ownership—if any—mean that councils would keep any control of their local water assets?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, councils will collectively own the water service entities. What we are changing here is decades-long under-investment in our water infrastructure that has made people sick and has meant that people are paying far more than they need to in support of their water. The easy answer here is to do nothing. That’s the Opposition’s path. We are actually getting on with giving New Zealanders better water.

Question No. 12—Education (School Operations)

12. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): What support has been allocated specifically to Auckland schools to help re-engage students in education?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Associate Minister of Education (School Operations)): The Government has provided a targeted $15 million package to help re-engage Auckland students in their education, following long periods of the distance learning that has been necessary to keep kids safe from COVID-19. Our teachers have done an incredible job at delivering education online for our students, especially in Auckland. Online learning has been necessary and has meant many students are able to continue their education while staying safe from COVID-19. But it has its challenges. This $15 million package includes a mix of community-based and targeted support, and covers targeted support for Māori and Pacific students, a rapid resurgence fund, deployment of the TK400 programme, additional funding for learning support, additional counselling services, scaling up of the Check and Connect programme, and additional funding for the Attendance Service. This funding is already hitting the ground and I know it is making a difference.

Camilla Belich: Why was this package of initiatives chosen as the best approach to re-engaging young people?

Hon JAN TINETTI: This $15 million package is made up of carefully selected, proven, and effective interventions to help re-engage students. This was based off both previous experience from the last COVID-19 nationwide lockdown, evaluations undertaken by educational research bodies, and in consultation with educational practitioners on the ground. For example, the highly successful TK400 NCEA secondary school programme is designed for students from deprived communities that have either disengaged or dropped out of school. The programme was used following the last nationwide lockdown and uses a mix of online and face-to-face teaching formats suited for at-risk students. The last cohort saw 96 percent of students finishing, with a transition plan to continue their education or move into employment. This programme, combined with other targeted educational and mental health initiatives from this Government, will support a safe and effective return to in-class learning.

Camilla Belich: What impact will this funding have for Auckland schools and students?

Hon JAN TINETTI: This funding will help those students who are finding it tough to stay engaged with their learning through the remainder of term 4, and it will also support them over summer so that they do return to their education next year. This $15 million will help both our older students who have returned to school and heading into exams, as well as younger students who get back to face-to-face learning from 17 November. Our more vulnerable students, in deciles 1 to 4 schools, are our biggest priority, as they are the most at risk. These young people often face compounding challenges and need to be connected with a local community leader who they can trust. This is why we have distributed the funding in a way that uses a combination of funding to schools and to community providers on a needs basis, as they know their kids and their communities best.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s one week shy of three months since 18 August, and, like a number of other members of this House, I’m pleased to be released from the restrictions of Auckland this week to come to Wellington. It has been hard in Auckland and other parts of New Zealand that have had a prolonged lockdown, but especially in Auckland, which has had to suffer the consequences of that lockdown longer than other parts of the country. And we understand that it’s been hard for families, it’s been hard for business owners and their workers, particularly hard for those who live alone, for families that live in apartments, particularly in the early stages of the lockdown. But we’re nearly there—we’re nearly there. We’re a small number of weeks—just a few weeks-away from 90 percent double-vaccination in Auckland.

Our opponent in this battle—we must not forget our opponent is a highly transmissible, mutating, and deadly virus that we cannot reason with. We’re fighting a pandemic here, and we’ve been treading a careful line, managing the risk, as we’ve transitioned from protecting ourselves via the border to protecting ourselves via high rates of vaccination. And we’re grateful for the support of the public throughout New Zealand, but especially in Auckland, who have borne the heaviest consequences of the restrictions that we’ve had to live with as we have built those vaccination rates.

And it’s very pleasing, I think, and reflects very well on us as a country, that we can now reflect on the fact that we are already one of the most vaccinated populations in the world. We’ve got higher rates of vaccination than the United Kingdom, than Germany, than France, than the United States. Our nearby neighbours in Australia are neck and neck with us, and we’ve both done very well on that front.

I think it’s also worth reflecting on the fact that at the same period post the Delta outbreak in Australia, relative to the Delta outbreak now in New Zealand, their rates of infection are far, far higher than we have achieved in New Zealand—far, far higher. We are already making progress in returning to the freedoms that everyone in New Zealand wants.

We’ve already got a more open lifestyle in Auckland. I know I was one of those that took great delight in being able to even meet one extra bubble of people in an outdoor situation. In fact, I had a barbecue at midnight on the time that it was introduced, and it was a delightful thing to meet with my closest friends and share a sausage in a piece of bread with a bit of tomato sauce.

These things made a real difference to Aucklanders, and since then, of course, we’ve had retail reopen and we’ve heard from the Minister of Education today about more schools opening in the next week. We’ve also heard more information from the Minister of Health, the Hon Andrew Little, today, about how this extra time has also brought us closer to new medicines that enable us to better treat the disease, and that fewer people will catch it now because vaccinations work, and we know that vaccinations vastly reduce the risk of catching the virus, reduce the risk of passing it to someone else, and reduce the risk of hospitalisation and serious illness, not just to the benefit of the person who avoids that but to the benefit of other people that need to use our health system.

So I’m really grateful to the people of New Zealand, who have cooperated with the Government through these difficult times, and I’m so pleased that New Zealanders are now looking forward to a good summer holiday, that the borders are going to be released in Auckland, so that Aucklanders can leave. And, yes, we understand that that carries some unavoidable risks in other parts of the country. We have been very successful in other parts of the country—in stamping out the small outbreak that we had in Wellington and Christchurch, and some other smaller outbreaks, but we know that we’re transitioning to a different part of this pandemic where we carry our protection with us, where we rely upon a world-class health system to deal with the smaller numbers that will still end up in hospital.

So I end by saying “Thank you, New Zealanders”, and now I listen and wait for the second-guessing from the National Party.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, here we are in the land of the free after nearly three months in house arrest in Auckland over what has been an incredible period of lockdown in the Queen’s city. We return to this Parliament from Auckland, the National MPs, with aggressive intent to hold this Government to account for the shambles that it has been looking over in the past few weeks.

This is a Government that’s running amok. Like some old-school law and order party, “Lock ’em down, lock ’em up” is their only approach to our economy. Who would have thought? For the first six months of the year, they told us how wonderful we were, other countries deserved the vaccines more than us, we shouldn’t be too fast. And now, for nearly three months Auckland has been locked down. Businesses haven’t been able to trade. People haven’t been able to work. People haven’t been able to see their family. Kids haven’t been at school. It is a disaster what has been happening in our classrooms, or not happening in our classrooms, over the last little while.

And so we see the Government slowly retreating with no apparent logic. Suddenly, we learnt, to our shock and horror a couple of weeks ago, that, actually, it’s OK reopening retail, because the impact is not great; it’s a minimal impact. But why on earth have the shops been closed for so many weeks? It’s a minimal impact but we keep them closed. Today, we hear that the schools have a remarkably low impact. Well, why are they taking so long to reopen them?

We’ve heard, of course, about the shambles on the border, and we had Chris Hipkins saying, “Oh, well, you know, we might have to have an allocation system to get over it.” Just imagine the traffic jams at Warkworth and Pūhoi and the Bombay Hills—we’ll all line up and get tested somehow on the border, and then Mr Robertson, “Write-another-cheque Robbo”, he came in and said, “No, I don’t agree with that.”

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Grant Robertson: “No, we’re not going to do that.” And then the Prime Minister said “Oh, well, actually we are; we’re still considering it.” Nobody has any idea how it’s going to operate over Christmas. That is the problem; the Government hasn’t thought it through. What we’ll see is that the pursed-lipped modellers will say no, but the Prime Minister will say yes, eventually, when she knows that Aucklanders are fed up and they want to get out and they want their lives back. That’s why we should have been focused on this vaccine roll-out much earlier, and at some point we need to take the opportunity to set Aucklanders free.

Meantime, I just have to mention that this is a Government that chose during this critical period of lockdown and trouble and strife to announce the craziest Auckland transport plan, with a $16 billion light rail down Dominion Road. I have not yet met anybody in Auckland who thinks that of all the transport priorities in the city—Willie Jackson wouldn’t agree with this—of all the transport priorities in Auckland, the number one priority for $16 billion is a slow tram down Dominion Road. There is not a soul in the city, with the possible exception of “Tiny Montgomery”—who’s the Minister, Michael Wood—with the possible exception of Michael Wood, who thinks that a light rail project down Dominion Road is the priority for Auckland transport.

And then we have the three waters. “Who cares what the rest of the country thinks? Who cares what the council thinks? We’re going to ram it through because there is no alternative.” Well, that’s not how you operate an effective Government. So we’re here and we’re determined to hold this Government to account.

You would have noticed today that National outlined its education plan, because we need to get our schools back and we need to get our students learning. Just imagine for a moment, if you will, an eight-year-old being at home, a crowded home, no laptop, noisy kids, the television’s on. It’s been 12 weeks now out of school. Can you imagine that there’s much learning going on? There hasn’t been any learning going on, and this Government has been very slow to reopen schools. I’m glad, finally, today, they’ve announced, “Eventually, we’ll get round to it next week. We might have some classroom—” They’ve left it all very vague. Schools will probably say, “Oh well, it might be only one day a week.”, so I don’t know what certainty has been provided. I think they should be back all the time.

I’m glad that they’ve postponed the curriculum review, which was a huge distraction, now. But what we didn’t see from the Minister today was any plan to catch up. That’s what we’ve been talking about. You’re not going to catch up if you’re not at school. And we know that this country has a truancy crisis. The Government’s done nothing about it in four years, made it worse, and we need to have a no-excuses culture when it comes to turning up to school. Willie Jackson knows that, but he didn’t go to school so much when he was there himself—but we can’t blame that on him.

Now, the other thing we need to do is measure progress. Our policy in terms of measuring progress in education in this city right now is: don’t ask, don’t tell. Throw out the national standards. We don’t know—

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

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): That was a shocking presentation from Pāora Goldsmith. Obviously, the National Party are getting very desperate now—they’ve back-ended Simon Bridges; he doesn’t where the heck he is these days, and Pāora Goldsmith leading off for them. I mean, it’s sad when we’ve had such great leadership from this Government in a pandemic, this once-in-a-century pandemic, and our Prime Minister having faced the biggest challenge perhaps since the Second World War. But here are the stats, just for the National Party, and for Chris Bishop particularly.

In America, we’re talking about one death in every 450 people; in New Zealand, it’s one death per every 175,000 people. So, despite all the criticism, all the rubbish, all the nonsense from the Opposition, our strategy has saved lives—saved lives. OK, it hasn’t been perfect; you know, we’ve sort of said that. There’s been a moving feast of problems but we will be judged by history, and when people remember us, they’ll realise the priorities that we put aside. They will realise that there’s been low hospitalisation rates, there’s been low death rates, that’s been connected to the strategy that we went down to start off with, which was to vaccinate the vulnerable, the old people, and the over-65s. That’s why we’ve had so few deaths. This is a successful COVID strategy. I know the Opposition don’t—

David Seymour: Why are we still locked down?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —understand this, particularly the self-appointed “Leader of the Opposition”, David Seymour. If we want to look at the alternatives, we only have to look at the rubbish and nonsense that Mr Seymour rolled out. The self-appointed “Leader of the Opposition”—

SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. Mr Mitchell, you might have a speech later in the afternoon, but you’ve still got to wear your mask. You can’t take it off ages before. Thank you.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, come on, Mark Mitchell, control yourself. Mark Mitchell should know that David Seymour’s strategy is that he wanted managed isolation and quarantine to be a bed and breakfast—he wanted it to be a bed and breakfast for rich people. The ACT argument was to allow the free market to decide the casualty rate. ACT wanted to reopen the country before we even closed the borders. That was the ACT strategy. At one point, ACT was suggesting a lottery for everyone, using the QR scan, until it was pointed out to them that incentivising people to go to places they don’t need to go to during a pandemic was a bloody stupid idea. That’s the ACT strategy for you.

Now, National went beyond stupid ideas. For the last year, Judith Collins has flirted with extremism and conspiracy. It’s been very sad. From Gerry Brownlee asking questions about conspiracies last year, to Judith Collins’ never-ending race-baiting and divisive rhetoric. It’s been a sad presentation from the National Party, and, as you can see, they’re all hanging their heads in depression, hoping that they’re going to get past 25 percent in the next poll.

National hasn’t added any real solutions to COVID beyond sowing the spite that erupted out into Parliament yesterday. Both National and ACT are responsible for that. They whipped up that foaming resentment and they’ve fostered it. They should hang their heads in shame. We simply save lives—that’s all we do. Every day, we’ve got a Prime Minister who trots out, and the country loves her still. If National and ACT were running the country during this pandemic, COVID would have already burnt unconstrained throughout every community, and Judith Collins would pat herself on the back for keeping businesses open while the hospitals and morgues filled right up.

It’s not just ACT and National, though, who have been stubborn and slightly disingenuous; it’s been the Māori Party too, and I don’t like to criticise the relations, but they’ve claimed our policy was modern genocide on a par with the Squid Game’s murder camp. They want to lock us down for the next 10 years at level 6, and to date we’ve had 10 Māori die, which is a tragedy for the whānau—don’t get me wrong—but it is as offensive in terms of claiming genocide as it is as puffed up as Rawiri Waititi’s hat.

So I say to everyone today, “Compliment this Government.” It’s been a wonderful presentation from our leadership. Our response to this terrible pandemic, while not being perfect—and some might have said it’s been a bit slow—has worked in terms of how we’ve worked with our bureaucracy. I’m saying, with almost 90 percent of people vaccinated, New Zealanders can attest that we are the Government rather than having endured the bleak misery that you would have got from a useless, rotten, ACT-National Government. Kia ora.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m quite inspired by Willie Jackson, the last speaker, but also grateful that he ran out of time, because he was running out of political parties to criticise and I recognised that I was the next on the list.

But auē taukuri ē! I looked out of the windows just yesterday, and I had been noticing it around the country that there have been a large number of anti-vax protests and lockdown protests and people that are influenced in that particular direction. I have seen them show up with tino rangatiratanga flags, I have seen them show up with whakaputanga flags—

SPEAKER: Yeah, sometimes upside down.

TEANAU TUIONO: —and sometimes they’re upside down. Well, they were on your forecourt, so you would have recognised them being upside down. It’s a lot of emotions. It’s sad and it’s contemplative, but there’s also a saying, which is “kei te puku te rae”—which means that the brow is furrowed with anger, because it is through the lack of information and the lack of knowledge of our history that people are participating in those protests.

It was deeply ironic to see the tino rangatiratanga flag next to the Trump flag and next to the other kinds of flags as well, recognising that people do not understand that, actually, there is a really strong and proud history of those flags. When people talk about mana motuhake and when people talk about tino rangatiratanga, those are collective rights. They are not the individual rights, and of course individual rights are important in bodily autonomy and all those sorts of things, but we should not be confusing them with the right to self-determination and the collective rights of whānau, hapū, and iwi.

It also takes away from the struggles of people that are doing the hard yards on the ground, and I’m recognising the massive hīkois that have happened in the past as well. I thought it was deeply ironic that when one of those car hīkois showed up, up north, and they were accusing Hone Harawira of being a kūpapa and being out of touch, and then, of course, they were doing the same to people like Tame Iti and doing the same to other people who have for a very, very long time held up the kaupapa for honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi, honouring tino rangatiratanga, and, of course, honouring mana motuhake.

But yesterday, what was happening outside wasn’t the only thing that was shocking to me as well. Yesterday, in response to the ongoing commitment to protect Pūtiki Bay from development since 9 March this year, the developers, Kennedy Point Boatharbour Ltd (KPBL), have issued an injunction trespassing 32 members of Ngāti Paoa and the Waiheke community, not only from their so-called construction area but 20 metres beyond it—32 members, including a 16-year-old. So, at one stage, we have a number of anti-vax protesters who seem to be running around, holding up our flags upside down, when you have protectors who are protecting the whenua and protecting the ocean and recognising those connections, walking in the footsteps of the occupations of the past, and I want to acknowledge Ihumātao, I want to acknowledge Pākaitore, I want to acknowledge Whāingaroa, and I want to acknowledge Takaparawhā—all of those lessons—and these protesters have been walking in those footsteps as well. To have an injunction put on them is deeply disconnected from the history of the struggle.

Regardless of this, the Pūtiki and the Waiheke community have continued to keep their presence at Pūtiki Bay, observing on land and on the water outside of the construction zone. To date, KPBL are eight months behind in the construction of the proposed marina thanks to the combined efforts of Ngāti Paoa, the Waiheke community, and allies nationally and internationally.

We also understand that the cops have a unit on standby for Pūtiki. They seem to be able to find the resources to monitor land and sea protectors, but not for the anti-vax protests.

The most recent injunction that has been done was done under the guise of urgency because the COVID restrictions are lifting, and that is also deeply ironic. A couple of months ago, protectors at the occupation at Pūtiki had organised their bubble as well, and the police had interrupted that bubble—over 20 police—when what they should have been doing was directing that resource to lock down protesters and anti-vaxxers.

So I would say that the Green Party will always walk with those that stand up for that connection between the people and the environment, with the community pushing back against power, because that is how I see it. I see that the police and the authorities are siding on to the side of power in the same way that the people outside that are misguided think they are siding with power, but in some ways they seem to be getting a hallway pass. So I would ask us to stop giving hallway passes to anti-vaxxers and start helping to support protectors—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired. I’m going to call Marja Lubeck, but I am going to sort of remind Mark Mitchell that we do have a speaking list and a speaking order agreed for the general debate. I know he is really anxious to talk, having spent some time away, but keeping his mask on rather than taking it off in anticipation, I think, four times is a probably a bit excessive.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. New Zealand in 2019 was the first country to deliver a Wellbeing Budget, and it’s that emphasis on wellbeing that has put us in a really good position to counter the challenges that COVID has thrown our way head on, unlike many other countries. At the start of this month, the world had a devastating headline: 5 million people perished. That’s pretty much the whole population of New Zealand. And while many countries are going through their fourth and a fifth wave or even have had continuous waves, in New Zealand we’ve had one of the lowest, if not the lowest, rates of hospitalisation and death and, compared to many other countries, we’ve had relatively more freedoms for much longer times as well. So, by going hard and by going early, New Zealand has had the best opportunity to minimise the effects of the global pandemic and save people from effects on their livelihoods and, ultimately, save lives.

Now we have the very best tool available in our tool kit, which is, of course, the vaccine, and we’ve had some really fantastic vaccine rates. It’s great news that earlier this week, I think, actually, it was Monday, Counties Manukau joined the Auckland and Waitematā DHBs, and joined the 90 percenters club. It is really up to all of us to make the choice to be able to do more of the things that we love and see the people that we love and also protect those who can’t get vaccinated—our under-12s. It’s great to see that, to date, over 3.7 million New Zealanders have had that first vaccine dose, and many more are joining them every day. Now, we do know that some areas of the Auckland region need a little bit more work, and especially in the North when we’re looking at the Waitematā area, for example. But there’s plenty of opportunity for people in these areas to get a vaccination from Wellsford down to Kūmeu and several mobile vaccination vans are touring the country from Muriwai, Kaukapakapa, Parakai, South Head, Glorit, Port Albert, Pākiri, Leigh, Whangateau. Just walk in. No appointment needed.

The vaccination programme is, of course, a massive logistical exercise, but with 89 percent of New Zealand now having had their first dose, and 79 percent fully vaccinated as of today, we are going very well and it makes me confident that we’re on our way to getting more of the restrictions lifted and being close to living life a little bit more normal—a bit more normality. It shows that our strong health response has also been our strongest economic response, and that means that we can accelerate the recovery while we leave no one behind because, basically, what happens is the more people that are vaccinated, the safer that we are and, as we move into our new COVID-19 Protection Framework, the new tools in our tool kit will allow us to keep the spread of COVID-19 as low as possible, and it provides a pathway for still keeping New Zealanders safe.

It’s very hard to imagine that it’s a year ago now since election 2020. And, of course, in the meantime, much of our focus needed to be on how we managed COVID as a country. But also we have managed to achieve a hell of a lot: from increasing the minimum wage, to getting unemployment down to 3.4 percent, increasing benefit levels for the lowest-income households, and, of course, we had a massive boost to apprenticeships. The Government’s actions to support the economy during the pandemic have resulted in higher wages and more people at work. We’ve invested in programmes like Mana in Mahi and Flexi-wage. We’ve rolled out free apprenticeships along with free trades training in critical areas so that we could grow our trades workforce. The Ministry of Social Development are seeing record amounts of people moving into work, so that means that not only is the unemployment the lowest that we’ve seen in 14 years with 3.4 percent but GDP is up. Our debt is amongst the lowest levels that we see in the OECD, and we’ve experienced record growth while we’re at it. So, basically, that’s a combination of this Government’s balanced approach and the steady hand of our finance Minister, the Hon Grant Robertson. And it has put us in a really strong position as we move into that COVID-19 Protection Framework, and that’s that silver lining that the Minister has mentioned several times for us to build back better.

Now, I’m based in the Auckland region and, of course, having been at home for 83 days before coming back to Parliament this week, I’m well aware of how Aucklanders have been toughing it out. Many of them have been in touch—personal and business—and we know it’s been very hard. But we do hope that with the easing down of the restrictions it will relieve a little bit more pressure off everyone. And, of course, that enhanced business support package is taken up by a lot of people. Today, retail has opened up in Tāmaki-makau-rau so I’m hoping that everyone—

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

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, you know the Government’s in big trouble when they roll their big guns out and you have the Hon David Parker come down to the House and deliver a high-energy, inspirational speech to the country, highlighting the fact that in Auckland we can have a barbecue on the deck. And, actually, maybe it wasn’t a bad idea keeping us locked down because it gave Andrew Little time to have a look at some alternative drugs—you know, a confused and muddled response.

Simon Bridges and Simeon Brown—for how long have they been putting pressure on the Government around the proliferation of gang members and weapons in this country, but what did the Government do? We’ve been saying, “Lock them up, get them out of the community.” What did they do? They locked the rest of us up, and they allow the gangs to have a free run in the community.

It actually would be funny if it wasn’t for the fact that we’re in a very serious situation in this country, and the reality of it, and the reason why this Government is resisting the royal commission, is because I feel very strongly that a royal commission would highlight the fact that we were way, way behind in rolling out a vaccine programme. And the reason why I say that is that I attended a function in Auckland, and it was the Indian Newslink Lecture and black tie dinner. It was on 16 August and it was attended by Dr Ashley Bloomfield and the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan. Both of them stood and spoke to the audience—there were 500-plus people there. There were some very, very good questions from highly respected local GPs around the timing and the vaccine roll-out. At that time, 18 percent of the country were double-vaxxed. Just think about that—only 18 percent of the country.

On that night, both Dr Bloomfield and the Minister highlighted and celebrated the fact that we’d had one of the best responses so that we could come together as a group like that of over 400 or 500 people. There was no sense of urgency, there were no clear answers to the reason around the slowness of the vaccine roll-out. The very next day, we were put into a level 4 lockdown. And we’ve been stuck in that lockdown for 83 days. That is a serious indictment on this Government and their failure to roll out that vaccine far earlier, which would have prevented Aucklanders still being stuck in a lockdown, would have prevented the massive wrecking ball that has gone through this country, not just in human cost but in economic cost as well. And believe me, we will still feel the human cost of this in the years to come—the families that have been separated, the children that have been unable to get to a dying parent’s bedside, the businesses that are going under and continue to go under.

So this is an extremely serious matter, and this has been an abject failure on the Government’s part on a simple matter of rolling the vaccine out. The country has got behind them and responded to their call every single time. There’s only one thing that we’ve expected them to do, and that is to be responsible, that is to be proactive, that is to show that they’ve got the strategic ability to be able to roll out something as simple as a vaccine roll-out when we all knew and we all saw what Delta was doing around the world. But there was a deep complacency that had crept into this Government. They were too busy patting themselves on the back and congratulating themselves on an outstanding response to the country—that was the response of the 5 million.

And let me just give you one local example from me in my own electorate: two weeks ago, I had two people that were diagnosed with Delta, three days into a diagnosis with Delta—highly contagious. They were put in home isolation. They broke their home isolation; they came into Ōrewa. One of them was intending on using public transport. A good Samaritan came forward to assist them, because they’d been in some sort of domestic dispute. The person failed to highlight the fact they had Delta. He took them down to the police station—two officers dealt with them, she failed to tell them that she had Delta. All three of them ended up in isolation, both of them away from their families, and we had someone with Delta in the middle of Ōrewa prepared to use public transport.

I got on to the Ministry of Health. I wanted clear answers for the community, because it was very clear to me the police felt that they continued to be a risk, and the community felt that they continued to be a risk, and they should be in managed isolation and quarantine. After a week of trying to get clear answers from the Ministry of Health, this is what I got back in a redacted version: “A thorough investigation has been undertaken, and we are able to confirm that no breaches in terms of allowable activity have occurred in this instance.” That captures the confused response from this Government perfectly, and the Ministry of Health—

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

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, I rise in this House to contribute to this debate as a proud Aucklander. The beautiful city known as “the city of 100 lovers” has really borne much of the work in keeping our pandemic enclosed in its city, alongside our whānau in Northland and in Waikato. We’ve really done a lot of the work in terms of buying us all, collectively as a nation, time—time to make sure that our hospitals aren’t overwhelmed and time to make sure that we roll out the vaccines. And woo hoo! We just hit 90 percent on first-dose vaccines in all three of Tāmaki-makau-rau’s DHBs. That is something we should be really, really proud of.

On the topic of vaccines, can I just, please, pay tribute to my community, the Chinese New Zealanders here, living especially in Tāmaki-makau-rau, who have done an exceptional job and contributed brilliantly to the Super Saturday vaccination campaign. Can I just really pay homage to all of our community leaders. I saw many of the community leaders who actually went down their membership lists, ticking off families and making sure they removed barriers for those who couldn’t get their vaccine, whether it be language, whether it be transport, whether it just be someone who needed to have a conversation with them. Hopefully, with the work that our Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities, through the Ministry for Ethnic Communities, has given in terms of our comms fund and in terms of our vaccine uptake fund, we can support you better in making sure that our ethnic communities, some of our most vulnerable communities, are being looked after and that that message gets to them as well.

Can I also pay tribute to the Chinese businesses who gave absolutely generously to the Super Saturday campaign. I still remember one afternoon when I got a phone call from my team saying one of the businesses wanted to donate 14,000 bottles of hand sanitiser to this campaign. I think my whole entire neighbourhood heard me shout back into the phone, “14,000, are you serious?” We made sure that all the vaccination sites had free hand sanitiser given away when they finished their vaccinations in East Auckland on Super Saturday, and I’m incredibly proud of all the generosity. We were giving away bags of rice by the end of it.

So, through the Government subsidies that the Hon Grant Robertson has announced in terms of our new advice for all businesses, especially in Auckland, through our mental health support of businesses in Auckland, we hope to reciprocate that and to support you better as you navigate your way out of the lockdown into recovery. Hopefully, by stepping down today, this morning, you will feel something different in Auckland. You will feel an ease of restrictions, but also that hope coming through that more and more business activity will well recover.

Could I just personally thank also just the whole entire campaign team: Susan, Zhou, Harvey, Dr EG, also Jessie, Ming—I hope I haven’t missed anyone—who’ve worked so hard on making sure that this message gets put into our communities. All of our family doctors and Dr Jo who gave free and frank advice no matter on media or anywhere, in our Zoom sessions, to make sure that any concerns felt by the community were addressed by a medical professional. Thank you guys so much for all the time and effort you guys have put in.

Can I thank all the media in the Chinese language space where you guys have given free slots to make sure that we were able to give out right and Government-sanctioned advice so that misinformation wouldn’t be spread in our communities. We even had our very own Chinese vaxathon as well that morning.

So I’m super proud of the effort that the community came collectively together to make sure our most vulnerable are being looked after. However, the job is not done. We know that, despite really high numbers—actually almost 10 percent higher than national numbers in the Asian and Chinese community—our elderly are still a bit vaccine hesitant. And we know they’re the most vulnerable. So could I just put out a message to everyone out there who are listening: xiexie nimen. Thank you for the effort that we’ve all put in, but our job doesn’t end here. As more restrictions ease, we need to make sure that every possible person that gets a vaccine hears our message, that they can protect themselves from COVID, and that we protect the most vulnerable in our communities—those who can’t get the vaccine—and to make sure that everyone who needs a bit of reassurance has a friend, has a whānau talking to them, and to make sure that we use science as our best tool to convince them.

Could I just, finally, thank everyone who is still in Auckland at the moment. I know it’s tough. I know there’s many challenges, whether it’s domestically, whether it’s financially, or whether it’s mental health - wise, but hang in there. We’re all here in support of you. We’re all here for you. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Eighty-five days of lockdown in Auckland—85 days of misery, of which there is no apparent hope. I say that because the Government trumpets the higher vaccination rates, which you would think would lead towards more freedom and openness, but, in fact, is bringing about more rules, more regulations, and more excuses. I want to put on record here today that the likes of freedoms and rights, values and principles are important, and they become even more important in times of crisis.

It also has to be said to this Government and to media, our rights exist because we exist as individuals. These rights are not given to us by the State. But our right to—and importantly for those who protest, they need to understand that their individual rights also exist within a community, and we all have a right to live safely.

But I want to focus today, on behalf of my constituents in Auckland, on the divisions which are being created amongst the supposed team of 5 million. I want to focus on the divisions that this Government is creating. One of the reasons that Governments and groups cause division is to create scapegoats. It’s one way that division is manifest. Groups are being scapegoated, and they’re being scapegoated because it allows the Government to deflect the blame from itself—the late vaccination roll-out, the booster programme not even starting yet. I have doctors, nurses, elderly, and airline pilots coming to me saying, “It’s been over six months, Simon. We want the boosters.” The scapegoating deflects Government failures in managed isolation and quarantine, where literally hundreds of thousands of New Zealand citizens are being denied their right to return to this country.

Creating division, of course, also takes people’s focus away from the bigger issues, and turns, often, the focus to those closest to them, as I say, rather than focusing on the bigger issues: families that are unable to grieve and celebrate—weddings that are postponed, funerals that cannot be attended. Businesses that have no certainty. In August alone, almost 10,000 New Zealand businesses closed—that’s in August. How many have closed over the last 30 days? Shocking to even think those numbers.

Retailers who are in tears, their businesses destroyed; their livelihood, their independence, their mortgages maxed out—no more options. These are real stories from my constituents. And yet, at the moment, trumpeting retail being open—that’s a good step forward, but the bars, the bistros, and the restaurants of Tāmaki cannot open. The barbers, the beauticians, the physios, the osteopaths, and the pools—they’re not open. It’s well past time that we embrace a safe operating model and not these blanket rules. And 85 days of kids who can’t go back to school.

All of this is because of something I call fundamentalism—and you’ve heard it today in the speeches from the other side. It’s become an absolute fascination with only one particular health aspect of COVID. It’s fundamentalism because it only focuses on one aspect of truth, and not the wider picture. We need a proportional response, and one that realises that beyond just COVID as a health issue, there are many, many other considerations. The stress and anxiety of those in business. Every day in my electorate, I have business owners at their wits’ end—as I say, their businesses destroyed, their loss of independence. Delayed healthcare interventions—again, every day, constituents who cannot get their treatments. I think, particularly, of the women who are trying to get mammograms. People are dying earlier and will die earlier than necessary because of what this Government is doing. Children who can’t visit elderly parents with dementia. The only time they’re going to be able to get to them is when their minds have gone.

The mental health issues that are rising in our young people. How does a parent tell, as I found at the Mission Bay swings, their child they can’t go on, they can’t play? This has an effect. The families who need contacts with their loved ones. Grandparents who haven’t seen their grandchildren. Husbands and wives who are separated. Children stuck between countries. I have an older constituent, married 60 years; his wife’s now in a care facility next door to him and he can’t go and see her. These are the real stories and the consequences of how things are not being managed.

Students who cannot go to school. I’ve only got a few seconds left, but to acknowledge the people at the Sommerville Special School—enormous stress. And the Government is doing nothing, let alone to talk of our economy—it’s tanking. They sit here and trumpet, “Oh well, we’re not as bad as others.”, but that’s hardly an argument. The Government and others can stand by and say they’re fighting COVID, and that’s all well and good, but only after some of the examples I’ve given today from my electorate alone, we can only ask the question—

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

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I’m proud to rise to talk in this debate today as somebody who has been locked down in Auckland for many weeks. I want to speak, actually, very much in opposition to Simon Watts’ speech, because I want to focus on the unity.

SPEAKER: I think that’s Mr O’Connor.

HELEN WHITE: Sorry; Simon O’Connor’s speech.

Hon Member: Same thing.

HELEN WHITE: Same thing.

SPEAKER: Hard to tell with the mask, you know?

HELEN WHITE: I apologise—because I want to focus on the unity that I’ve seen in that experience that I’ve had. What I would acknowledge is that this has been an extremely difficult experience, and many of the things that were just listed are actually tragedies that would have occurred in a pandemic, and what we would have had, in addition to that, if it wasn’t handled in the way it has, is many, many, many more tragedies—many more serious tragedies. We would have had many more deaths.

What we have had is a Government that recognises how important it is that we value people, even the vulnerable ones. That is how we’ve ended up with a system that is, basically, caring. And one of the things that is most interesting about that experience that I’ve had is that I’ve been on something called a rough sleeping steering committee. And this group called the rough sleeping steering committee is actually an honour to be on, because what it is is it’s a group that meets—it involves things like the Ministry of Social Development and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development but it also involves a lot of the NGOs that are doing the work with some of the people who are so utterly alienated in the last decade or more in this country, so that they have experiences of precarious living and homelessness.

So those groups at the moment are wrapping around those groups that have been, you know, really in precarious housing, and making sure that they are vaccinated and supported during this time. That involves some really gnarly problems. They’re not easy to fix, but the groups are working together, and those networks that have met together and meet, actually, every Wednesday at 8 a.m., and sometimes twice a week—those groups all know each other now, and they all actually have formed a trust. But they also know the people they need to help, and that’s an incredibly important thing that they’re doing in Auckland. It isn’t one thing alone; it is many things that are going on like that, and I want to talk about some of those others.

I was involved in a vaccination event that happened on Super Saturday, and it happened with SkyCity, who came forward because I had done a Zoom with SkyCity and Westpac, which had already worked really, really hard to get the populations of their own workers vaccinated by inducements, by petrol vouchers, by time off work—by a whole range of things. They had managed to get a very high vaccination rate. Then they extended it out to the groups that they were involved with and the networks they had on their databases. So, on Super Saturday, we ran an event at SkyCity where you could drive through, and a whole lot of businesses supported that with gifts so that everybody who came in got a double pass up the Sky Tower. We had people who would have never otherwise turned up.

There were some really, really lovely scenes that day, and I was there with—actually, Michael Wood came down and he just directed traffic for several hours and he worked pretty hard, and the mayor came down and the councillors came down, and that event was a huge success. But what I remember most is seeing a woman who was absolutely terrified of that vaccine. She was shaking in her car and she got through, and the amount of wraparound nurturing that went on with her in that situation—she actually, that day, got vaccinated when I doubt she would have otherwise. But she also learnt a lesson about the Auckland community—that we’ll stand up and look after you, and I think that’s one of the real wonderful things that has happened. So, rather than a litany of negatives, I would suggest that it is time for the Opposition to actually start to think about the mistakes that were made and the repairs that need to be made and the healing. I think we are well under way in Auckland doing that.

Now, I think it would be remiss of me not to thank my staff who helped me enormously during this period, and I want to do that. I also want to stretch out to the hospitality community before I finish this speech, because they have had a really hard time. But I have been in constant contact with Marisa Bidois, who’s actually made real efforts to link in and make sure that I know what she needs so I can pass it on. Thank you, sir.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, the Prime Minister this week has finally decided to grace Auckland with her presence after 12 long weeks of long, hard lockdowns. And you’ll note that she threw us a little morsel just before she came down: “You can go and visit the shops” she said, to ease the way for her visit, which we know would have been pretty tumultuous otherwise. But I presume that, actually, it probably will be. I do note that Mr Seymour said, today, that she’s only visited two businesses, one of them which had not actually been closed down at all. I suppose we should be grateful, because, for a while there, the only Auckland businesses that she was actually going to be visiting were the duty-free shops on her way through to her trip to Europe. But I do notice that she reconsidered that at the last minute—probably quite wisely, I should say—and has decided, finally, to grace us with her presence.

But I do hope that while she is in Auckland that she bothers to go and visit a hospital. I hope that she does that, because she needs to see for herself the critical shortage of healthcare workers that we have in our DHBs and in our hospitals. She needs to do that so she can pass that information on to her health Minister and to her Minister of Immigration, who have done a hapless, useless job over the last four or five months of bolstering our critical healthcare workers in Auckland. And it’s worthy of note—just before I carry on, because I found out this little morsel today—that, up until now, we’ve had about 1,010 nurses enter New Zealand since the pandemic began. But get this: 1,156 sports people have arrived. That’s how much focus this Government has put on bringing nurses into our hospitals to bolster our resilience and our healthcare system to make sure that Kiwis are safe during this pandemic.

What we now know, after weeks of mining for information, is that the immigration Minister never bothered to find out what the speciality of nurses was who were coming into New Zealand. He never bothered to ask them if they had an ICU speciality, so we have no idea how many ICU nurses have actually come into New Zealand. He never had a conversation with the Minister of Health as to how we could use the immigration process and the visa process to bring in more nurses to bolster our ICU capacity. Never happened. Never had a conversation.

And now we find out that Minister Little, the Minister of Health, knew in June this year that healthcare workers were not able to get in through managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ). So we have nurses waiting to come to New Zealand, sitting offshore, who can’t get in through MIQ. He found out in June. He didn’t do anything, he didn’t start getting his officials doing any work until 13 October. Two weeks later, we have a policy put in place saying 300 nurses and doctors can come in through MIQ. If he’d done that exact same thing back in June, when he knew about it, two weeks, we could have had, on 1 July, 300 spaces set aside for healthcare workers—back in July. That’s 1,200 nurses and doctors and critical healthcare workers that we could have had in the country had he been on top of his job. But what was his excuse? What has he said in the media? “Oh, well, you know, hindsight is 20/20 and there was no playbook.” I tell you what: it wasn’t hindsight; it was foresight that he needed.

We’re in the middle of a global pandemic, and here are a few things that he would have found out if he’d bothered to ask any questions, because the one thing he said was, “Well, back in June, we only had one or two anecdotal cases” that he was made aware of. But if he’d scratched the surface and done his job and gone to the Auckland DHBs and said, “How many ICU beds have you got that are staffed?” He would have found out that only 14 of the 17 resourced beds could actually be staffed. He would have found out from the Aged Care Association that they had 350 nurses sitting offshore who couldn’t get in through MIQ—that was back in June. And there was nothing about hindsight because, actually, he was written a letter—which we got through the Official Information Act process—from the Aged Care Association on 10 August telling him that they couldn’t get their workers in. He would have found out that 60 percent of those nurses were being declined spaces when they went for an emergency spot. He would have found out that those nurses coming in through MIQ had slowed to a trickle. And he did nothing. He sat on his hands until October, when he finally said to his officials, “Oh maybe we should do something about it.”

He knew that Delta was on our doorsteps, he knew that we had a critical healthcare shortage, he knew—if he had bothered to do his homework—that they couldn’t get in through MIQ, and he did nothing. He’s our Minister of Health, it is his job to make sure that in a global pandemic, with Delta on our doorsteps about to enter our communities, that we had healthcare workers being able to get in through MIQ. Finally, he’s done something; too little, too late. Most of those workers have to go through a 10-week process of getting registered to even start work, which means they won’t be working until March. Absolute dismal job by our Minister of Health.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Ki ngā kaiurungi o Tāmaki-makau-rau i tēnei wā ka mihi atu ki a koutou. Kia kaha ki a koutou kia haumaru.

[To the Speaker, greetings. To the leaders in Auckland at this time, I send my greetings. Be strong and stay safe.]

It’s great to be back in the House with my parliamentary colleagues. Can I just affirm and acknowledge that COVID grumpiness is a thing for Aucklanders at the moment, but it’s great to see everyone—including my colleagues in Opposition across the House. Can I just speak in support of our Prime Minister visiting Tāmaki-makau-rau today. It is not staged; she is there, and can I remind them of their election visits on Ponsonby Road—speaking of staging. But I’m very keen to be back in the House and getting on with the important issues for the people of the North Shore—not moaning on the sidelines—securing our recovery, getting on with it, and supporting people to protect our environment, to build more houses on the Shore, to support our local hospitals, our schools, and ensuring that we’re building infrastructure that our growing city desperately needs. We need to get on to it.

But I’ve got to say that it has been wet in Auckland over these past few months, and it’s been difficult for everyone; for all of our community. It’s been good for our water-storage dams, but it’s added to the challenges that we have faced in working, in schooling, and in living from home. But we are now on the countdown to 90 percent double-vaxxed in my community, and we have a very strong expectation that we will move to the traffic light system when Cabinet considers this in just under three weeks.

My electorate office, today, tells me that Auckland has beautiful blue skies, it’s sunny, and something else too: it’s a great day for shopping. Birkenhead Avenue is busy and our Highbury Centre, Glenfield Mall, and Northcote Town Centre have been looking forward to all of our shoppers coming back. Our local businesses are very much locally owned, and we will get in behind them and support local.

But securing the return of our retail outlets is possible because of the hard work of local people in our communities that have been doing the hard mahi: getting on, getting our vaccination rates up beyond 90 percent first dose on the North Shore. They are our COVID heroes, and I want to put on record my very heartfelt thanks to them. I especially want to acknowledge the staff at the Birkenhead Vaccination Centre that has served Auckland’s North Shore. They’ve regularly been the second-busiest across the whole of Auckland; it is a tremendous effort and I congratulate them.

I also want to acknowledge Te Puna Hauora in Northcote, the fono, too, for their work in especially targeting our Māori and Pacific community on the North Shore in their vaccinations, and to Kāinga Ora too, who have worked solidly to get the vaccination rates of their residents up in Birkdale and Beach Haven in Northcote Central. They are a major landlord where some of the planned 1,700 beautiful new social and affordable houses are getting on and being built in new communities. And a big shout-out to our local Mormon church in Beach Haven who partnered with our Samoan community and our Tongan community at the Wairua event centre, and ran very, very successful mass-vaccination events on Super Saturday. It was an incredible event, and we are very, very blessed to have such a strong community-led response that brings kotahitanga to our community and higher rates of vaccination.

As much as lockdown has been necessary to keep our families safe from Delta, while we’ve lifted vaccination rates, it’s been hard and I want to acknowledge that in the House today. We have all felt it, and I want to say to my community: thank you very much for staying home, thank you for staying safe, and thank you for getting vaccinated.

I also want to thank some special people; people that have been delivering food packages, sanitary packs out to the most vulnerable in our North Shore community. The North Shore Māori wardens, the Birkdale Beach Haven Community Project, and the Glenfield Salvation Army. Incredible people that have been out there looking after our community, as well as our local businesses that we’ve brought on to be a part of this effort. The Birkenhead New World, Bakers Delight, Oceanz Seafood, and KiwiHarvest. Without them, we could not have done the tremendous efforts to support over 400 families in our local backyard in Northcote.

But we can continue to moan and groan. We can feel the ruts that COVID-19 and Delta have brought upon us. But today is the day where we take a step forward. Our shops are open and our community is excited. We get to rebuild and work on our recovery, moving forward as a country.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to file a missing person report: a 41-year-old woman, last seen arriving at Auckland domestic airport with the Prime Minister’s press secretary, has vanished without a trace—not been seen anywhere. There are a few leads that police are working with. One is that she turned down “Knockturn Avenue” with the cloak of invisibility and cannot be seen by anybody except for two business owners—just two—one of whom never had to close, even under alert level 4, because they were supplying Fonterra. The other business that this woman visited is completely unknown.

I thought the Prime Minister’s long-awaited, stage-managed trip to Auckland would not be particularly open, but I never would have predicted that she would have gone to only two businesses and, when asked, said, “I didn’t have the time.” The journalists asked the Prime Minister, “Did you not go and walk around the streets and visit the people running the businesses and talk to people about their experiences after three months of lockdown? Did you not do it because you were worried about security?” She said no. And I hope she’s right, because if we’ve got to the stage where the Prime Minister—who Shanan Halbert, the MP for Northcote, said is much loved—can’t even walk around the streets of New Zealand, then we’re in much bigger trouble than I realised.

The truth is that if she’d gone out there, there would’ve been no violence, there would’ve been no threats. There would have been person after person, much as I saw myself when I did go out and walk around the streets of Broadway, Newmarket, and Mount Eden village, and Remuera village, places in the centre of the Auckland isthmus, where people are saying, “We’re putting on a brave face behind the mask.” They’re putting on a brave face, but, if you look into their eyes, you can see people who are desperate, people who are frustrated, people who were borrowing money from relatives to keep their businesses afloat, people who’ve spent decades building up what they have and they’ve just run down all their capital and may be left with nothing at all. One woman came up to me, she was hesitant to talk, and then she said, “You know, the truth is we could have people over for a picnic. We did when it was first allowed, but there’s nothing to talk about because nobody does anything.”

If the Prime Minister went out and visited more than just two businesses and had any idea of how Aucklanders are withdrawing into themselves, maybe her policies would be different. Maybe she could’ve visited a hairdresser. She could’ve gone to a Botox clinic, because you can do cosmetic Botox under this Government’s rules, and those hairdressers would’ve said, “We have the ability to safely lift the mood of this depressed city one cut and one colour at a time.” That’s what she would’ve heard, but hairdressers aren’t allowed to open, and the widespread story is that they are cutting hair underground. Can you believe it? This country has a bootleg haircutting industry where the desperately broke pedal illicit haircuts to the desperately shaggy. That’s what’s happening in Auckland under this Government’s policies. It is completely nuts.

Here’s what could be done if we actually had a Government that was truly committed to balancing wellbeing. You see, ironically, one of the Labour members talked about the world’s first Wellbeing Budget, of balancing the different human needs that people have. Do you think this Government’s done that through COVID? No, because they’ve had Ashley Bloomfield giving health advice at one-third of Cabinet meetings—access to Cabinet that no unelected official has had before. Do you think they’re hearing from the education secretary about kids’ welfare and the loss of kids’ learning? Of course they’re not. Do you think they’re hearing from the Treasury secretary about New Zealanders’ economic wellbeing? Of course they’re not. And having not properly visited Auckland, the Prime Minister’s not hearing from the people her policies most acutely affect either. If only they were prepared to say, “December 1 is freedom day. At that day, we’re not going to make people go through 14 days of managed isolation and quarantine. We’re not going to isolate whole cities, only individuals who are infected, vulnerable, or recently arrived, and we’re not going to divide people by vaccine status”, because even people who are strongly in favour of vaccination, like myself, can increasingly see that the division it’s bringing about is damaging and the enforcement of it is impractical. That’s what a freedom day would look like. That’s what an empathetic Prime Minister would be saying, but our Prime Minister of inclusion and kindness—well, unfortunately for her, we’ll have to file a missing person report because no one in Auckland’s seen her.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

It’s a great opportunity to be standing up here to discuss this bill. It’s not often that an Opposition member is able to witness the passing of their bill through the House. And, of course, to do so actually relies on the good will of the Government. And so I just want to say at this stage that we are here through the support of Labour, and I just want to acknowledge the other parties who are supporting this bill: certainly I think ACT are, and I think the New Zealand Māori Party is as well. I’m lucky, actually. This is the second time I’ve been able to put through a member’s bill when I’ve been in Opposition. The last time was the Arbitration Amendment Act that we passed back in May 2019. So it is with much pleasure to be standing here, as I’ve said before.

I think it’s also worth acknowledging that the genesis of this bill was from Mark Patterson, a member of Parliament for New Zealand First in the 52nd Parliament. I spoke to Mark earlier to acknowledge that we were going to be debating this bill today. Mark came to me after he lost office at the last election and asked that I take over this bill in his name. It’s probably fair to say that the bill in the state that it was presented and went through in the first reading would not have survived without a lot of panel beating, and so I gratefully acknowledge the Finance and Expenditure Committee for its role in doing so. And I also just want to acknowledge Anita Williams, who normally does turn up here. No doubt she’s listening, but she was also someone who helped in the research of this bill and the fundamentals behind it.

So we’re here today after going through all the process, and I think it’s useful maybe just to talk about the context of this, because what we’re talking about is making superannuation entitlements tighter for New Zealand residents, particularly if they’ve lived overseas. And I think the overarching issue is I think everyone is aware that superannuation is the largest single cost that the Government has to incur, and it, of course, is growing exponentially through demographic changes. At the moment, roughly 15 percent of the population is aged 65 and over. By 2040, it gets to 20 percent, and by 2060, it’s 25 percent. So a quarter of our population by 2060 will be receiving superannuation. So that, together with the inflationary pressures that come on the actual payment that’s adjusted for the Consumers Price Index means that this is just a cost that’s coming down on the country.

I think finding pragmatic ways to deal with that is vitally important. Of course, this bill tightens the requirements. It won’t have a huge financial implication, but it is one step towards making it more sustainable. And I think it’s worthwhile, in the context of this bill, just noting that we will be increasing—assuming that we pass it this afternoon—the age of the residency entitlement from 10 to 20 years over a staggered period to give people time to transition through that. And by increasing it to 20 years, what we are doing is basically bringing New Zealand into line with the OECD. Australia’s the only other country that has a 10-year test, but, of course, they have a means test around that 10-year test. But the average across the OECD, in terms of entitlement, is actually closer to 26 years. So even by increasing it to 20 years, we’re still below the OECD average. Of course, most countries around the world are moving to a higher age bracket of 67, rather than 65, which reflects the demographic change and life expectancy of people. And so that’s, obviously, going to be a wider debate going forward, but, of course, this bill is just very focused on that one issue around the length of time that you need to be a resident.

So maybe it’s just worthwhile recapping what’s in the bill. The bill proposed that for every two complete years that a resident stays in New Zealand and is born after 1 July 1959, they would need to complete one additional year of residence in New Zealand. So it’s a two-year requirement, and for every two years you have to complete an additional year of residence for you to be entitled to your superannuation. So anyone born after 1 July 1977 would need to complete 20 years of residency. No doubt there’s some younger members in the House who are calculating it, but it’s a long way away.

So one of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that were introduced in discussion between the Minister and myself during the committee of the whole House stage of the bill was to delay the implementation date of when these provisions come into play. So it was agreed that we should delay the implementation until 1 July 2023. Part of that followed a discussion I had with the Retirement Commissioner, who said, in her view, that we should give a greater period of transition, and I accepted that argument—I thought it was a good argument and, in discussion with the Government, the SOP was introduced to the House during the committee of the whole House stage. I think that means that we’ve now struck a nice balance. We’ve got this transition where people right now who are very close to retirement won’t be affected by the change, but those who are going to be affected by the change can now increasingly plan for their retirement and have those discussions with their employer, if that’s the case, and make arrangements accordingly.

The other thing that the Finance and Expenditure Committee was very focused on was the position of refugees. We obviously take in refugees—we take in quite a number, and, of course, we’ve expanded the facilities in Māngere. But we were very concerned that if we were giving people refugee status in New Zealand they weren’t going to necessarily be penalised because they were here under a specific provision. So what we’ve agreed and what’s in the bill is that anyone who comes in over the age of 55 will basically just need to complete their time until they get to the age of 65. So they would spend a maximum of no more than 10 years, if they were aged 55, but basically making sure that when they got to the age of 65 they were entitled to superannuation. In terms of when people who are refugees come in who are younger than that—aged 45 to 55—we basically put a test on which made it the earliest of, which reduced the time as much as possible to meet the residency requirement before they reached the age of 65. What we didn’t want to see is refugees having to work into their 70s when they’ve come here, often late in life, due to extenuating circumstances in their own countries, and I think that was a pretty good outcome.

The other big thing is the Realm countries, and, of course, what I’m talking about are the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. I remember having a conversation with Mark Brown before he was Prime Minister, actually. I think we were playing rugby in the capital one night, and he was explaining to me the issue of New Zealanders, and particularly New Zealanders who are going over there—and I remember the example was working on Air New Zealand planes, mechanics, whatever—doing critical jobs for the Cook Islands, who were increasingly having to say, “Well, I’m going to have to go back to New Zealand to complete my last five years over the age of 50.” And, of course, for a country like the Cooks or Niue or Tokelau to lose those critical people, for them to have to go back to New Zealand to do their five years from the age of 50 onwards, actually was not only very disruptive at a personal level but actually quite critically important to the country concerned. So the select committee made changes to enable people to be able to complete their five years in those Realm countries, and I think that’s a very good outcome.

Finally, I just want to acknowledge not only Minister Carmel Sepuloni personally but also the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and also the officials. I looked back at the original advice to the committee and it was pretty damning, but in the end they were very helpful in terms of helping the committee get this bill into a shape that I think we’re all pretty comfortable with. And I know superannuation’s a huge issue. This is but a small step in improving the affordability of New Zealand superannuation over time, but I think it’s an important first step. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

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

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you for that. It is good that this small but important reform seems to have broad support across the House today, because superannuation is absolutely one of the cornerstones of New Zealand’s society. The idea that in older age we look after our citizens with a pension, if you like, is really an important part of what it means to be a New Zealander.

But, as has been said, striking an equitable balance is equally as important. And whilst we can pitch this as part of managing ongoing costs—and the reduction in the cost of superannuation by this is not insignificant; it’s hundreds of millions of dollars over the life of it—I think the more important point is to make sure that we have a framework where people coming to New Zealand, essentially, understand that they can’t walk in at a relatively late stage and get all the benefits of people that have been in New Zealand, contributing to society in all kinds of ways for pretty much their whole life.

I must say, when this did come to the committee, I felt slightly sorry for Mr Bayly in the sense that it was a far from perfect bill, as he’s alluded to. It basically said “Cross out 10; put in 20.”, if I remember rightly—

Andrew Bayly: And implement it now.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Ha, ha! And it was a little blunt. But Mr Bayly, with his usual tenacity, has done well here and I can say, obviously he did well to sort of insist that there was something there that was worth investigating, that we shouldn’t pre-emptively throw it out, and so we didn’t. But also the submitters were really important here.

Can I just thank those submitters from all across different aspects of society, but particularly those from some ethnic communities who came and made their case. I wanted to tell those people, small community groups often, that they were a really important part of looking at this and saying, “It is too blunt. We need to make it a little less stringent and immediate. We need to have a gradated framework in which this comes into play.” In that conversation—it was very much a conversation—there was a general acceptance that something needed to be done, but it just needed to be done over a greater period of time. And that’s how we arrived, ultimately, at this period of transition, at, ultimately, a 20-year period of transition. I want to identify that Naisi Chen was a very good advocate for her community, the Chinese community, and, of course, Priyanca Radhakrishnan also was very, very much speaking out for the interests of the communities that she represents as well. So, yeah, Mark Patterson, did a good job here in the sense that he got us to think about it. Andrew Bayly certainly then took it a lot further.

I do want to just identify the fact that not everyone is on board with this bill, necessarily, and it does reduce the entitlements of some people. But to be perfectly honest, given the transitional period, it is unlikely to affect anyone who is in New Zealand today and kind of had an expectation that they would have an entitlement.

Whilst it came back from select committee—and I must say it came back from select committee with that transitional period starting pretty much straight away, but the Retirement Commissioner thought that that was too harsh. I was surprised, I must say, that those views weren’t presented at select committee. It would have been good to have had a thoroughgoing submission in that regard. But the Retirement Commissioner, ultimately, did make her views known, and they were taken into account. The Minister the Hon Carmel Sepuloni did a lot of work here to make sure that she got it right, and I know she engaged with Mr Bayly, and, ultimately, got a framework, which I think everyone will be happy with. These long transition periods can be criticised, I think, but when you’ve got a kind of legacy piece of the superstructure of our country, I think those long transition periods are absolutely justifiable.

Also, I want to recognise, as Mr Bayly did, the importance of the Realm countries and the idea that, in fact, we need to make sure that people can move pretty much freely between them. There is absolutely something to be gained both for our Realm cousins and New Zealand in allowing those people who have absolute rights of residency here to move freely between the countries so that if they want to spend some of their latter years, perhaps, in their country of birth, with wider family and then come back to New Zealand as they perhaps get a little bit older, then that benefits everyone. And we’re not only enabling them to do what they want, but I think we’re richer for it in a cultural sense as well. So that was an important recognition of Realm countries there as well.

The other point that came out was the difficulty of refugees who, of course, don’t choose to come to New Zealand. In a perfect world, they would not have to flee the conflict zones from which they often run and they’d be able to stay with their families and in their place of birth. They’re forced out, and so it’s not the case that they can be criticised in any way for turning up and, you know, making some unwarranted demand. They’d rather not be doing that at all. So given the kind of compulsion of their arrival in New Zealand and that, of course, under the UN programme they don’t even choose which country they end up in, in those situations it is entirely appropriate that they have the shorter period and they can access the support that is there pretty much straight away.

Again, the equitability of superannuation is really important. The fact of the matter is that because of the agreements we have with a number of developed nations, it doesn’t affect as many people as other people might have thought—the UK, a lot of the European and Scandinavian nations that we have agreements with. So it’s really countries which don’t have superannuation frameworks, State-based superannuation frameworks, themselves where this really has the greatest effect and that is people who are coming from India, China, and other developing nations. And I think it does strike an equitable balance.

So, once again, really, congratulations to Mr Bayly—again, I’m pretty sure the last member’s bill he had wasn’t his own either. I’m pretty sure he picked that one up and he made something of that, and picked this one up and made something of it. But despite everything, he does work well with others, pushing them when needed, haranguing them sometimes, sometimes persuading them. But it’s a good bill. Well done to Mark Patterson. Well done to Naisi Chen. A good bill. I commend it to the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to join with Dr Webb in adding my, I think the word is “congratulations”—it’s the one that we bandy around a bit, but, actually, it’s kind of a congratulations for good luck or for having a colleague pass a bill on. But Mr Bayly has, I think, a reasonably rare distinction now, assuming the bill is going to pass this afternoon, as we all expect it to, of passing two members’ bills while in Opposition. And that is a very difficult thing to do. There is a number of cases where sometimes very well meaning and meritorious bills fall sometimes simply because of the people who are putting them up. I think that’s a shame. But this is an important one.

I thought Dr Webb’s description of the manner in which the bill was brought before the House was clear—not discourteous but clear. You know, it was a pretty brief bill—cross out “10”, add “20”—and the intent of Mr Patterson was very clear and noble, but the detail was a bit lacking. And I enjoyed the process that the Finance and Expenditure Committee went through to make three very important improvements to the bill, as has been articulated by both previous speakers. That was the phasing in of the eligibility criteria so that no person already here would be negatively affected by those changes; the changes to exclude the Realm countries to the degree that they are; and also the changes for refugees.

It does remain slightly irksome to me that the Supplementary Order Paper that was passed putting a two-year transitional period in place was felt necessary by the committee. Mr Bayly says he accepted the argument from the Minister and that it was a good argument. I’m not sure I agree with that. I asked about this at that time, about the case for having this change, and I agree with Dr Webb’s description of that; I don’t think we got a very good explanation. But Mr Bayly had pretty much Hobson’s choice: if he was to get the bill through, he needed to agree with an amendment being proposed, effectively, by the Minister for social development lest it not pass. And I think it was a case of sort of biting the bullet and not letting the perfect get in the way of the good. And so I held my nose and supported that amendment, but I’m still not convinced it was necessary. I don’t know how many people are going to benefit from it. I don’t know what the costs on the Crown would be—marginally. It’s probably not going to be that much, because hardly anybody would benefit from it. But, nevertheless, it was necessary to get it over the line.

Dr Webb talks about, too, a lot of work being done by the Minister. One could argue probably a little too much for a member’s bill, but I think that’s a minor irritant I have. I think it’s important to be able to rely on officials, but this House does need to give members—the House—the freedom to consider good ideas from members and not just be a ministerial legislation factory. And, while there is that minor irritant, I think this is a very good example of where collegiality can occur. It certainly did in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and we got a better bill because of it.

I think one thing that we need to be very clear about—and it was mentioned when it was introduced by the New Zealand First member; that this was kind of an anti-immigrant issue—is that actually, this bill, when enacted, will not discriminate between a person born in New Zealand and a person who comes to New Zealand at any stage in their life. We talk about a team of 5 million; well, we’re actually a team of 5½ to 6 million, because between probably half a million and a million New Zealanders—we don’t know quite how many—live overseas, and many of them do so for a very long period of time. So they are also affected by this. They don’t have an automatic right to superannuation when they return to New Zealand; they have to go through the same stand down, which was 10 and will transition to 20. So I think there was a mischaracterisation of what was going on here, and it’s important to stress that this is a piece of legislation that will apply to all eligible New Zealand residents, whether they were born in New Zealand or born overseas.

With that qualification, I’m pleased to support the bill. I look forward to its passage, and in a couple of years’ time it’ll start to become effective.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Speaker It’s a privilege as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee that reviewed this bill to be able to speak on it. For this third reading speech, I thought I would take this opportunity to summarise the bill as it progressed through the House and some of the history around it. The reason why I say that—and the member who has just sat down knows me well—is that my hope is in future a young, budding policy analyst or a law clerk who has been tasked with the tedious task to look at Hansard and to track the history of the residency requirements for the superannuation and veterans pension has a reference point to start their research because the last time we looked at the actual residency time frame was, I think, 1938. That’s when it was first set for 10 years.

Again, I’d like to, like other members of the House, acknowledge Andrew Bayly for bringing forward the bill and carrying it forward from the 52nd Parliament. Mr Bayly, as we’ve discussed, was very constructive and we found it was very easy to work with him in the select committee. We’d also like to thank the Minister for her willingness to improve the bill because, obviously, the Minister has her own work programme, so she allowed officials to work constructively with members and her work was so significant that Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 58, effectively, rewrote the entire bill bar the title. We’d like to thank the Ministry of Social Development officials and the Parliamentary Counsel Office for their work on the bill. Their subject matter expertise was relied on heavily in our select committee analysis of this bill, and they were incredibly responsive. Of note, their initial briefing on the report was actually excellent.

Now, if I look to the history of pension in New Zealand, the entitlement to New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension is based on residence. People must have been a resident and present in New Zealand for at least 10 years after the age of 20 to be eligible, five of which must be after the age of 50, and if you are a resident in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau—or our Realm countries—that can count towards the requirement for residence after the age of 50, but not towards the requirement for residence after the age of 20. Time spent overseas can count towards the residence requirements under certain circumstances.

The residence requirement, as I’ve said, has actually varied over time. New Zealand’s first public pension was 1898, the old age pension, and it required applicants to have continuously been resident in New Zealand for 25 years immediately preceding their application. This requirement was reduced in 1936 to 20 years immediately preceding the application. It was then reduced in 1938 to 10 years for people who were in New Zealand on 15 March 1938. Now that date is specific; it’s because it was to support people hit by the Great Depression. Then what happened in 1972? The requirement for applicants for the universal superannuation benefit was fixed at 20 years continuous residence and the requirement for means tested age benefit was fixed at 10 years. So we introduced a two-tier pension system. But then when national super came in in 1977, it replaced the two-tier pension system and the residence requirement went back to 10 years, and here we are today.

As members have said, the genesis of this bill is with New Zealand First. It was a 2017 manifesto item. The then member Mark Patterson sponsored the bill—the first reading was on 1 July—and he stated, “It is a great honour to have the opportunity to bring this longstanding New Zealand First policy to the House. In its construct, it is a very simple and narrow bill, but it is a significant one. It seeks to increase the period of residency required to qualify for New Zealand superannuation from 10 years to 20 years between the ages of 20 and 65. At its heart, this bill is about fairness, fairness to New Zealanders who have worked and paid taxes here.” The member continued, “It is interesting to note that the current 10-year threshold came into law in 1938, when life expectancy for men was 65 and for women 68. This bill is long overdue.”

The bill then was referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. “Robust” and “constructive” are probably the best adjectives to describe our work in the committee. We worked constructively across the House with officials, with submitters, so I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the over 350 submitters on this bill. Like the previous member, I also acknowledge the work of our member Naisi Chen for her work rallying a lot of the Asian community to ensure that they submitted on this bill. So we received a lot of individual submissions on the bill. Many of the submissions were similar and they were: “We don’t support the change. But if you do, can you make the transition fairer so we can have a plan and have certainty?”

As members have talked about in the House already, the bill as introduced had several key problems. Two of them were, (1), it didn’t protect the entitlements of current pensioners, and then, (2), it had no lead-in time to allow for certainty. We also heard in select committee that New Zealand and Australia are the two countries with the lowest entitlement. The average in the OECD is 26 years to be entitled to super. We worked through the modifications for our Realm countries of Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau to align with other recent changes to the superannuation and the veterans pension schemes to allow people to migrate to the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau before they turned 65 and still receive super. The committee recommended that for someone to be eligible migrating to a Realm country, they may still have to be resident and present in New Zealand for at least 10 years since the age of 20. We also recommended that we preserve the 10-year period for refugees who have become residents at the age 55 or above. Those changes have survived the following stages and are covered in clause 4 of the bill that’s on the Table today.

So why do we support this bill? It is unusual—it is a member’s bill from across the House, but we support this bill because increasing the residence requirements for New Zealand super is about improving fairness between longer- and shorter-term New Zealand residents and safeguarding the future of superannuation. It is, effectively, what was covered in the opening comments by the member who first brought it to the House in the 52nd Parliament. But as we’ve seen, we did really change the bill a lot during the process. We also support the bill because the current residence requirement ensures that almost all New Zealanders are protected in old age. But it also means that someone who’s been in New Zealand for just 10 years receives the same pension as someone who’s lived and worked here for their entire life. A 20-year residence requirement will ensure that New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension recipients have more substantial connection, have more substantial contributions to New Zealand.

So, again, I’d like to thank the member Andrew Bayly and congratulate him on progressing this through the House, the Minister and her officials for their constructiveness during the select committee phase, and then the Minister who tabled SOP 58, which, effectively, changed the whole bill. And then we’d also like to thank the submitters, and again, I acknowledge Naisi Chen for her work on the bill. So on that note, I commend this bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you. That was a little earlier than I expected. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to take a call opposing this New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill at the third reading, while I will still go through the politeness of Parliament and acknowledge Mark Patterson’s luck for getting this drawn and Andrew Bayly for seeing this through the process, because it is quite a rare event for a member to get a piece of legislation passed, particularly when they’re not a member of the Government. The Greens are not supporting this, and neither are Te Paati Māori, in my understanding, and there are some reasons for us that are pretty clear about why we’re not supporting it.

There’s a lot of discussion about the sense of fairness, but for us, our starting point is actually: what’s the effective policy to ensure the wellbeing of older New Zealanders in their last and later years of life? How do we ensure the best possible life for seniors in our country?

We know that income is a really critical component in terms of enabling people to flourish and live good lives, and our superannuation scheme has been instrumental in reducing rates of poverty amongst senior citizens. It continues to be, effectively, a universal basic income for people over 65 in this country that has served us as a country incredibly well, but, unfortunately, the rates that people receive aren’t always enough to make ends meet any more, particularly when many people do not have that privilege of reaching 65 with a secure home and savings—a safety net—and many have the need for ongoing medical treatment now. Superannuation as it was initially conceptualised was built on the assumption that people owned their homes, because we had a much higher rate of homeownership at that time, and that is changing, which, to us, feels as if this is not the time to actually be picking away at our superannuation scheme and to be undermining it. Actually, this is the time for us to be looking at what else we need to do to ensure that in their last years of life, people have enough to flourish.

So this is why we believe we should be working to bolster our income support systems instead of stripping them away for some under that false pretence of sustainability, which is a word I have heard already in the speeches this afternoon. Restricting migrant communities’ ability to access superannuation will simply entrench inequities and put more people in poverty, and it will force people into an inadequate welfare system, which we’re trying to fix, but that is another topic.

The work of the select committee members resulted in a few amendments—and we’ve heard a bit about that this afternoon—attempting to lessen the bill’s impact. For example, deferring the commencement of the bill to July 2023 and exempting refugees is a really important change. Unfortunately, these amendments will not take away from the intent of the bill, which is to restrict access to income support, and it will actually not protect people from the harm that we’re concerned about.

During the committee of the whole House stage, we noted that in the initial briefings from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), it was really clear that as we restrict people going on to New Zealand superannuation, some migrants who need income support will end up going into the income support system because they can’t access superannuation, and MSD’s own papers also noted that in the longer term, the projected savings of this bill to the super scheme—and this was before the amendments that reduced the scope of the bill—were likely to be only 0.3 percent of the projected cost of New Zealand superannuation, and I really struggle to see how that’s going to address any concerns people have about sustainability.

So not only will this bill not contribute to the sustainability of super; it will push people into a welfare system that has a lot more hurdles. I don’t think there’s anybody in this House that can’t acknowledge that, and we’re telling seniors that they have to attend job seminars—like 65- and 70-year-olds having to go to job seminars—and having to take jobs or risk losing their income, regardless of how unsuitable those jobs might be. This is not the image of the later years of life that we collectively envisaged as a country. I don’t believe it is consistent with our best intent for our seniors in this country.

When we presented the member with the facts of this around the money and the sustainability, he simply responded that, well, other countries are moving to restrict their superannuation schemes and we should do the same—another view that I’ve heard echoed in this House—and there was no acknowledgment of the fact that his bill won’t produce any real savings. Instead of following the poor leadership from other countries who are stripping away from senior citizens the ability to live with dignity, we have the ability to lead the way in ensuring we have a robust, unconditional safety net for seniors in this country.

This bill will also hurt disabled people. Again, MSD’s own briefing clearly outlined that the outcome of this bill is that there will be an increase in poverty and material hardship amongst the disabled people affected by the delay in accessing super, and they are likely to a greater extent than for non-disabled people to be impacted by this bill. They also said that it is likely that there will be an increased demand for Government services such as the disability employment services.

So we’re putting old people out to work and we’re putting old disabled people out to work, and at the same time we’re announcing a ministry for disability services and committing to the inclusion of disabled people in this country. It doesn’t feel consistent or holistic or our best selves, and it’s almost like we’ve decided to push forward with this bill with the full knowledge of the hurt and inequities that the bill will create.

There is no research and no evidence backing the intent of this bill. It won’t make super more sustainable, but it will increase hardship for a group of people. It’s just vibes—just harmful, racist, ageist, xenophobic vibes—that will result in hardship for migrant families for years to come.

The Greens will not be supporting this bill, and, instead, we will focus on true economic justice. Imagine if we sought to have sustainability in our superannuation system by having a wealth tax—by actually taxing progressively—so that those who didn’t need the superannuation actually had it eroded through taxation so that everyone managed to get it? There would be no barriers to access, and our old people in this country as well as our children would be able to thrive and live their best lives, contributing to our communities, which is actually possible through having Government policy that is not a fairy tale, as some of the gestures by people in the Opposition are suggesting it might be. It is actually a choice, and this bill is making a different choice. It is making a choice to restrict and make people’s lives more precarious, and that is not something that the Greens will—any day—support.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I must congratulate that previous speaker, Jan Logie. She does something that no political leader can do. She actually unites the ACT Party and National in their absolute emotion against her speeches. So well done, that member. You’ve achieved much.

This is a piece of legislation that if you can imagine there’ll be a farmer standing in Lawrence at the moment, probably a docking tool in one hand, an old 1950s transistor in the other, listening to this debate—Mark Patterson, who actually introduced this bill to the House, saw it through in a fairly raw form, which the erudite Mr Bayly, with the help of the hard-working Finance and Expenditure Committee, has turned into quite a workable piece of legislation. I think history will show that this legislation has played its part in ensuring that our superannuation, or pension, or just acknowledgment of the need to look after our older people, has actually now matured, if you like, as it needed to continue to do.

The first pension in New Zealand was a world first in the late 1890s—1898—and it was part of Richard John Seddon’s many reforms that have shaped New Zealand today. It came in about the same time as women’s votes, land reform, of course, which broke up the estates, and votes for women. Sorry, I’ve already mentioned that twice in this House.

But it is important that all these things do actually continue to evolve, and certainly with this legislation—and having been on the select committee, having listened to some very well-informed submitters, people who are coming at things from angles that certainly as a select committee we wouldn’t have probably been able to imagine ourselves—we have ended up, I think, with a piece of legislation which will set us up well for the future. Because against this backdrop, we’ve got to actually have a look at where our average life expectancy is: 81.71 years currently, which shows that there is likely to be—in fact, I understand that it’s an average of 20 years, because being an average doesn’t take into account those that never got the pension in the first place. So people will be on the pension for 20 years, and, of course, as we have an ageing population, that is something that we as current politicians and current lawmakers do have to take into account in any legislation that we pass.

It’s interesting; in terms of the dates when this legislation first came in, I think someone previously mentioned it was to be a fairly blunt introduction that would have seen a lot of people, their plans for superannuation, through no fault of their own, left waiting up to 20 years until they got the pension. You can imagine that for someone who arrived from somewhere like South Africa, somewhere like Sri Lanka and many other places—China—actually, part of their planning was that New Zealand superannuation would be payable to them. So take that out of the equation for 20 years—quite rightly we heard some quite emotional people at select committee. That really was going to impact the latter years of their life.

As a result of that fine-tuning, with the help of the officials and, I have to say, around the select committee some very collegial work, we were actually able to settle on some dates that I think do make sense. Right now, the key date, of course, is going to be 1 July 1959. If you were born before 1959 you will not be impacted. Of course, then for subsequent dates, going forward, that means, of course, that you’ll be hitting 65 in the next couple of years.

As someone who is actually in that age group—in fact, I might say I remember reading some Swedish research just recently that said those of us born between 1957 and 1961 were actually the lucky generation, that we avoided the post-war stringencies. We actually were on the right side of the 1960s and the revolutions there. We actually bought our houses at the right time. So this actually, ironically, won’t affect me of course, having spent my working life in New Zealand, but certainly being part of a generation that increasingly was able to work around the world, was more mobile in many ways as air travel increased, it is a generation that will actually benefit from this.

The important thing also about this legislation is that it does allow people now to plan. So it means that people who are arriving, with the exception of refugees, I might say—and, of course, that was another thing that came out of the select committee work; that refugees, as previous speakers have pointed out, had no choice as to when and where they would arrive but they were likely to arrive here—that they wouldn’t be impacted. So this would actually take into account that they hadn’t had the chance to plan—that the trauma in their previous existences in the countries they lived in wasn’t going to continue. So that was again a very humanitarian part of this legislation, I think.

The other thing was in relation to the Realm countries. I was also part of some legislation passed in the last term here where we did allow people from the Realm countries to spend that last five years qualifying—of course, it’s still a requirement to have worked in New Zealand, but also, post-50, to qualify for this you still needed to have been in New Zealand for five years post-50. Well, of course that meant that people post-50 who had spent their formative years in New Zealand building businesses, went back to one of the Realm countries—it meant that they were then obliged to usually sell that business, walk away from that business and come back here for five years to make sure they were eligible for that pension. Of course, that piece of legislation—I can’t actually recall what the bill was—did enable them to spend that five years in the Realm countries, and this, of course, is applicable as well.

So I just think this is a very good piece of legislation. As I said before, most importantly, it does update it. It needs to be updated taking into account our increased age expectancy. It updates it, accepting that we are a much more mobile world and that we will get workers, we will get people, who will choose to take up new professions, take up new jobs, move to countries at a later stage of their life.

There was one submitter that did actually make quite a good point. It was one of our older Chinese submitters who was here on a parent category, and they pointed out that when they had actually been in China before they came here on the parent category, they had actually funded their child through the New Zealand education system at great cost. So they did point out that they had actually contributed to the New Zealand tax base, or certainly to the New Zealand economy, during their early stages anyway, and that was something that really we hadn’t taken into account.

One of the other submitters was actually someone who wanted it to be able to be taken into account that even though they may have spent their last 10 or 15 years working in a country offshore, they were happy to come back, and they hadn’t spent that last five years in New Zealand—didn’t qualify. It was out of scope. But it just did point out, in these submissions, that we have people living in all sorts of different circumstances. So it’s very important that you go back to the basis, the key point of this bill and any bill with superannuation. I go back to the 1898 Act where you had those older miners—you had people who’d come out here with nothing. They’d worked through, their bodies were broken down, and they actually literally were living on charity. So if you go back to 1898 when that was brought in—just actually what that would have meant to a lot of those people—and subsequently through the change, it’s been modified somewhat to where we are today with a universal basic pension.

It just ensures that New Zealand—we are unique in the world and it’s important we say that. They’re words that we can slip off our tongue without us really fully understanding what it really means. It means that actually we do look after ourselves. When we go to countries overseas and see what happens, if you do fall, if you don’t make provision or something goes wrong, you do end up on the scrap heap. New Zealand is a country that I’m very proud to be part of, and it’s good to see that we have had cross-party support to make sure that there’s not a scrap heap here, that we will ensure that we look after all comers. So I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you for the opportunity to rise on behalf of the ACT Party, who will be supporting Mr Bayly’s bill.

Andrew Bayly: Oh, very good.

DAMIEN SMITH: Yep—and we’re supporting Labour on this, as well. And it’d be interesting to see Mr O’Connor’s Swedish literature. If he could share that, that would be fantastic.

Hon Simon Bridges: I’d like to have this voice reading me my satnav directions!

DAMIEN SMITH: Ha, ha!

Hon Simon Bridges: I feel like it would be very soothing.

Andrew Bayly: It is very soothing!

DAMIEN SMITH: Yeah. Today, I’m disgusted in the Green Party. I’m disgusted in the Green Party because they’ve had a year to put a position together on this and all I’ve heard is conceptual nonsense about cutting the knees out from a vast majority of the population. I hope when they go to the election they’re prepared to explain to people why they don’t support pensions for people resident and present in New Zealand. And, as a partner of confidence with the Government, it seems rather strange that this has not been nutted out. So for everybody else that’s supported this bill, congratulations.

Just to go back to why the bill was a good idea, it was meant to improve fairness, and we would benefit from this substantively. The bill was also intended to contribute to the sustainability of the system. And there will be changes in the system; there’s no doubt about that. If you look at some of the statistics, we’ve got the most fair and cost-effective super payments in the world. And at the moment—I don’t know if the Greens know this—there’s $10 billion being spent in 2021, and there’s a huge task ahead to finance that. So there’s got to be a big shift in Government spending that goes to retirees no matter what happens, and this is what they fail to miss: that it virtually singlehandedly pulls over-65-year-olds out of poverty and enables a basic standard of living, and it helps them to offset residential care, as well—for older pensioners.

So it’s really quite important that we understand some of the statistics around what’s happening. The Ministry of Social Development showed that there were 774,000 people receiving super in March 2019, and these numbers, by 2060, will increase to 1.84 million. And, at that stage, people over the current pension age will be 28 percent of the population, compared with 15 percent in 2019, which is a massive jump. So we have lots of complicated work to do to develop a pension scheme, and it would be good for it to be recognised from the Green Party that this is a start—it’s not perfect—but, for people in the 60-plus age group, we haven’t created any uncertainty. We’ve got a phase-in date that is acceptable and equitable and won’t affect any investments. And, as many New Zealanders are reaching retirement in poor financial shape, we tend to agree that this is an excellent thing to do.

So we pay a legacy to Mr Patterson. We believe that the ACT Party sees this as a form of safety net that all parties in this House should have committed to and then start our thinking again. So we now believe that we’re very proud to support this bill, and we’re very proud to actually be part of Mr Bayly’s achievement this evening. Thank you.

Dr Emily Henderson: Mr Speaker—Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Dr Emily Henderson.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Apologies for my slip there, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on this bill with—it’s been a really interesting exercise. I was not part of the Finance and Expenditure Committee to hear this bill, and so in my research to be able to stand and address you I’ve been fascinated to have a look at who we’re actually talking about, and what it says about the development of our country. Because as a sixth-generation Pākehā, my roots lie in England and in Ireland and in Scotland. It is some of my relatives who would have benefited by that initial decision to pay the pension to New Zealanders who had been here for 25 years, back in 1898—same year that we were also getting the vote, which, as my colleague Angie Warren-Clark has said, is a fact worth repeating twice, and thus I repeat it a third time.

If you have a look at the groups that we are talking about here—because accusations of racism have been extended towards this policy. But of those qualifying for New Zealand super in the 12 months ending August 2020, 1,214 were Chinese; 4,000 were, like my ancestors, from the UK. If you’re looking at the total number of people who are actually receiving superannuation who recorded their country of birth as other than New Zealand, we’re talking about 86,000 from Britain; 12,000 from China; 7,000 from India; nearly 7,000 from South Africa; and those Australians—who I have to also include in my whakapapa—16,000.

This is an inquiry into the make-up of our society, and the ongoing make-up of our immigrant population, that is, I think, refuting any accusation that this is about racism. What it is about is the place of superannuation in our society, and superannuation as a mark of respect and a mark of consideration to those who have contributed to our society over the years, paid and unpaid. When it was begun way back in 1898, it was, of course, a very different beast, and there were some very—I would say now—repugnant moral clauses attached to it in order to receive your little pension. And it was a very small pension. By today’s standards it would have been fairly minuscule. To receive your pension, you had to show you were of good character. You had to deserve your stipend in your poverty. Today, we recognise that actually what this is about is recognising the contribution that people make, without judgment of that kind, and it is important.

I would also say to those who are cautious about this bill that it is relevant to look at what other countries do, not because we measure ourselves by them, and we certainly seek to lead them, but because it is of use in assessing what we’re doing here today. So we and Australia are, at this stage, until this bill, hopefully, passes, the only people to give a minimum of 10 years’ residence from the age of 20, when the maximum rate of super is payable immediately. If you look around the other countries whom we compare ourselves to, they tend to take a pro-rata basis, and they put things over a much longer period. So in Canada, you get a pro-rata basis of your super if you’re an immigrant going over 40 years. It’s 40 years’ residence before you would be entitled to the full whack. In Denmark, it is, again, 40 years, I believe. In the UK, it is 35 years before you receive the maximum. There is something relevant in a country saying, “This is a mark of your contribution to society.”, and I do not think it is immoral to make that point when it is all of us who are paying into this fund to recognise contributions, paid and unpaid, to our society. The contributions of parents who have taken time out of work, for example, are as valuable.

But I do want to commend the select committee, and, in fact, all of those who were involved in the process of writing this bill, because it was a remarkable process. To think that a bill that came from New Zealand First, was picked up by Mr Bayly sitting opposite, was brought forward in what was described, I’m sure, in good part, by Dr Webb as being a one-liner which said, “Cross out 10 years; put in 20.”, has evolved into something quite nuanced and sophisticated. That is to the great credit of all of those involved. I do want to do a shout-out to those members of the select committee for their hard work, because it is often hard in a select committee when you have differing opinions, but look what they’ve produced. It’s remarkable and it’s helpful.

It is also a mark of the contribution of the Minister, who put aside her own workload to tautoko a good idea and make it work. So congratulations to Minister Sepuloni. It is also a really interesting demonstration of the importance of the Retirement Commissioner, because it was Jane Wrightson, the Retirement Commissioner, who came back and registered some really significant concerns and tweakings—better late than never.

But this is really interesting. So in this little bill—this quite small member’s bill—we’ve had a New Zealand First bill taken by National, worked on by a majority Labour select committee, worked heavily on by a Minister of a Labour Government, contributed to by the Retirement Commissioner, and then most of all contributed to also by members of the public. And I do want to do a shout-out to my colleague Naisi Chen, the baby of the House, for her work in making sure that the migrant community had a voice in this process. Naisi is doing a stellar job and it is wonderful to see her making her mark.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! I do apologise to the member for interrupting her speech. If the member from ACT could please put his mask on.

Hon Member: There was a moment of peace, though, which we all appreciate.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: Well, peace broke out, is my point. Peace broke out in this process, and it is a wonderful thing to see in the lead-up to Christmas. Peace broke out in this House, and up until a few moments ago, there was peace right now. But perhaps what we are hearing is merely the jolly warm-up to a rendition of “Silent Night”.

But to return to the bill—because I feel, Madam Speaker, you might be about to tell me to—I do just want to say there is a larger question here, and that is the question of how we handle superannuation. Because I do agree that it is not a sufficient reason to make a change like this, that it is of great fiscal significance; it’s of minor fiscal significance, but in the longer term, we need to think about how we are going to handle super.

It is a mark of the respect we give each other and our contribution over many years in society that we pay super. I find it very sad that we are in the situation where the members opposite wanted to raise that age by a further two years before people are entitled to it, causing great hardship for those in vulnerable groups whose life expectancy, sadly, is less, or whose work is hard and who need to be able to retire earlier. I find it very sad that in 1974, only a year before—in 1975, people would be fully entitled to their super when they migrated, but, in 1974, we had the super fund, which would, I believe, now have some $278 billion in it, had it not been stopped by the Government of the members opposite. I feel very sad also that we are missing the $14 billion in the New Zealand super fund, or the Cullen fund, from 2001 that would have accrued had the National Government in 2012 had the courage and the courtesy to its citizenry. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Christopher Luxon—five-minute call.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): Look, it’s a real pleasure to stand and take a very short call on the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill, third reading.

As we’ve talked about, this started off life with MP Mark Patterson, obviously from New Zealand First—and I’m sure he’s listening and following proceedings today—and he should feel justifiably proud about where this is going. It was transferred through as we talked to Andrew Bayly—I’ll come back and talk about him in a minute. And then, obviously, everyone’s feeling incredibly proud of the work of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, in the way that bipartisanship broke out and people worked very constructively with each other. And that’s a good thing. I didn’t get to participate in that committee, but having read some of the summaries and the papers, it’s great that the bill was even further improved yet again.

As I said, I do want to come back and congratulate my colleague Andrew Bayly. I’ve only been in the House a short time, but I can tell you it doesn’t feel that often that Opposition MPs get their members’ bills all the way through to law. What we know about Mr Bayly is that he is passionate about fairness, and I think this is an example of that bill. But if you ever watch one speech, I’d say, in this House in the last three months, watch his speech talking about the plight of small-business people dealing with Auckland. That was a heartfelt speech where he cares deeply about small-business people—the people that stand up, go to work, take a risk, raise their kids right, pay their taxes, do the hard work, give it a go, take a risk, and make something happen. He spoke so eloquently about them.

Getting back to this bill, the real heart of this bill is, obviously, around raising the minimum residency qualifications from 10 years to 20 years. And, you know, when you think about why we’re doing that, we clearly have a very much expanding population. We obviously have people living longer. But this is one of the most expensive items on the Government’s balance sheet. In fact, it’s probably one of the biggest items on the balance sheet, and it’s only going to get more and more expensive as people age over time. The second thing is, really, it’s about aligning to world standards, because as we’ve heard, New Zealand has one of the most generous and therefore lowest residency qualification periods in the OECD. Emily Henderson just went through some other countries that have, obviously, much more longer provisions, and we are now bringing ourselves into alignment with the OECD and other countries in the world.

I guess, the other thing is why we’re doing it. It’s fundamentally right that we do do it, because it’s important and fair that we recognise people who have made a contribution to New Zealand, that have made a big commitment to New Zealand, that have paid their taxes day in, day out, month in, month out, year in, year out. I think this bill is recognising there are rights and also responsibilities to being a New Zealander in this country. Yes, you get a right to be able to receive a superannuation, but you have a responsibility to make a contribution, to make something happen, and to contribute to the country.

Some of the other big bits, I guess, that were fixed up through the select committee process was, obviously, the risk, of course, of having made a change like this is in the transition period, that you end up actually cutting off some hardworking individuals or new New Zealanders who are so close to that retirement age, who have built their future and their plans around that assumption, and then all of a sudden at the last minute you move the goalposts on them. And, really, the work of the select committee, in conjunction with Mr Bayly, set in place a delayed bill implementation of two years, and when you think about someone’s birthday happening after that, it’s, effectively, a three-year delay before the transition plan starts on a staggered basis—I think that’s a very sensible schedule that, essentially, Mr Bayly explained in his reading as well.

I guess, the final thing and the final piece of work, which is so important, is it carves out refugees and it also carves out citizens of the Realm. I remember when I was at Air New Zealand we had a lot of staff up in the Cook Islands, but as they got to the end of their career they would end up having to come back to New Zealand in order to qualify for superannuation. This bill would now mean that they can stay up there as critical workers, as engineers working in the Cook Islands, for example, and not have to come back home in order to just qualify for their superannuation.

So I think it’s, on balance, a really great thing. It’s a fantastic thing that we’re doing here. It’s the right thing to do. It’s good for New Zealand. It’s fair and balanced. And I just want to say, again, congratulations to my esteemed colleague Andrew Bayly on this achievement. Thank you.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Tēnā koutou, Mr Speaker. As always, it’s a privilege and an honour as the member for the Ōtaki electorate to speak on the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill. I also didn’t sit on the select committee for this bill. However, I feel like I do have a real good interest in this, and the reason why is because through the Ōtaki electorate we have the oldest population of seniors, of kaumātua, in the whole of Aotearoa New Zealand. And that also comes with a high proportion of needs in terms of access for those seniors as well. We also have the second highest vets in New Zealand—those wonderful people who served our country, which is also really amazing as well. And so, I guess, that means that anything in terms of the senior or the kaumātua space is critical to the Ōtaki electorate and to the people of the Ōtaki electorate, and so, really, interested to see what this bill can do for our people.

The essence of it—and we’ve heard this already—is we know that this bill is to increase the minimum residency qualification for New Zealand superannuation, taking it from, as we know, the current 10 years to 20 years. Currently, a resident of 10 years is entitled to full New Zealand superannuation, and that’s without any requirement to do any kind of financial contribution. And we also know, and we’ve heard it as well, that, globally, 10 years is quite a short time frame in terms of residency to be able to access full entitlements. Increasing the residency requirements for New Zealand superannuation is about fairness and it is about improving fairness between the long and shorter residencies here in New Zealand. And it also does safeguard the future of superannuation for New Zealanders.

We have some—and I know our Green Party colleague talked about this—of our seniors, and in the Ōtaki electorate, with quite a low income rate as well, and they are people that are unable to save towards their superannuation and don’t have the luxury, as our Green member talked about, of owning a house or of being able to save savings so that they can maybe finish work a bit earlier. So we do have quite a high population of our seniors, of our kaumātua, who work, maybe not full-time but sometimes part-time, just to top up their living standards as well. In saying that, if we don’t safeguard our superannuation, what about those vulnerable kaumātua? What will they do? So this is really important to make sure we do that.

I’ve also had the privilege of working for many years in the Ōtaki electorate at Work and Income, so I’ve also worked with those people who are transitioning or working towards superannuation, or quite often what they called it was “the big one” in our Ōtaki electorate, and that is a lot of planning. There’s a lot of prep that goes into that to help them adjust from what they might currently be on in terms of financial assistance, some type of benefit, to what it will look like in terms of superannuation and what they can and can’t do. Our case managers out there work with these people that work towards that, and for some of our people it could be that they are finishing up work and they are moving towards superannuation, so that’s full budgeting and getting them prepared for what that could look like. We also have some people that want to, like I said, work part-time. Maybe they aren’t able physically, in terms of their health, to work full-time any more. So they work part-time and they also can get the superannuation as well. But then there is also that small part of some of our people that have been really lucky in the last 10 years as a 10-year resident, and been able to fly in and out of New Zealand within the 28-day travel rule for the Ministry of Social Development over a period of time, and then all of a sudden they’re able at 65 to get the full benefits as everyone else.

I believe this is a good bill. I think that, again, it brings that fairness into it. I believe that, again, my interest is in safeguarding superannuation for all New Zealanders when they do hit their 65 and get “the big one”. It’s also important to note that this side of the House are not looking to increase the age. So we are keeping the age at 65 because that is fair and reasonable. And, again, I think this is a great bill. Congratulations to Mr Bayly and I commend the bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I rise also to take a call in support of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill. This afternoon, I want to continue the conversation that many of my colleagues across the House have talked about. And I want to talk about very much the process this afternoon, and have some dialogue around that. Then, I want to address some of the history and how have come to this place in the history of superannuation and in terms of the veterans pension as well. Then, I just want to talk about us as a nation doing the right thing, doing the right thing by our people.

I want to thank Andrew Bayly for taking this piece of legislation through the House, taking it from Mark Patterson from New Zealand First who, as one of our speakers said earlier, was lucky; was lucky to have this drawn out of the ballot in the 52nd parliament.

I guess, today—well I know today that I also feel lucky. I feel lucky that I live in a lucky country. I feel lucky that I was born into a lucky country and whatever your views or beliefs are, somehow I ended up being born in New Zealand. This place looks after people and does its best—and we always have more to do, I know. But about 20 years ago, I was visiting Eastern Europe and I was over there for some work. I discovered, as a younger person who hadn’t travelled, just the challenges that other parts of the world face. And when we look at this piece of legislation and we look around superannuation and retirement here in New Zealand, we realise, and I realise, that in other parts of the world, like where I was in Eastern Europe, there were elderly people selling cigarettes and selling sunflower seeds on the side of the road. I asked one of my interpreters around this and they said, “Well, we don’t have a pension like you do in New Zealand.” Once they stop work, if they even worked, or whatever was going on in their lives, they have to find ways and means to live and survive these things. And so, yeah, it was a really humbling experience, actually, to experience what life is like for others, how hard it is, and that’s why I feel lucky. I feel blessed to be in a place like this where we can do the right thing by our people.

Now, I want to thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and on my right here, Dr Duncan Webb, who chaired that committee mightily, I understand, in terms of passing this and working with officials, working with the Ministry of Social Development to ensure that across Parliament, across this House, conversations were had. Some 362 submissions were taken and read and heard, and the bill was modified, was made fit for purpose. And I go back to Andrew Bayly earlier, when he opened the debate this afternoon and said that this bill needed a decent amount of panel beating. It seems like a decent amount of panel beating was done, so, well done to all those who were involved. Also, I want to reflect on a friend of mine who’s currently in hospital, who is a superannuitant, and the challenges he’s faced—and, again, feel lucky that we here can care for our people, as he was able to move into a rest home and be supported through his superannuation.

But in terms of reflecting on New Zealand superannuation, and a number of colleagues this afternoon have spoken around the history, I won’t repeat what’s been said already, but I will also add to what has been talked about. So as we already know we talked about 1898. It was a good year, I’m sure. And as my colleague Dr Emily Henderson talked about, you had to be of good moral character. But New Zealand was the only country bar Germany that had introduced some kind of State pension. And we were the first that used the funds from general taxes to pay this. It was groundbreaking legislation and, of course, it wasn’t a lot back then. Looking here, it was around £18 per year, which is the equivalent of around $3,400, and I know probably house prices were slightly different and probably other things were different back then, but hey.

But also, as Dr Emily Henderson spoke about, there was some discrimination involved. For example, you had to present a birth certificate to prove that you were 65-plus. And, of course, for many of our Māori population, they had never registered at birth, had any sort of registration. So it was discriminatory legislation; I can never say that properly. And so I’m glad that we’ve moved on and we’ve changed. Then I was thinking about—because it also, obviously, brings in the veterans pension and support of them. Back in 1866, legislation was first passed around that. In a move forward during the First World War, there was an Act passed, and then it kind of was collaborated and brought together in 1954 with the War Pensions Act.

Now, we support this legislation for many reasons. But, I think, as other colleagues have said, it’s reasonable. It’s safeguarding the future of our superannuation. It’s improving fairness between longer- and short-term New Zealand residents. This bill would raise the minimum residency qualification for New Zealand superannuation from 10 to 20 years, after 20 years of age. Also, I want to reflect on the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, as they proposed changes and they worked, again, with officials and worked in the select committee process. So it was very much around that phasing in of the increased risk residence requirements by birth date. But also, I was really appreciative of the fact that our Realm countries—the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau—were also able to be part of this residency requirement.

And also, again, as I said at the start around us doing the right thing was this retaining the current 10-year residence requirement for our refugees, protecting people who have only become residents at the age of 55 or older. We don’t want stringent regulations and requirements to apply to our older refugees. Many didn’t have a choice to come to this nation, many are from nations that are far more challenging, far more oppressive. They have no control, necessarily. They had no control over arriving in New Zealand because they were part of the refugee quota programme, and they can’t just simply choose to return to their home country to receive an equivalent-type benefit. So I’m glad that we were able to do the right thing by our refugee community, to support them in terms of retaining that 10-year residence requirement for our refugee population.

So I’m glad to be here this afternoon supporting this member’s bill. I feel lucky to be in this nation where we look after our people, where we care for our populations, where we do the right thing. I also want to do a slight segue, if I may, in support of this legislation. I mentioned my friend Jim, who’s in a rest home time in New Plymouth—obviously, all superannuitants, obviously all in the later stages of life, being cared for well by a small family-owned rest home called Coronation Lodge Rest Home. I’m so grateful because they take good care of Jim and the rest of the whānau in there, and they actually won the 2021 best aged-care small facility award for the North Island just recently. I think that says a lot for our care of our elderly, for our care of those who are superannuitants. For me, superannuation is actually 19 years away and, yeah, it makes me nervous, but I’m OK with that because we’re doing the right thing. My parents actually, both 79, have been, obviously, on the pension for three or four years—I’m not sure of the numbers off the top of my head—still working full-time and able to, obviously, do right by this nation.

I support this piece of legislation. I’m glad that our select committee was able to do some heavy lifting and some work to ensure that this bill is fit for purpose and will serve the future of superannuation in New Zealand.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): It gives me pleasure to rise at the third reading of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill. I rise, really, to say congratulations to Andrew Bayly. It is a rare thing in this House to have a member’s bill of this much weight progress to a third reading in such an orderly fashion, and to do so with the support of members across the House. I think it reflects very well on Mr Bayly that that has happened.

At the heart, this bill reflects principles that are very important to the National Party. We want to ensure that New Zealand’s superannuation scheme is a fair one and that it can endure into the future. We have recognised for some years that reforms are necessary to that scheme to ensure that it can, in fact, survive and endure in a form that will allow it to pay for the incomes of future generations of retirees in this country.

So it was in 2017 we began work on amendments to re-strike the balance as to who becomes eligible for superannuation. It had been the case that people were eligible for superannuation after spending just 10 years as residents in this country. That put us out of whack with the rest of the developed world and could be seen to have put an unfair burden on the taxpayers of today and tomorrow who would be funding those New Zealanders of not as long standing. So this bill corrects the balance. It requires that in order to access New Zealand superannuation, people must live here as residents for 20 years. This brings us in line with the rest of the world. I think it speaks to Kiwis’ ideas of fairness.

I want to commend Andrew Bayly for doing the detailed work required with a bill of this significant change to make sure that it can be implemented effectively and that the potential ramifications have been thought through. The bill has a staggered introduction, with transition arrangements in place. I want to say I think that’s very right and proper, because for those who’ve come to New Zealand in the expectation that they will be accessing New Zealand superannuation at a certain point, there does need to be an adjustment period so that people can know full well what their entitlements are when they come here. There also have been sensible amendments to ensure that residents of our Realm countries—the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau—are excluded and that those supported by the Veterans’ Support Act 2014 are excluded.

Andrew Bayly is one of those members of the House who gets along with people on all sides. But don’t be fooled: he has a very sharp brain, and it is a sharp brain that has allowed this bill to be constructed, and I commend him on the collegiality with which he has managed to get it through the House, and it is my honour to support it.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): E te Māngai o te Whare tēnā rawa atu ki a koe i tēnei ahiahi.

[To the Speaker, warm greetings this afternoon.]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to rise on behalf of Labour to speak to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the speaker Nicola Willis for her discussion just before. This is, of course, the third reading of this particular bill, and it has quite a history, going back to and acknowledging Mark Patterson from the New Zealand First Party in its time and also to our colleague now, from the National Party, Andrew Bayly.

I was having a bit of a giggle to myself as I reflected on our current superannuation scheme, and I was being cheeky to the Hon Willie Jackson, on my right. As I heard the previous speaker talking about their intentions to reform our super scheme, I laughed at the option that they would shift that up to 67, versus the current 65, and, sadly, what that would mean for young men like the Hon Willie Jackson, who’s worked very, very hard all of his life and has a lower life expectancy than the average male in New Zealand—but these are the realities of our super scheme and what those changes might mean. I think we’re very lucky, and I agree with the member Glenn Bennett that the super scheme that we have in this country, and also acknowledging our veterans, is incredible. And part of this discussion is about the level of fairness, I guess, in terms of how we proceed forward.

What we want to achieve in this is a future to secure our superannuation scheme. What’s important in this discussion is that we do address the concept of fairness, and, in my research, I was looking back to the live examples of those that I know personally within my family that are on super schemes. I hope that she isn’t watching this afternoon, but this year my mum clicked over to what the member Ngobi—

Todd Muller: Oh, that’s dangerous!

SHANAN HALBERT: I know I’ll be in trouble, Todd, but hopefully she’s not watching. But the member Terisa Ngobi did a wonderful speech this afternoon, and she talked about the “big one”. I think of my mum, who’s just clicked over into the “big one”. She’s worked all of her life, since she was 15. She’s worked in boarding schools, supporting young people in their living environment. She’s picked apples and asparagus in the Hawke’s Bay. For the past 20 years, she worked at Napier Pak ’N Save. And these are all people that have worked incredibly hard to serve this country, and now is their time to inherit part of the “big one”.

I think of my dad too on this day and, as a veteran, how he served our country in Malaya and before his passing that he was a recipient of our veterans scheme and was lucky enough, in his later life, after working so hard too, to be able to live a good few years before he passed, because of the security that our super and veterans scheme offered him in his later life. Those are two live examples, and, again, I hope that my mum isn’t watching; I’ll be in very, very big trouble, but I can look too to my grandparents, who migrated here, served our country for decades, and really needed that particular support when it came through.

Again, just going back, I do want to acknowledge my colleague Andrew Bayly for the work that he has done on this. It does take a lot in Opposition to proceed forward with a particular piece of work. I also want to acknowledge my good friend the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, who, as an aside, rated a 9 in Audrey Young’s New Zealand Herald report in the weekend, which is incredible. She’s done some great work. The Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that she put forward on this delays the phased increase to the residence requirement in the same way that the member’s SOP did but changes the years at which the phased increases counted from, and that’s so important to ensure that while we have taken forward a member’s bill from New Zealand First to National, as Government we are able to proceed forward with something that we are able to support for the betterment of all New Zealanders and a particular piece that is fair.

But we support this bill, of course, because it increases the residence requirements for Aotearoa New Zealand super and it’s about improving fairness between longer- and shorter-term New Zealand residents, ensuring that they are safeguarded in the future of what they’re entitled to through superannuation. The current residence requirement ensures that almost all New Zealanders are protected in their old age. And, while I acknowledge the contribution that migrants make to our country, I think it is fair to strike the right balance in ensuring that what they do receive when they click over into the “big one” is consistent, that it is a meaningful recognition of all of those that contribute to our country.

I want to just acknowledge the Finance and Expenditure Committee and all members, including the chair, Duncan Webb, who’s on my left, and the opportunity that I got to spend with them recently, actually. And what a very fast-paced select committee the chair operates. But I go back to one of the submissions that came out, actually, that really identified some of the key information in there, and a time line in particular that goes back to, in particular, 2010—which, again, they recognise that. Partly funded by the Human Rights Commission, the Retirement Policy and Research Centre published Reform Option 1: Reforming New Zealand Superannuation for a mobile trans-Tasman population. It goes on to talk about the progress that we’ve made through 2016, through 2017, and then right through to 2018, to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment Cabinet paper that came forward as a last—

Andrew Bayly: Talk about the bill!

SHANAN HALBERT: This is a submission, Mr Bayly—and, I think, a submission that, hopefully, you’ve read—and it was contributed by Te Whare Wānanga o Tāmaki Makaurau, the University of Auckland Business School. So that time line is an important one. It also acknowledges the arrivals and departures and the net gain of immigrants over that particular period, and that’s a great piece of work, and I’m very, very happy that the Finance and Expenditure Committee was able to consider the number of submissions that came through at that particular time.

But I go back to the main point that we take away from the submissions—362, I believe, submissions came through, who discussed the work and the importance of our super and retirement scheme—that we wanted to ensure that we marked the contribution that people made to society in Aotearoa New Zealand, but that we strike the right balance that is fair in ensuring that our future of superannuation is protected.

So I thank everyone for their contributions in the House this afternoon, even the positivity from Mr Bayly. Congratulations to you. Good work, my friend, and long may it continue in the spirit of kotahitanga. So I’d like to commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 108

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 12

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill

Second Reading

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill be now read a second time.

It is with great pleasure I rise to lead off the second reading speeches this afternoon on the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill. It’s been an eventful few months since 9 April when we last discussed this in this House, making an in-person appearance somewhat of a novelty. So you can, I’m sure, understand my enthusiasm, and I’m sure it’s going to be reflected across the House.

The problem my bill is seeking to resolve is simple: how can it be possible in 2021 for manufacturers of sunscreen in this country to not have to demonstratively meet the sunscreen standard that we share with Australia? Both countries love the sun, both countries have high skin cancer rates, and both countries know the importance of sunscreen as part of the triple arsenal against the sun that includes a T-shirt and a hat, but only one country requires compliance with the shared standard, and it’s not New Zealand. This bill seeks to remedy this issue by making it compulsory for sunscreen manufacturers to meet the standards. It is currently voluntary and it must be mandatory.

This issue has vexed successive Governments. It appears that any move to require mandatory compliance was shelved over the years because of the pending arrival of a more comprehensive regime: an all-encompassing therapeutics products bill. It is expected that such a bill would create a regulatory framework for such products, be they sunscreen or more general skincare products, but the therapeutics products bill has never come. To be fair, it didn’t when we were in Government and it hasn’t yet in the last four years of this Government.

So this bill is focused on tightening the current regime to give consumers more confidence in the products they are using, but it does not seek to be an enduring solution. It does not enter the future debate as to whether sunscreen should be treated as a cosmetic product or a therapeutic product. This bill just focuses on ending voluntary compliance to the standard. The bill requires the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to recommend the setting of mandatory regulations under section 29 of the Fair Trading Act, prescribing a product safety standard for sunscreen products. The bill requires the standard made to be the joint Australia - New Zealand standard for sunscreen AS/NZS 2604:2012. This joint standard includes prescriptive testing methodologies and labelling requirements for sunscreen.

The Health Committee, which I have to say was very ably chaired by Dr Liz Craig, received 36 submissions, overwhelmingly in favour of the intent of the bill, with no submissions opposed. The key themes from the submissions were: (1) a view that sunscreen should be regulated as either a cosmetic or therapeutic product; a view that this bill is simply an interim step towards a more comprehensive regulatory regime; suggestions for additional requirements beyond those in the joint Australia - New Zealand standard; and suggestions to reference the latest standard of Australia - New Zealand 2021.

Meritorious as some of the arguments were, the select committee felt it was appropriate to keep the bill aligned to its narrow policy intent, but there were technical issues that we had to work through. Firstly, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials held the view that the shared sunscreen standard may not fit the criteria of section 29, “Product safety standards” in the Fair Trading Act. A product safety standard made under section 29 of that Act must be one that addresses potential harm that is inherent in the good. The standard must seek to prevent or minimise the risk of injury to a person that could result from something intrinsic to the good, such as the flammability of material of children’s pyjamas, as an example. The select committee argued that sunscreen that had not been manufactured to the sun protection factor (SPF) claim on the bottle should be considered in the same light. To resolve the potential reading of section 29 in a manner that would exclude sunscreen products, the select committee agreed to make the standard mandatory in the primary legislation. The bill now mandates that the joint AS/NZS standard is deemed to be a product safety standard for sunscreen products and must be treated and enforced as if it were made as such under section 29 of the Fair Trading Act. This attaches an overarching regulatory framework, including enforcement and penalties that would mean the Commerce Commission could enforce the standard and that all the necessary enforcement provisions would apply. A breach of a product safety standard carries a maximum penalty of $200,000 for an individual or $600,000 for a corporate.

Secondly, clause 3 of the bill provides a definition of a “sunscreen product”. The definition in the bill as introduced focuses on the intended purpose of the sunscreen. Several submitters suggested that the focus should instead be on whether a product makes a claim about sun protection, irrespective of its intended purpose. Clause 3 is now amended to align with this approach. The new definition means that legislation is applied to sunscreens represented as being primarily to protect from ultraviolet radiation. It would also apply to skincare products labelled with an SPF greater than 15 and insect repellents labelled with an SPF of 4 or more.

Thirdly, the select committee reflected on what a sensible commencement date should be. Clause 2 provides that the legislation would commence on the date that it received Royal assent. Several submitters suggested that transition periods would be needed before the standard, and any future revisions, came into force, proposing time frames of 18 months and three years to allow time for existing stock and trade to sell. The select committee did accept it could be impractical for manufacturers and suppliers to comply with the requirements immediately, so we recommend that the legislation come into force six months after it is enacted. We recommend amending clause 2 to this effect.

The select committee also received advice on what a fair stock and trade provision might be, and we landed at a further 12 months beyond commencement. Frankly, this is very generous, and the arguments received from the sector over the implications on their current stock, should they be required to implement to the current standard immediately, remains, in my view, an indictment on how loose the sunscreen regulations have been to this point. As our report to this House outlines, we have very strong expectations that manufacturers move with pace to the 2012 standard, and begin immediately to assess the various business changes, especially around labelling and product descriptions that will be required to meet the 2021 standard.

The final technical issue with which the committee grappled is which standard the mandatory compliance should apply to: should it be the 2012 shared standard, as envisaged by the bill, or the 2021 standard, which was published in New Zealand after the bill was introduced. The select committee naturally assumed it would be the latter, and that is reflected in clause 5(2) in the bill as reported back. Post select committee deliberation, it was brought to my attention that despite the updated standard being published in New Zealand, the Therapeutic Goods Administration of Australia has not yet adopted the 2021 standard or agreed transitional time frames. It makes sense to ensure whatever approach we take to mandating the joint standard is aligned with Australia, so I will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper in the committee of the whole House stage to return the mandated standard back to 2012. In discussions with Minister David Clark and his officials, who have been very supportive throughout this process, it was agreed that this was a sensible outcome, but the sector should be already moving to change their business processes to ensure compliance with the 2021 standard. I think I can say with confidence that it is highly unlikely that either the current Government or a future one would be open to any transitional arrangements to the 2021 standard that were beyond what Australian manufacturers already have.

In conclusion, I am proud of this bill. It is a step forward to protect New Zealanders. It is no panacea, it is not a comprehensive regulatory solution, but it does put a stake in the ground. It looks our sunscreen manufacturers in the eye and says, “Forget the reasons why it is too hard to comply; comply. The 2012 standard is there for a reason: to protect New Zealander consumers. Meet it, meet it ASAP, and start preparing for the newer standard that’s around the corner.” This issue is not going away. The momentum created by this bill will ensure sunscreen efficacy and protection stays front of mind of this House, and I seek the support of the House to proceed.

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

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you so much for that. It’s as a member of the Health Committee that I rise happily in support of the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill at its second reading. I’d just like to acknowledge Mr Muller. It’s lovely to have you back in the House, Mr Muller. We have a few members here who have been away from us for some time and so there are many people here that it’s lovely to see back.

I’d like to also acknowledge and thank the chair of the Health Committee, Dr Liz Craig, for her excellent work, the Health Committee members themselves, obviously, all of the officials, and clerks of the committee. I think, as Mr Muller has alluded to before, this was not a long bill initially but it did present some challenges, which I will explore in a little bit more detail later and, hopefully, add to the words of my colleague across the floor. It was really lovely for the committee to all be on the same page. We were unanimous in our support for the bill, for its intention, and for the amendments. We were supporting this bill because we all really agreed on the basic principle that we should be able to rely on the accuracy of labelling of sunscreen products, particularly important for sunscreen, because the consequences, as we heard in the first reading, can be dire and can lead to, as we have heard, increased carcinoma, which can be fatal.

We’re aware that the Therapeutic Products Bill, which we will be introducing at the earliest possible opportunity, will be addressing the issues found in this bill and more. But we strongly felt that it was important to support this bill because it would provide immediate and a little bit more timely cover. But the Therapeutic Products Bill will address other issues such as accredited laboratories and how often testing should happen. But, in the meantime, we welcome this bill.

I’m personally convinced of the need to protect New Zealanders against inaccurate claims that, you know, a product will protect them from the adverse effects of the sun. As a child I lived in a place, the island of Jersey in the Channel Islands, that’s nearly as beautiful as New Zealand. Jersey in the 1970s, when I was very young, and the 1980s, was a tourist destination. It was famous not only for Jersey cows, which is where every single cow in New Zealand and everywhere in the world comes from, but for potatoes. The famous Jersey Benne potatoes originate from the Jersey Royal. We’re very proud of those but also of Bergerac. You’ll have seen in Bergerac, potentially—I think a lot of people in New Zealand have been fans—that Jersey is seen as an island in perpetual summer. Like most kids, I certainly remember that as the case. But it was a time of sunbathing. It was a time of sunbathing when people would actually intentionally go out into the sun, put olive oil on their skin, and try to get the deepest possible tan that they could. We would have a lot of tourists, as I said, because it was so beautiful. We’d get a lot of tourists from areas that are less sunny. Newcastle springs to mind immediately, not to disrespect Newcastle, it’s completely beautiful, but it’s not known for its lengthy hours of sunshine. The natives of Newcastle, Geordies, are often naturally pale as a result. When they visited our beautiful island and sort of sat in the sun for a while, they would find themselves often in the emergency department looking extremely red, a little bit like lobsters. I’m ashamed to say, at the time, we would often make fun as they sort of fluoresced down the High Street. But we didn’t know then, as we were chuckling, that these episodes of burning could lead them to have skin cancer in the future.

But, as I said, the legislation before us was a little bit more complex than we’d anticipated. As Mr Muller said earlier, as it was introduced, the bill required the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to recommend that mandatory regulations be set to provide a product safety standard under section 29 of the Fair Trading Act. In essence, the intention of this was to move the standard from voluntary to mandatory. But we received advice in the committee that the empowering provisions of the Fair Trading Act didn’t appear to allow a product safety standard to be made for the purpose of mandating this Australian - New Zealand standard for sunscreen. Now, we did have quite a lot of conversation on this topic, and I remember not all of us, necessarily, concurred with this particular view, but we did come to a conclusion. The advice that we received was, as I said, that section 29(1) was designed to prevent or minimise the risk of injury by addressing potential harm that was inherent in the product. The feeling was that the product itself wasn’t the thing that was going to cause the harm. It was really a little bit like dancing on the head of a pin sometimes. But we did come to a conclusion and provided some legal clarity with the recommendations that you see in the version in front of you, which is to recommend that compliance with the standard should be mandated in the primary legislation. So, accordingly, we recommended replacing clause 5. What this does is it, basically, removes the requirement on the Minister to make a regulation. Instead, it simply mandates in the primary Act that the standards apply as if they were product safety standards made through regulation.

What we also did in our discussions and working through this legislation was to provide a new definition of “sunscreen product”. We, basically, expanded it to be a little bit more expansive. So moved to a product that “contains, or is represented as containing, any component able to absorb, reflect, or scatter ultraviolet rays and that is intended to be on the surface of human skin with the purpose of protecting against reddening of the skin caused by ultraviolet radiation and other ultraviolet-induced damage;”, with a few other components to that definition. I remember in the first reading my colleague Naisi Chen speaking at length and extensively and with great knowledge about the particular products that weren’t included in the definition. She certainly enlightened many of us about the various different cosmetic products that might be seen to, or were expected to, provide some form of protection against the ultraviolet radiation that you would expect from a product with an SPF factor. So, hopefully, what we’ve done here is we’ve expanded the definition to a point where it does provide a little bit more coverage, pun completely not intended.

But, of course, it would probably be remiss of me to not add a little bit of a public service announcement whilst I was giving my speech here. Because it isn’t just about the Sun Protection Factor; you do need to make sure when you’re using sunscreen—you can’t get the healthcare provider out of me I’m afraid, and you never will. So I have to really share a little bit of information here. We need to be using our sunscreen liberally. Quite frankly, I don’t think I’ve been using enough the entire time I’ve been on this planet; six to seven teaspoons per application. I looked at derm—yes. Dr Webb is looking at me with alarm because I don’t think he’s been doing that either. There was some advice on DermNet New Zealand that said that you need to use it liberally, you need to use it early because it takes 20 to 30 minutes to absorb, and you need to reapply after half an hour, they said, so the mountains and valleys are protected. I’m not entirely certain what mountains and valleys they’re referring to, but, you know, I’ll take their advice to keep applying every two hours. So I think for a lot of New Zealanders that’ll be information that’s relatively new. It shouldn’t be. I mean, I think we’ve been sharing this information for long enough, but I think that the sheer quantity—I’m drifting slightly away from the bill, but the intention is to make sure that we’re providing really good and safe coverage for our communities and make sure that they do understand how these need to be used.

So, as we heard before, Sun Protection Factor is really part of the conversation that we’ve been having. A Sun Protection Factor of 30 will allow—oh, actually, I think I’ll go to 50 because it’s easier to do the maths. A Sun Protection Factor of 50 means that 98 percent of the ultraviolet rays are filtered through. So only 2 percent will get through. That’s really what we’re talking about here—making sure that if you have a label on a bottle that says you have that protection when you apply that product, as I’ve said, liberally to the mountains and valleys, that when you do that, you actually are going to get what it says on the tin, you’re going to have that protection, because we’ve seen that multiple brands have not been doing so. Multiple brands have been making claims for their Sun Protection Factor that haven’t been accurate. We really need to support this piece of legislation and to thank Mr Muller for bringing it to the House so that New Zealanders, as soon as is humanly possible, can be protected from the adverse effects of the sun. I commend this bill to the House.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): Look, it’s a real pleasure to take a very, very short call on the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill, second reading. I want to commend my good friend Mr Muller for his great work in bringing this to the House and, obviously, the outstanding work that’s taken place in the select committee that’s led to screaming bipartisanship, which is always a good thing. Obviously, getting these standards straight and sorted and aligned as they should be is really important. It’s important to me because I, along with Mr Muller, have a very good haircut, and I don’t know whether you noticed but it is catching on across New Zealand—this bullet-shaped look that we have. Each summer, Mr Muller and I go through a process of lathering ourselves up with great sunscreen to protect this bald dome, and each summer we get burnt. I can tell you as someone you know who really uses sunscreen quite a lot, because there’s obviously a lot more skin coverage to cover off when you look like this, it’s a very fantastic thing. So I just want to say that when we have got one of the highest rates of skin cancer, we’ve got one of the highest rates of melanomas in the world, and our skin cancer rates are at an all-time high. This bill is doing the right thing for New Zealanders. It’s doing the right thing for Mr Muller and myself too. Thanks so much. We commend it to the House.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s with real pleasure that I rise in support of this bill in the name of Todd Muller, the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill. Mr Muller, I just want to commend you for bringing this piece of legislation to the House. It is a hugely important piece of legislation and, actually, one that I can’t believe has never been brought to this House before.

I’m not and have not been a member of the select committee that heard the submissions and things for this piece of legislation, but I can imagine it would have been a really interesting process, and I was quite surprised when I was doing some reading about this piece of legislation and with various conversations I’ve had and heard about this that it wasn’t as straightforward as one thought it might be. I did find that quite surprising and quite interesting. I had just assumed that you could say in this piece of legislation that the sunscreen product had to do what it said it did and that that would be the end of it. However, it was with interest that I read some of the issues that did arise. So thank you, Mr Muller, for bringing this to the House.

I’d also like to acknowledge the select committee that have worked on this and Dr Liz Craig, who is the chair of the Health Committee. It’s important also never to forget to acknowledge and thank those that submitted. I think there were 36 submissions on this piece of legislation, and all were wholeheartedly in favour. There was absolutely no one against it. There was some discussion around things that they didn’t necessarily agree on completely, but they wholeheartedly supported this piece of legislation.

When I think about growing up as a young child here in New Zealand, sunscreen was not something that was really—well, back in my day—hugely popular or even used. My memory as a child of sun protection was zinc—zinc across the cheeks and across the nose—and it’s interesting how certain items and smells you associate with summer and things like that. So it was zinc for me, as a child, and then, as I got older, it was the baby oil and the coconut oil that came out—sitting on the school seat at lunchtime, and roasting ourselves in it. I am quite a fair-skinned person, so you can just imagine how that turned out. I never turned out this beautiful golden-brown tanned colour that I had anticipated. I always went red and peeled, however.

The members of the select committee heard in a submission from the Cancer Society that there are approximately 90,000 new cases of melanoma in New Zealand each year and around 500 people die from melanoma each year, and, sadly, my stepmother was one of those 500 who passed away just three months ago from cancer, initially from a melanoma. So it’s very, very important that we encourage people to use sunscreen and that the sunscreen does what it says it will do.

Now, we heard that there was some conversation within the select committee about—and forgive me, Mr Speaker, but I am going to go to my information here, because it’s quite technical, and members have mentioned it before. As the bill was introduced, it did require the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to recommend that mandatory regulations be set to prescribe a product safety standard for sunscreen products, and we did hear that that would, in essence, have the effect of making this mandatory. In Australia, it is mandatory that the standard is met, but here it’s voluntary, which I find extremely surprising. But I understand that that was a little bit tricky in so far as within that particular Act it was more around things such as, for example, minimising risk to children from the types of pyjamas that they wear and what might happen should they be near heat or melt, and what might happen to that child’s skin as a result of that. It’s something that’s inherent and part of that product, whereas sunscreen doesn’t necessarily have something in it that causes harm to the person directly; it’s the sun rays that do that. So that was a little bit tricky, but there have been some changes made that accommodate that and make sure that it sits where it needs to sit.

There was also some conversation, I understand, around the definition of sunscreen, and that’s not something I would have ever anticipated would be a huge topic of conversation within this legislation, because I just assumed sunscreen is sunscreen is sunscreen—right? So there have been some changes made within that so that it’s defined as being something that is primarily to protect you from the ultraviolet rays of the sun, which is interesting, I thought, because I had assumed that that’s what sunscreen was, anyway.

Then we heard Mr Muller talk before about the fact that if this bill came into force on the day after enactment, there was some concern around those retailers who perhaps had stock on their shelves and what have you, and things like that. So the committee did come to some form of an agreement there whereby they would allow up to 18 months for retailers to be able to move the stock that they currently had. I also agree with Mr Muller that that is actually quite generous. I think that this is something that we actually do need to ensure is acted on as quickly as possible. However, that is the agreement that the committee came to and it is what they have added into this piece of legislation.

As Mr Muller said, he’s very proud to bring this piece of legislation to the House, and, actually, rightly so. It’s put a stake in the ground, which is something that he also said, and it’s quite apt that this has come before us prior to the summer months, which will remind us of how important it is to use sunscreen. Unfortunately, it’s not going to be ready for us this summer. However, in a couple of summers’ time, it will be all good to go.

One of the things I did want to also talk about was the fact that—with the note that I made when Mr Muller was talking—he acknowledged that this is probably an interim measure at this point. But it does get us through to the point where we can introduce the piece of legislation that the various members have talked about—the Therapeutic Products Bill—which I acknowledge Mr Muller has not mentioned. They did not bring it to the House and it has not come to the House yet, but I can assure that member that it is absolutely, definitely coming.

One of the other things that I wanted to talk about just briefly—as I come back to find my appropriate piece of paper, where I’ve made some notes—is that we need to have absolute faith when we purchase a sunscreen, whether it’s SPF50 or SPF30, that it does exactly what it says it will do. When I think that here in New Zealand, we have some of the worst cases of melanoma and the harshest sun—harsher than in other places around the world—it’s something that has been long overdue. I really acknowledge Mr Muller, again, for bringing this piece of legislation to the House, and I absolutely, wholeheartedly commend this bill to the House.

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

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

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House is resumed. Members, when the House lifted for the dinner break we were on the second reading of the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill. Call No. 5 is one to be taken by the Green Party, and I call Dr Elizabeth Kerekere.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora. E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. As a member of the Health Committee who worked on this, I rise in support of the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill. It aims to improve the accuracy of claims about the SPF properties of sunscreen products. We received multiple submissions on this and they were overwhelmingly in favour of the bill; not one opposed the bill, which is the first time I’ve seen that in my very short time here.

Definitions are important and this bill provides one because what we had was pretty loose. The focus is on the intended purpose of that sunscreen, rather than what someone claims it is meant to do, particularly theoretical claims to prevent sun damage. Whether it’s a moisturising cream, an oil, a gel, or a spray, the manufacturer will need to now back that up.

As recommended by the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the bill directs mandatory regulation under the Fair Trading Act 1986 to prescribe a safety standard in line with the Australia - New Zealand 2021 sunscreen standard. This would replace the existing 2012 one, which is already mandatory in Australia but voluntary here. We note, however, that the Australian regulatory agency has not yet adopted the 2021 standard. That means that sunscreens have not been tested to it so it makes it a little bit unworkable at the moment. So we support the member’s Supplementary Order Paper, which will come up to change the language so sunscreens are required to comply with the 2012 standard or later standards as adopted by the Australian authorities—meaning as soon as they do adopt it, which we expect they will, New Zealand sunscreens will be required to comply with it.

As I mentioned during the first reading, we know that Aotearoa has the highest incidence of melanomas in the world. Although Māori and Pasifika are much less likely than everyone else to get it, when we do we have a higher risk of thick and more advanced melanoma with a poorer prognosis; whereas for non-Māori, it’s predominantly men who get melanomas; for Māori, it is predominantly women, and we look forward to better data and statistics of takatāpui, trans, non-binary, and intersex whānau so we actually have a really clear picture across all genders in this country.

This member’s bill is in the name of Todd Muller, with whom I share personal experience of skin cancer—not with, but we both do—partly because of products which misled us as to their efficacy. This simple bill will reduce skin cancer and it will save lives and, on that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this call on the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill. As we’ve heard already tonight, we know that there is a problem in New Zealand with the standards for sunscreen being voluntary, as opposed to our friends across the Ditch, where it’s compulsory.

We also have heard a little bit in this House, in fact just with the previous speaker, Dr Elizabeth Kerekere, about the consequence of sunburn or sun damage. We’ve heard from my colleague Jo Luxton earlier that not using sunblock perhaps made her go very red as a teenager. We’ve heard stories in this House tonight from the similarly named Christopher Luxon about also similar problems of being burnt. That, of course, is not nice—to get burnt—we all know that. But, in fact, New Zealand is the melanoma capital of the world. There are over 3,000 cases per annum and over 300 deaths per annum. It’s a huge amount of people. Melanoma can affect the young as well, and it can start off as some very, very small melanoma that can then result in death. I’ve had a friend—well, my friend’s brother—who, as a young man with two young children, died very quickly of this horrible disease. Then, of course, there are many other skin cancers that are not melanoma. There are estimated—because there’s so many, there’s estimates only—to be between 70,000 and 90,000 people per annum treated for these other skin cancers. This is an enormous cost to both the health system and to those 70,000 to 90,000 people.

We’ve heard a lot of people here talking about their relations. My grandmother had a basal cell carcinoma, and that resulted in a lot of radiation treatment for her, which would have been an enormous cost and burden on the health system. It was a cost for her because she did bring many boxes of chocolates to the people treating her. And, more seriously, it took a real toll on her health.

It’s also very relevant to me, because I think I may be speaking on this bill because I am the whitest person in the House, or close to it.

Hon Member: Oh, I don’t know about that.

RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, there’s some competition—I don’t dye my hair!—for that title. So, obviously, I burn very quickly, but I do—and I have to say this; and I’m nervous, actually, speaking on this bill, because my husband is an oncologist and he does specialise in skin cancer, melanomas in particular, and I know that he will be watching this. And he frequently tells me off for not applying the correct amount of sunscreen that we heard about from Sarah Pallett before—it was six or so teaspoons, and you’ve got to lather it on and in fact that you need to, if you’re my skin type, wear it, really, all the time. And so, of course, I do. I wear not only the sunblock that is provided in our household from my husband, which is the good Cancer Society brand, all around the house—whenever you’re near a door, there’s a jar of the stuff—but I also use it in my cosmetic products to make sure that I’ve got some on my face every day, and I really don’t know what the testing of that is, so this bill would be very helpful for me.

Now, it’s an interesting mechanism that this bill uses. I haven’t had the privilege of being on the Health Committee, but I’ve been looking at the bill, and it’s a very short bill. What it is, is it’s an interim solution, as we’ve heard. We’re really waiting for this Therapeutic Products Bill, but, in the meantime, what this very simple bill does is it uses a deeming provision to make a standard under the Fair Trading Act. It’s useful to have a look at that Fair Trading Act, because while it doesn’t insert a provision into the Fair Trading Act, it says that there is to be a product safety standard as if it was made under section 29 of the Fair Trading Act. The purpose of the Fair Trading Act, in section 1A, “is to contribute to a trading environment in which the interests of consumers are protected;”, some other things, and “(2) To this end, the Act— … (c) provides for the disclosure of consumer information relating to the supply of goods and services; and (d) promotes safety in respect of goods and services.” So I can see why Todd Muller chose this Act as a vehicle to do what he’s trying to do, and that we all agree in the House today to make that voluntary standard a mandatory one.

Section 29 of the Fair Trading Act is the one in Part 3, and it’s around product safety. That is what Part 3 of the Act is, “Product safety”, and section 29 tells us about those product safety standards. That enables the Governor-General, “from time to time, on the recommendation of the Minister”, to “make regulations in respect of goods of any description”, including “prescribing for the purpose of preventing or reducing the risk of injury to … the following matters—”, including “(a) the performance, composition, contents, manufacture, processing, design, construction, finish or packaging of the goods; (b) the testing of the goods during or after manufacture or processing:” and “(c) the form and content of markings, warnings, or instructions to accompany the goods.” Now, we’ve heard, and it’s set out in the report from the Health Committee, that there was advice that, perhaps, the wording of that section didn’t include products that are trying to prevent harm. It’s not the product itself that will cause the harm; it’s what happens if the product doesn’t work. It’s an interesting interpretation of section 29. So this is why there’s gone ahead and been this deeming provision, to make sure that it’s very clear that, in fact, we can have a product safety standard for sunscreen.

There are six product standards currently. They are for pedal bikes, baby walkers, children’s nightwear, children’s toys, household cots, and cigarette lighters. And now we’ll have this one. There are also a lot of standards, New Zealand—NZ—standards. I’m very lucky to be a member of the Regulations Review Committee. We were just meeting this evening, and the Regulations Review Committee wrote to the Health Committee and said, “We are a little bit concerned that this standard is referenced as something that you can’t see in the law.” It’s referred to, but we can’t see it. You’ve got to go into the Standards New Zealand (NZS) website and download it, for a fee.” So the Health Committee thought about this and said, “Well, the fee for getting the PDF of the standard is only $107, and the people that will be most interested in this standard are those people who are developing these products, so they’ll be interested enough to pay that $107.” And that’s a fair argument. I think it’s interesting to look at the website, and it does give you a little précis of all the different standards, which you don’t have to pay for. So that gives you an idea of what’s in there. I didn’t pay the $107, so I just looked at that, and I could see the index and it looks like quite a complicated way that you go about testing in a lab to determine the SPF.

But it’s also useful to note that NZS has a lot of standards for a lot of different things that won’t always be found in regulation. This includes helmets for bikes; how you go about EV-charging stations, electric vehicle - charging stations; procedures for determining wind speed for structural design; methods for sampling road aggregate—I can see that the House is very excited about these—and specification for protective legwear for chainsaw users. That one was interesting. And another one: specification for preservative treatment of glued laminated timber products. So there’s a lot of different standards there that people can have a peruse on the website and see what they might be about. What I was able to gleam about this Australia - New Zealand standard is that it really doesn’t like the term “waterproof”—it says it’s misleading, as is “sweat-proof”—and it really refers to primary and secondary sunscreen products, is how it works. I think it’ll be an interesting standard to look at in more detail, and we don’t have time for that now, so I commend this bill to the House.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you very much for the opportunity to rise and speak to the bill tonight. Like anything in life, it’s about balance, and I wouldn’t like the children or parents of New Zealand to not embrace sunlight. It has a very positive effect on cell synthesisation and, for older people, osteoporosis, heart health, brain health, and we don’t want to end up just being vampires sitting on our phones for the rest of our lives. So getting out in the sun is a good thing. It’s how we manage it, is one of the arguments.

Even though skin cancer is largely preventable, there are 500 deaths from it each year in New Zealand and about 90,000 cases are diagnosed. It’s fair to say that this is long overdue, bringing the standards together with the Australians. My team knocked up a graphic, Mr Nash, about how we should apply our sun cream this summer. But, you know, New Zealand does have the highest incidence of melanoma and one of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world, and when we’re open again and running and people are at the beaches, there’s a duality in this product which is that it’s not just a case of putting it on; it’s a case of how you use it as well, and I think, over the years, we’ve all suffered from lack of use, but I’m very pleased to see that there’s a great technical explanation from yourself on what is trying to be achieved and what has been brought together.

But one of the things about getting burnt is that it starts very early on with a decision about whether you are going to put it on or not. One of the worrying trends—my daughter has a melanoma that’s been cut out and was very serious—that’s emerging is that young people are starting to ignore sun cream and wearing various other products just to aesthetically please themselves, and we need to get some education around that.

One of the really important issues around the sunscreen bill is expiry dates, because the product is very much a degradation product and it needs to be used in a way that the date’s respected. Even if you’ve got loads of bottles lying around the house, it doesn’t actually provide the cover, because the expiry date is so small on that. We do ultimately believe that it should be regulated under the therapeutic products regime. But it’s a great start to get this bill proposed and up and running.

One of the exciting things about quality control and consumer confidence is that we can finally look people in the eye and say that we’ve done this job, and that the product performs as it says it will. But, you know, the Australians have been ahead of us for a long, long time in sunscreen and spray-on sunscreens and especially water sports sunscreens, and more and more the kids are on the water doing stuff that has a different reflectivity issue around UVA and UVB. So when we sell it, it’s got to actually say what it does on the cover.

One of the things that one of the Labour Party members touched on about the health system was the rise of the Skin Institute and the mole map. It’s not something that those doctors want to see; it’s just naturally occurring. Other type tumours are becoming more and more common in people under 16, which is really unfortunate, and you’ve got to catch this really early or there is a big problem. Men working on the roads, working in construction, are another major growth area, and they actually need to look at their health and safety practices around making sure that those people are protected from excessive sunburn.

So, in terms of the law itself, we’re very comfortable with where it’s going, Mr Muller, and we’d like to support this. It’s a worthy policy, but on the basis that there’s a huge education campaign, once we relaunch, to say there’s a new standard, there’s a new way of using this product, and harnessing the medical system to really help that. In fact, every kid should walk around with this in their pocket, and more and more on the sports fields and the swimming pools, we should actually embrace that change.

So, just to conclude, we actually think the bill, and I think I touched on this in the last reading, needed the Minister to regulate and now it’s got a formal structure around it—we thought originally a letter to the Minister was the way to go, but now we’re actually more happy with the structure that’s being proposed. Thank you for bringing it to the House. We will support it.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take that mask off, my goodness, I was baking under there.

Hon Member: Got your sunscreen on?

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Ha, ha! I have got my sunscreen on. It’s a real pleasure to take a call on this bill. To the member Todd Muller, I want to acknowledge you for bringing what was a very small piece of legislation but very important legislation to this House. I want to acknowledge you for that. You and I both come from the sunny Bay of Plenty; you and I have both had outdoor lives. Most of the time, we’ve spent a good part of our lives out in the sunshine getting sunburnt and/or slightly pink, perhaps.

So I was absolutely gobsmacked that this bill was needed, because I thought what was happening was that when we read something on the label, a SPF told us what we could do and how we would be protected and that it would work, and then I discovered that this piece of legislation was needed, Mr Muller, because, actually, that wasn’t the case at all.

So I really want to acknowledge you for this sensible, good piece of legislation that you’ve brought to this House. I want to acknowledge everyone in the House for their support of this bill, because I think we all agree that it is an important issue. I also want to acknowledge you, Todd Muller, for the collegial work that you undertook on the select committee to problem solve. Even though I am not a member of that select committee, I understand that you worked absolutely collaboratively, as you are known to do in this House, with the team to get the best piece of legislation.

We all know that skin cancer in this country is a difficult issue. We all know that melanoma is the third most common cancer in New Zealand. And 80 percent of all cancer deaths in this country come from melanoma. We have 4,000 people diagnosed annually with this type of cancer. We also have 82,000 people a year with skin concerns that come up. So this is something across everyone’s understanding.

I think about my uncle who passed away from melanoma at the—what I believed at the time was this quite senior age. He was actually 52, and I’m 50. He was 52, and I thought at the time that that was incredibly—incredibly—aged, really. He had spent his entire life working on the West Coast of the South Island. A good workman, he, basically, worked on the roads. He was a roading engineer.

Hon Member: Who is this?

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: This is my uncle Trevor Harm. He was out in the sun every day of his life, doing good work. Passed away. Melanoma behind his ear. So wasn’t easy to spot or pick up, and as a consequence we lost him to melanoma.

So one of the things that happened back then, of course, is that we were, as Kiwis—I mean, I certainly was the same. We’d put on our Tropicana 2 and we would bake, baste—I think we basically did—at the beach. I surfed. I was in the water all the time. So I now suffer, as does the member and a number of people here, from the requirement to have bits of me cut out on a regular basis. So I go to the Skinspots Clinic in Tauranga and have numbers of things cut out of me—in fact, I’ve forgotten how many. So, yeah, we have a good business. There’s a huge expense in the fact that we as a nation haven’t “slipped, slopped, slapped, and wrapped” very well, and we are now paying for that.

So now that we know this knowledge, we know that we should be doing all of these things to protect us, we want to know that the bottle that says SPF 50 is actually going to protect us. We want to know that the standard that we think we’ve purchased to protect ourselves—and heaven forbid our small children who are now facing lots more burning incidents because of the nature of our sun in the country—is going to work. So this piece of legislation actually sets up a system to ensure that, actually, it’s going to do what it says it does on the bottle. It’s as simple as that, and I love that about this piece of legislation.

What I understand, having not been on this select committee, is that there were 36 submissions, seven oral. Everyone was in support, as I understand, and there was some really interesting pieces of work. Now, I’ve learnt a little bit today. The member Rachel Brooking has talked to us about the detail of that standard. I’ve also discovered that six to seven teaspoons of sunblock is the standard. But if we put six or seven teaspoons of sunblock that doesn’t work on our skin, it doesn’t matter. So it’s been somewhat interesting tonight; I have really enjoyed myself.

Now, one of the parts of this bill that I think is really interesting is that the bill originally sought to change a regulation. Looking at that regulation, because of the difficulty with that actually not applying, this piece of legislation now seeks to change a primary piece of legislation. Well done. Well done to this House for coming up with a solution to something that wasn’t going to work. I think in order for this to happen, it, essentially, changes something quite fundamental to enable this support. The member Rachel Brooking talked about the fact that we only had six of these standards, and now this is the seventh. That’s interesting, I think. Why don’t we have more? Why don’t we have more? I’m not sure.

OK, so the other thing that I think is particularly interesting about this legislation is around the compliance and commencement of this bill. So people have talked in the House about this. We’re still expecting manufacturers to comply as soon as possible with this, but the bill, when it comes into law, has a six-month period before it actually applies. That gives manufacturers the opportunity to change labelling. To support the industry to change their labelling etc., there will be 18 months in total before all of the old stock has been moved out and the new stock is in place. So there will be a transition period, which is useful, but I do agree, as other members have raised, that this is something that well, we’re probably—it has to happen but it’s going to be a little bit awkward in terms of how we look at what we’re purchasing.

So what I recommend to people is to go to the Consumer New Zealand report, and see what were the sunscreens that didn’t fail in the consumer report, and actually be able to pick and select those ones at this time. Essentially, five out of the 10 failed to work as they said on the label. So have a look at that. I’m not going to name them or shame them, but do have a look at that.

I guess, really, what I’m saying, even though I didn’t sit on this bill, is that I really think it was a good piece of legislation—a small bill, a bill that has real meaning for most of us in this country, a bill which has been made better by the select committee process. I really want to acknowledge you, Todd Muller, for this piece of work and the work from the officials and the members on that select committee. I commend it to the House.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well, I must say I’m very pleased to be here to speak on the sunscreen bill. I’d like to make a special mention to Todd Muller for an absolutely superb and pragmatic bill. As a member of the Health Committee, it was an absolute pleasure to go through this legislation. My ancestors come from Scotland, so I have a skin complexion that acts like a magnet to the sun. I must say, this legislation is going to pay benefits to me and also to my tamariki at home as well. So I commend this bill to the House.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I felt that I should take a call on this bill. Like many other members of the House, I feel very qualified to speak on this matter. In fact, when I came into the House today and I acknowledged Mr Todd Muller—as I often do, he’s a top bloke, a genuinely top bloke. As I float about the corridors here at Parliament, he’s always one that stops and says g’day, and I appreciate that. We’re always catching up and having a yarn, as we did today when I came into the House. I said to him, “Big day.” And he said, “Yes, you’ll be supporting this as a fellow ginger.” And those watching on TV may not see with the shade and all that sort of stuff, but, yes, in fact, there is a tinge of ginge in this beard. And that comes with peril. Both sides of my family are very staunch and proud to be Irish, but we’re not used to the sun. And growing up in New Zealand, even at my age, at the young age of 37, we took a very relaxed—very relaxed—approach to looking after ourselves in the sun. And there are some horror stories: playing cricket with my mates at the beach and then coming away with shoulders that resembled bubble wrap. They still talk about it—big pus-y blisters all over my shoulders.

Hon Member: Too much information, mate.

KIERAN McANULTY: Well, too much information, but sometimes you’ve just got to face the truth, you know, that the sun is dangerous, and it’s not something to be trifled with.

Now, we’ve subsequently grown up with education campaigns about slip, slop, slap, and now wrap, and that has drilled it into us at a young age as New Zealanders that we need to be careful in the sun. But when we apply sunscreen as part of those campaigns, you assume that it would be working. One would assume that what it says on the label is what is in the bottle. We carry on through life and we just assume that there are rules in place to make sure that that’s the case. But what Mr Todd Muller has done is alerted this House and the nation that when it comes to sunscreen that has the potential to not be the case. So it makes sense to me that we would vote for this bill.

I think it’s great to be able to highlight to the people in New Zealand once again that there are examples of members of this House, regardless of what political party they’re in, working together. They are using the select committee to improve legislation. Indeed, that’s the point of it, isn’t it, that process? And we’ve all got groups, I’m sure, in our electorates that ask us to come along to speak as their representatives. They ask us to come along as politicians, but they ask us not to talk about politics. They don’t want us to be political, and I respect that. I’d prefer that actually, no one wants to come along to a finger-wagging competition, do they? They just want to come and hear from their representatives. And it’s examples like this that I always highlight, because they love to hear it. Because if they look on the news, they often see that side say something and this side say something, and they’re none the wiser as to what the story was. But here we are, another example.

So I do support this bill. It makes absolute sense. How could we possibly carry on with a situation where something that, through years of education, we are encouraging people to use could potentially not actually be providing the protection that it says? And I’m starting to wonder, as someone that religiously uses sunscreen—

Hon Stuart Nash: What, you use it every Christmas?

KIERAN McANULTY: I mean, talking about revealing ourselves in the sun, Stuart Nash, I wouldn’t be heckling right now. The only person that strips off when he goes and gets a vaccine—unbelievable. So I imagine that that member here—you don’t actually often get an opportunity to retort your own members very often, so I’m going to use it. This, I imagine, would have the full support of Stuart Nash. Especially over summer, when he’s floating around on his paddleboard, he’ll be lathering up knowing that they are now safe and it says what it is. As he’s doing that, he can think of Todd Muller and he can thank Todd Muller for bringing this to the House, making us aware of this, and putting this bill in front of us.

I do want to quickly, with the time that I’ve got left, commend the work of the select committee for working together, but also the officials. The officials are often overlooked, and I know that they put a lot of work into coming up with recommendations to try and assist members to allow the bill to reach the intent that was outlined when the member put it into the ballot. There are many members that have gone through their entire careers and haven’t had one pulled. I understand that Mr Muller has had two. The first one fell down for technicalities, so I’m very pleased for you that this one appears to be going through. Congratulations.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill. I didn’t get a chance to speak on this bill in the first reading; so can I just take this chance to also add my appreciation and thanks to Todd Muller for not only bringing this bill to the House but also, in his first reading statement, sharing his personal story of the struggle with sunburn, melanoma, and skin cancer from 1988. Now, that was a story from a long time ago, 33 years, but it is relevant today as well. Like my colleague Kieran McAnulty said, thank you for alerting this House and also alerting the nation about this important issue. I also want to thank the members of the Health Committee and the chair, Dr Liz Craig, for the excellent work that they have done, and also thanks go to the officials as well.

The Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill aims to improve the accuracy of claims about the sun protection factor—SPF—for the purchase of sunscreen products. Unlike Australia, there is no mandatory standard for sunscreens here in New Zealand, despite the fact that many New Zealanders die every year from skin cancer resulting from their exposure to the sun’s UVA and UVB rays. The New Zealand sunscreen manufacturers must be held to a consistently high standard of manufacture and accountability.

This bill has been through the Health Committee and it went through all their scrutiny. My colleagues from the committee have touched on what really happened in the committee, so I’m not going to go into that, but I just want to reiterate my appreciation about the good work that they have done—but, most importantly, the 36 submitters who patiently submitted on this bill, and the vast majority of them being in support. I read most of the submissions—equally all of them were written with patience—but one submission that really struck me was from Melanoma New Zealand: “Skin cancer is by far the most common cancer affecting New Zealanders. New Zealand also has the highest rates of melanoma skin cancer in the world. It has been estimated that the different types of skin cancer together account for just over 80% of all new cancers diagnosed each year. Around 90% of melanoma skin cancers are preventable by reducing exposure to UVR that causes harm.” This highlighted the importance of supporting this bill and this House coming together to implement a regulatory scheme for sunscreen products in New Zealand.

Reading through the submissions, I have also reflected on how much I know about sunscreen. And the truth is that many people from my background that emigrate to New Zealand know very little about it, because, naturally, we have the protection in our ozone from sunburn. I know that in Eritrea, for example, we barely have ever heard of sunscreen. It’s just normal. But, coming to New Zealand, the first thing that I noticed was how burning the sun is. The first thing when I was interviewed by Immigration New Zealand, I didn’t know where New Zealand was. After I came here, I didn’t know how burning it was, because I thought I was coming to a cold country. But the lack of awareness—that’s really dangerous. Because the narrative is that sunburn doesn’t affect dark people, like myself. I, over and over, joked and made fun of my Pākehā friends, telling them that this is a black privilege; so don’t be jealous! And that is stupid, because the reality is that lack of awareness of how dangerous and prevalent melanoma skin cancer is is a large reason why skin cancers are deadlier in people with dark skin, like myself. There are many myths that dark skin does not need sunscreen, and that’s, obviously, not true. Today, after I found out that I was going to speak on this bill, I’ve been digging and I’ve been reading some stories, not just from New Zealand but from all over the world. Dark people can be affected just like other people. We are not socialised to check moles and wear sunscreen and actively prevent exposure, resulting in a relaxed attitude of sun smart behaviour.

The social aspect could be that the lack of regulation around the accuracy of claims about the sun protection factor, SPF, for purchase of sunscreen products needs to be tackled. The barriers need to be knocked down, and supporting this bill is a step forward, ensuring the safety of all New Zealanders. We are, however, working on a new and comprehensive regulatory regime to regulate therapeutic products in New Zealand, because that is important. This bill addresses some of the issues that exist, but it doesn’t resolve the whole issue, so having the comprehensive approach and regulations is the way to go. That is going to replace the Medicines Act 1981 and its regulations. The introduction of the Therapeutic Products Bill to the House currently is planned for perhaps about the end of the year. I’ll mention that we are supporting this bill as an interim measure until the more complete scheme established by the Therapeutic Products Bill is in place, and it does not have long to go.

Tonight, what I have seen in the House is members discussing this bill in the spirit that we come together when it comes to things that affect regular New Zealanders’ lives, and tonight was a good example. It’s heart-warming to see the whole House—whole political parties, actually—standing together in support of Todd Muller’s bill, because this is not about politics; this is about the health of New Zealanders. Now, we have heard emotional stories from our colleagues Jo Luxton and also Angie Warren-Clark, and this issue affects people. It’s an everyday issue; it affects people no matter who you are: you can be rich, you can be poor, you can be middle class, you can be white or brown, or now you can even be dark. It does affect everyone; so it’s good to see that the House is taking the issue very, very seriously. And I would go back to again commend the select committee and the hard-working chair, Dr Liz Craig, for the excellent work that they have done—

Chris Bishop: You’ve said that four times already. Let’s move on and get on to some substantive bills.

IBRAHIM OMER: Well, it’s an excellent bill, but there were issues, and they addressed those issues along the way, and they sent the House an excellent report, and they should be commended; they should be applauded for the good work that they have done—and the officials also. I am on the Education and Workforce Committee and I see every day, every week the good work that they do. They should be commended for the work that they do as well. And, without them, the reality is that we wouldn’t be able to do what we do every day. So tonight is another good example that, when it comes to issues that affect the regular New Zealanders, we come together, and that’s what we should do; we should be coming together on the issues of low-paid workers—today, for example, the living wage. The Government has made an announcement about the living wage, and when it comes to regular New Zealanders that work hard, we should be coming together and addressing the issues. With that, it gives me an immense pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

Glen Bennett: Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Chris Bishop.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Yeah, wait your turn! This is a sensible piece of legislation. I want to echo what my colleague and friend Todd Muller said, which is: how can it be in 2021 that sunscreen manufacturers in New Zealand don’t have to meet the sunscreen standard of Australia? It’s a very simple piece of legislation to remedy this issue. I also want to echo what he said in relation to the therapeutic products regime. Successive Governments have said that they would do something about it and, in fairness, the last Government did that I was a backbencher in—and we said that too—and it didn’t happen. And here we are four years into the term of this Government, and I’m sure they’ll go through to the six-year term and I’d be willing to put money on the fact that after the end of the six-year term—

Hon Stuart Nash: Or maybe even 12 years.

CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, Stuart Nash, here he is, the big guy, the big man, the master of big talk, the guy who said he’d do 1,800 cops when he was police Minister and delivered 1,100 only. The master of big talk says in response to me at quarter to eight on a members’ Wednesday, “No, no, we are going to do the therapeutic product regime.” Well, we’ll see. We’ll see what happens in two years’ time, whether or not that piece of legislation is through. But the point is it hasn’t come but we do need an interim solution in the short term and, frankly, this should have happened before now.

This is a very sensible piece of legislation. The Health Committee has considered it. I know they got advice from the Regulations Review Committee. I was sitting in the car and I was listening to the long discourse from Rachel Brooking, who’s a very learned contributor to the Parliament, particularly on the Regulations Review Committee, but I think it would be fair to say there was a degree of detail in that speech that was not particularly necessary for the advancement of this bill. It’s a sensible piece of legislation. Let’s get through the second reading and on to some more substantive matters. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to take a call—the final call on this, the third reading of the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Bill. I want to begin by saying a big thankyou to Todd Muller for your work, for bringing this to the House, and for being pragmatic, for engaging, for leaning in, for coming across the floor and working with our team to get this piece of legislation across the line.

Now, I was quite surprised, actually, when I spoke on the first reading of this. In my mind, I had just assumed when I went to the supermarket or if I went to the chemist or The Warehouse—what would generally happen in the middle of summer is I would rush because, of course, we never had bottles of sunscreen left underneath the cabinet in the bathroom. You’d rush in, you’d just look for the sunscreen that was on special. You’d purchase that sunscreen. You’d rush to the beach. You’d slather, slap it on, do whatever you do. But again, tonight, this afternoon I’ve been learning a lot—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Would the members on my left please observe social distancing in the Chamber. Apologies to the member Glen Bennett.

GLEN BENNETT: Madam Speaker, thank you. They’re obviously talking about their summer holidays and what they might be doing, what sort of sunscreen they might be using.

But, again, we just had, I felt, some unhelpful words from across the floor, but Rachel Brooking, she says it as she sees it, and she talks about things I could never talk about or understand. I’m happy for her to be our person who knows the numbers, the science, and how it all works, and the fact that I don’t actually need to be that person. But, again, thank you, Mr Muller, for your work in bringing this through. Yep, we’ve got work to do. Yep, we are working around this space. And, yep, let’s just work together right now, because we want to ensure that people are kept safe, that people are well.

Now, I have a friend who lives in the United Kingdom. He visited me about four years ago. A classic Englishman—white, white, white. You know, he was as white as could be. He turned up in our beautiful part of the world—never been here before—and I said, “Dave, you probably should, you know, throw some sunscreen on, a hat, a T-shirt, some glasses—all that sort of thing.”

Hon Member: Come on, Dave.

GLEN BENNETT: “Come on, Dave.”—exactly—I said. He said, “Nah. We’re only going to be out in the sun for half an hour. We’re just popping down to the park to do this.” And I was like, “Come on, Dave. Trust me. Trust me.” Again, we got back that night, he was pink as a beetroot—even though they’re not pink. The next day there was scabbing, dare I say, there were blisters. Again, it was that challenge of coming from the Northern Hemisphere, from a place where the sun is quite different to where it is here. He was in shock, literally. We had to go to the chemist and get all the right products to fix him up and all that type of thing. He learnt his lesson very quickly. He never went outside again without any kind of covering on, that summer.

But it is interesting that our ozone layer, obviously, has been very different here for a very long time. It was the, I think, early to mid-1980s when scientists first discovered that hole in our ozone layer over Antarctica and the challenges that brought for us here in the Southern Hemisphere, the challenges it’s brought for Australia and for us here in New Zealand; the challenge that our sun is harsh—our sun is harsh. And Dave found the harshness of the sun. He found the beauty of the people, but the harshness of our sun. It was great. Well, it wasn’t great for him.

But I also want to acknowledge we’ve had two previous speakers speak around our wonderful Hon Stuart Nash, who is with us this evening. I’m just really proud of the fact that he’s introduced this amazingly sexy piece of support this week around the Events Transition Support Scheme—could have been kind of cooler, but, hey, it’s going to be a really cool summer when it comes to those music festivals. I’m sure that the Minister will attend all of them. I’m pretty sure he will keep his shirt on for some of them, and if he doesn’t, he’ll ensure he wears the right sunscreen. But the challenge the Minister has is that at the moment, it’s not regulated. So you might go and you might buy your Banana Boat or your—you’re not going to know. What is it—SPF 50? I mean, back in the early 1990s, if you had anything more than an SPF 4 you were seen as a real geek, you know? “Why have you got an 8 or a 12 or a 16?” But nowadays, SPF 50 is the way to go. So Minister, I suggest that you make sure you get some SPF 50 when you’re at those festivals.

Hon Stuart Nash: Will you rub it on my back for me?

GLEN BENNETT: I’ll happily rub it on—happily. So this piece of legislation is important. As we’ve heard from many people this evening, Australia has some things in place and we need to get up with the game, because when I go to the supermarket to buy my sunscreen, I want to know that I’m getting a product that actually will protect me, will protect this mug, will protect these shoulders, will protect this back from the harsh rays of our sun—our sun that gives us life, but our sun that can often cause us some trouble and some challenges.

Now, I was really surprised, but then I thought a bit more about it and realised, actually, that our melanoma rates, the challenges we have—and we’ve heard tonight from several of our colleagues in this House that the challenges we face around melanoma are huge. Todd Muller, when he first presented this to the House, and again tonight, talked about that and the challenges that you’ve had around dealing with different melanomas and different things on our skin. So when I read the number—about 500 people die—it really shocked me.

I look back to when I was first flatting—actually, just around the road here in Rongotai—with some flatmates in the late 1990s. My dear flatmate Kelly—jeepers, we obviously go way back. Kylie Green; not Kelly. Sadly, her dad got melanoma, and, sadly, again, it moved into his lymph nodes, and, sadly, we were, within about 18 months, going to his funeral and supporting him. That was tragic. Again, it was around what our sun in this part of the world can do to us.

So I stand and speak in support of this legislation. I am grateful that we are here in this House making decisions that actually will impact people’s lives, making decisions that actually will protect people, making decisions that will help keep people alive. As I was reading and looking at the submissions and what had gone on, I was grateful when I looked at the Cancer Society. They talk very much around education. You kind of think that with the slip, slop, slap, and wrap—and it’s been, I don’t know, 20, probably 30 years that we’ve had that message going on—people will just know and would get it, but we have a long way to go. We have a lot of educating to do of our people.

I’m grateful to be married to a school teacher, and for the fact that now it is school policy that none of their students are allowed out in the playground at morning tea or lunch time or for their sports events unless they’re covered up, unless they’re wearing a hat, unless they have sunscreen on, because we know it’s our responsibility to look after our tamariki, it’s our responsibility to look after our rangatahi, it’s our responsibility to educate and teach our young people and our adults.

Now, I’m really glad that we’ve moved from when my mum was young, a couple of years back, and it was all about, yeah, those coconut oils, lying down for hours and hours on end, getting that brown, brown skin and eventually—not my mum, of course—turning into leather, turning into other things that you often see. So I’m glad that we’ve moved from coconut oil and all those kind of weird oils and just getting pounded by the sun to now saying SPF 50 is really important, and SPF 50 must have regulations so I know, you know, everyone knows that they are protected.

Now, I spoke on the first reading of this bill, and I want to end not quite as I began, because I made a bit of a fool of myself in my first reading. But to come back to Baz Luhrmann—Baz Luhrmann, a famous Australian, a famous artist, a famous movie maker who wrote the sunscreen song back in 1997. I close in support and I hope the Hon Stuart Nash plays this as he travels to all his music events this year. Ladies and gentlemen of the class of ‘97, wear sunscreen. If I could offer you any other tip for the future, sunscreen will be it. The long-term benefits of sunscreen have been provided by scientists, whereas the rest of my advice is no more than based on my own meandering experience.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

LOUISA WALL (Labour): Tēnā koe, te Māngai o te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. I move, That the Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Can I begin by acknowledging Andrew Bayly and also Todd Muller. The support in the House today for members’ bills has been unprecedented, and I think it’s worth acknowledging, and I’m hoping to follow in both your footsteps, can I say. I particularly would like to thank the 74 submitters and the 22 oral submitters on the bill, and I particularly want to acknowledge advisers from the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Clerk, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and also Marion Clifford, who has assisted me with some drafting. It’s a good opportunity to recognise the leadership of Ginny Andersen and other members of the Justice Committee, and I do particularly, though, want to acknowledge some of our Opposition participants, and particularly the Hon Simon Bridges, and Nicole McKee from the ACT Party. They were incredibly generous in engaging in the process as the select committee considered the bill.

I do want to highlight from the select committee report that they have recommended my bill be passed with amendments. It provides an opportunity for me to focus on said amendments, and the very first one, interestingly, was about ensuring that this new section 22 offence actually was limited. And I want to quote from the select committee report: “We are concerned that if intimate visual recordings are not specifically excluded from section 22 of the Act, this could create uncertainty about which section would apply to an offence of this nature. We consider that offending involving intimate visual recordings should be prosecuted under proposed section 22A.” They should have added that is where individuals are the subject of the intimate visual recording. Unfortunately and inadvertently, we were alerted post - reporting back of this report by a submitter that we had, by virtue of that redefinition, removed sexting from section 22 of the current Act. And sexting, for those who don’t know, is when somebody shares a naked and/or nude picture of themselves to another person by way of a picture message. And so my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that I will introduce in the committee of the whole House stage will ensure that, under section 22, it will include an individual who is the target of a posted digital communication.

The next amendment that the select committee made was about, essentially, creating an exemption. They didn’t want to over-criminalise; so they have, in their wisdom, within the context of the sharing of images that are intimate visual recordings, provided an exemption for educational purposes, legal purposes, medical purposes, scientific or law enforcement purposes.

Thirdly, they focused on the nature of consent. This, I think, took up quite a lot of deliberation within the select committee. And I know there are others that are contributing today that can speak to this, but, essentially, we have a current standard for consent, and what the bill introduced was a concept of express consent. And it was felt, in engaging with officials, that to do so would undermine the existing interpretations of consent. So they, in their wisdom, have suggested that we remove express consent and go back to consent.

Within that context, the select committee talked about the age of consent. And I find this, actually, the most interesting part of this piece of legislation, because I think it now has implications across the Crimes Act. They have amended clause 4 and inserted a subsection that would mean that someone under 16 years of age actually cannot consent to the posting of an intimate visual recording of which they are the subject. And so at the heart of that was our desire to ensure we protected children. Therefore, children cannot give consent within this context because they’re unable to understand all possible consequences of allowing an intimate visual recording of them as the subject to be posted digitally. We framed this within the conversations in the select committee as image-based sexual abuse. Other definitions include cyber-harassment, cyber-stalking. But, fundamentally, this points to the consequences of this type of offending, and it is about the mental health consequences; it is about how it damages relationships and leads to social isolation.

The fifth change that the select committee recommended was the level of maximum penalty. I proposed three years; they’ve reverted to two years, which is the existing penalty in the Harmful Digital Communications Act. The only point I wanted to make was that there was a difference, because I wanted to acknowledge that image-based sexual abuse is a form of sexual offending, and, therefore, I thought it should have a higher penalty, but I understand the consistency principle in the Act that the select committee have reinforced.

The sixth amendment that they have made, which is a very good amendment, empowers the court to make interim orders, while the application for an order is pending, for the duration of the proceedings. So you don’t have to wait for a finding of criminality before you can take down or disable the material or make an order that the defendant cease or refrain from particular conduct, in order that the defendant not encourage any other persons to engage in similar communications toward the affected individual—so, again, a very sensible amendment to this piece of legislation.

And the seventh amendment, really, was about the definition of victim in section 22A—so the individual who is the subject of the intimate visual recording that really has given rise to the SOP that I mentioned earlier.

Lastly, I want to take the opportunity to highlight an amendment that I proposed. I spoke about the issue of deep fakes in the first reading of this bill. And so I proposed or recommended that the bill also provide for intimate visual recordings that have been digitally altered or created. The select committee didn’t make a recommendation to that effect, and I wasn’t privy to all the discussions that the select committee had. So, in good faith, they undertook due diligence and decided not to recommend it. I have since contemplated that position, and so I have gone to David Wilson, our Manahautū o te Whare Māngai, and he has advised me—and I’d like to quote this, because I want this in Hansard—and I quote: “The amendment essentially treats synthetic intimate visual recordings as another type of intimate visual recording. That is relevant to the subject matter of the bill, intimate visual recordings, and its principles and objects which are the requirements in Standing Order 300(1). In my view, it is in scope of the bill as introduced.” So I’m giving notice to the House that I intend to propose an SOP to clarify that an intimate visual recording includes a digital recording that has been created or altered to appear to be an intimate visual recording of an individual.

I think it’s really healthy for this Parliament to have robust debate and discussion, and it really will provide an opportunity in the committee of the whole House for us to have a debate about synthetic intimate visual recordings, digital intimate visual recordings, and deep fakes, and the current use of and accessibility of artificial intelligence technology and its particular relevance to this bill. I’ve consulted with Tom Barraclough and Curtis Barnes from Brainbox consulting, who wrote a report with the New Zealand Law Foundation, and it was titled Perception Inception: Preparing for Deep Fakes and the Synthetic Media of Tomorrow. Overwhelmingly, 97 percent of synthetic intimate visual recordings or deep fakes are the non-consensual pornography against women. Is there harm within that context? Absolutely. So I guess the proposition is that intimate visual recordings or synthetic intimate visual recordings actually are the same, whether the abuser is known or not. The law is ambiguous, I think it needs to be clarified.

And so I just finally want to thank the House for engaging in such constructive discussion. At the heart of this bill, actually, is the protection of our children and making sure we have fit for purpose legislation. Kia ora.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Chris Penk.

Chris Penk: Thank you very much—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is—sorry.

Chris Penk: Beg your pardon.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): No, no, no. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Allow me to begin by congratulating the member who has resumed her seat, Louisa Wall, not only on having had the bill passed, excuse me, “pulled”—I’m ahead of myself on that front—as she has proven so adept at over the years in this House, but on her contribution to kick off this, the second reading, that I thought was very thoughtful, engaging, and indeed compelling. A couple of points within that that she’s highlighted for further consideration of the House at future stages, such as the committee stage, the National Party will go away and consider in good faith. I’m not authorised to muse on those to the extent of indicating how we might view those possible further amendments. But I can confirm before proceeding any further that National does continue to support the bill. That will be no surprise, given that we supported it at the first reading and our members in the Justice Committee have engaged in a way that, I think the member has acknowledged, shows that we are committed to improving—and I say that respectfully, improving—the bill that had originally come to this House, certainly understanding and agreeing with the intent behind it. So there is no problem there.

For me tonight, it’s probably helpful just to set out a few of the key issues and put on record, from the National Party perspective, ways that we think this is a useful addition to the law. We also believe that it is an evolution of the law. It reflects an updating of the law since the passing of the Harmful Digital Communications Act originally—some six years ago, I believe. I think I’m right in saying it was before my time in this House, but that was the Minister of Justice then, the Hon Judith Collins. Since that time, it’s appropriate that our law changes and evolves as society does. And also, in relation to technological change, it’s appropriate that we keep up to date with that. So I found the discussion by the member, Louisa Wall, in relation to deep fakes really fascinating, interesting, timely. And so I look forward to having that conversation further in this House, in a no doubt robust but always reasonable fashion, of course.

Just to put on record a couple of the aspects that our members have found very persuasive; one is around consent. Some notes associated with the bill talk about the consent needing to be given voluntarily. In a way, that’s a tautology. Of course, consent has to be voluntary or it’s not real consent at all. But I think there is certainly some merit to what the select committee had concluded about the desirability of having a notion of consent that was already existing in the law, in the common law. But, having said that, I think that the member makes a good case about the threshold of express consent, given the particular nature of the circumstances in which such recordings might be made in the first place. So I won’t get into any further detail on that, but suffice to say, obviously, it’s the case that if a person doesn’t consent, doesn’t agree with the sharing of a recording that is intimate in nature, then that is, of course, going to cause harm to them in a way that the law should recognise but not tolerate.

We’ve, obviously, considered ways in which the act of sharing a person’s intimate details in this way can have a negative impact on them. It can, for the reason of others reacting to that, perhaps in a way that could be characterised as bullying or shaming and so forth. But, of course, it’s equally the case—and I believe that the select committee heard evidence along these lines—that a person themselves might feel a sense of shame or regret or otherwise in an internal response that is not fair and not reasonable for any human being to suffer. So, for that reason and the associated mental health implications, we of course support the intent of the bill and, as I say, the detail of it as well.

I’ll conclude by just acknowledging a point that was made about the fact of a breach of trust being involved. I think that’s an element that, while we wouldn’t say is an aggravating factor in the technical sense of that phrase, from a sentencing point of view, I think is a key element in what the member is trying to get to here, which is to acknowledge the seriousness of a harm that occurs in a context where people should feel protected, should not feel exposed. And it’s appropriate that the law recognises and does its best to protect against that kind of harm.

So, on that note, just to confirm, clarify, National does continue to support this bill. We look forward to further discussions throughout the House and acknowledge the intent and the spirit in which it’s been brought in the debate so far.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s great to be able to stand up and speak upon a bill, and this is a very important bill. So, first of all, Louisa Wall, another fantastic member’s bill that you’ve brought.

When I thought about how to speak on this bill—because, to be honest, I really enjoyed doing this work at select committee; we worked together really well and I felt that it was probably one of the best bills since I’ve become an MP where we’ve seen MPs working collectively across both sides of the House to try and improve the bill, and I think largely because there was no politics involved. Everyone knew that this was a real issue that affected people in their daily lives and genuinely endeavoured to make the best changes possible. So I feel that this has been a really good and positive experience in general, in an area that’s concerning and has got real issues for New Zealanders on an ongoing basis.

I thought the best way of illustrating what we’re talking about here was to read out from a couple of the submissions—and these are the ones that stuck with me. When I thought back today when I sat at my desk, what stuck with me the most about this bill was the women who came and submitted to the Justice Committee about their experiences. So I’m going to just read those out pretty quickly to underline some of the main issues that we’re trying to address through this legislation.

“In September 2019, I pursued a relationship with a man, which ended in October 2019. During this time, we created an intimate visual recording together on one occasion. Without my knowledge or consent, the man subsequently uploaded the intimate visual recording to several international pornographic websites, including Pornhub. I did not find out about the posting of the intimate recordings until August 2020, which was 11 months after, when I was alerted by one of my associates. Altogether, the posts of the intimate visual recordings had gathered over 35,000 views internationally and featured on multiple degrading comments that had been picked up by other users and shared to several third-party amateur porn websites. After 10 months, I am still left navigating the complex justice process on my own. I am entirely competent, capable, and a professional woman with the ability to access resources. Nevertheless, this has and continues to change the trajectory of my life. The impact this has been continues to be multifaceted, and the effects span across multiple domains, including emotional, social, physical, and financial.”

The second one I’d like to read is a lot shorter, and what I would like to demonstrate with this submission is the nebulous and difficult way of taking down harmful content once it has been posted online. The submitter states, “I managed to get everything that I had found taken down. That didn’t stop him from making new accounts to upload again, and at some point to put videos of me into compilations with other videos—that they would be harder to find and at the same point I wasn’t immediately visible in the thumbnails of the video and was hidden. Again, he uploaded them again and again, and they were always the same videos.”

I felt it was important to speak to that because it goes right to the heart of what this bill is trying to identify. As the chair of the committee, I would like to acknowledge all of those who submitted, particularly those women who were brave enough to come to the committee, whether they submitted anonymously or in person, to talk about the stories that they had—talk about the experiences that they had endured, dealing with these sorts of situations, dealing with intimate visual recordings.

I feel incredibly strongly on this issue. I feel that no woman should be made to feel ashamed or afraid at all, and I see that this is a tool that is used to do exactly that. I would like just very quickly to say that Women’s Refuge’s Ang Jury has spoken and linked it quite closely with family harm and with what we see happening in terms of revenge porn as a strategy that is used to degrade and control partners. Women’s Refuge has commented that 40 percent of victims had intimate content shared by an ex-partner either to control them, blackmail them, or punish them for leaving a relationship, and that family violence works across a continuum of any number of different harms and this is just one example of those many ones; so it’s important that we recognise that in this House today in terms of exactly what it is.

To take it further, Netsafe’s chief executive has also made similar comments, and I think it speaks to the heart when you’ve got the head of Women’s Refuge and the head of Netsafe agreeing that this is exactly what the problem is. The chief executive, Martin Cocker, has said that the typical image-based sexual abuse reports from women tend to involve an ex-partner trying to maintain control, blackmail them, or as retaliation for leaving the relationship. And he said that sometimes these cases are part of a wider pattern of family violence.

I know I’ve mentioned Louisa already, but I would just like to say how courageous she is, how relentless she is, and how deeply passionate she is about those issues that affect women, that affect our communities, and I’m really proud to have her as part of the Labour team and work alongside her to continue to make New Zealand a safer place for those people who deserve that representation but sometimes don’t have the voice to do it.

The real nub of the bill, which I’ll get to because I can see the clock’s ticking, is that it does two things, and these two things are really important. So the first thing it does is it creates a new offence. So, under the existing law, it’s an offence of causing harm by posting a digital communication, but you have to prove in the prosecution that there is intent, the mens rea. You have to prove that there is intent to cause harm. And that is what has been incredibly difficult for police or prosecutors to demonstrate—that there was an intent to cause harm—because you can say, “Oh, well, you know, we made it, you know, under consent, and I thought it would have been fine. I just put it up there, you know. I didn’t know.” Proving that intent has been difficult. So what this bill does is it says that intent is implicit in uploading without consent. So if you upload an image knowing that it was not provided with consent, then there is not a requirement in law now to prove that you intended to cause harm; the very action of uploading that image on to a platform demonstrates that harm was intended. So that makes a really significant difference, and, to be quite frank, it makes it a lot easier for the New Zealand Police to prosecute in this space.

The second thing that this bill does, and Louisa’s already mentioned this, is it provides take-down orders. So, from those two submissions that I’ve read from, what was really evident is how prolific and how quickly material can be shared once uploaded. So what the bill does is it provides a new ability for while something’s waiting to go before the court, which can take time—while, you know, cases are being prepared for court—that there can be an interim order to say, “Take this down for now.” and have that ordered to be taken down, and that can make a significant difference in how frequently that’s shared across different platforms. So having that ability to make an interim take-down order means that the court can make an order for material to be taken down from the internet, or that a defendant can cease or refrain from the conduct concerned. That means that the perpetrator can be prevented from doing further harm to their victims during the court process, and I think that’s an incredibly important change to the existing law.

I’ve already spoken a little bit about what the committee has done, but I would just like to give a general acknowledgment to all the members from the Justice Committee, who tackled a really difficult issue. We really looked into all of the aspects of what consent meant, how that would work, and how that played out on a digital platform, and understood how young people are engaging in different ways than I might have when growing up, using the internet, and how that played out in terms of the principles we hold in terms of how we should treat each other—looking at a digital platform and seeing what is fair and what is not. Even having that discussion around consent and when it’s withdrawn and how that plays out is an incredibly important one.

So I’d like to conclude by saying that this is a really important bill in New Zealand’s history because it forges a way of trying to keep our communities as safe as possible while respecting people’s ability to express themselves at the same time. And it strikes that balance of ensuring that particularly those who are vulnerable, particularly women, have that right to be able to stand up and not be ashamed. I commend Louisa Wall for this bill and I commend, in particular, all of those who submitted. This is a good bill and I look forward to it becoming law. Thank you.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I’m pleased to stand in support of Louisa Wall’s bill—and to take off my mask! It is a huge credit to Louisa Wall that she has consistently brought to this House pieces of legislation that are courageous and that she’s consistently been so lucky in having them picked from the members’ ballot.

This bill deals with a really serious issue, and that is of people posting digital communications of intimate visual recordings of another person without their consent. It is the act of weaponising moments of intimacy against another person. The intent of people doing this is so malevolent it actually makes me filled with horror to talk about it: the idea that images or videos that have been shared with someone in the context of an intimate relationship, in a time of trust—that those images or those videos would then be used by a person upon their desire to inflict pain upon someone. To do that without consent is an awful act, a malevolent act, and it is right that, in this bill, we ensure that that is very clearly seen by our law as an offence, because the posting of unauthorised content in this way causes harm, full stop, and those who do it need to know that they can be confronted by the full force of the law.

I want to acknowledge that this bill is able to be advanced because of work that has come before and which National Party leader Judith Collins played an important role in, and that is in the original creation of the Harmful Digital Communications Act, which was groundbreaking at the time and which has been an important step forward, I think, in protecting the rights of people when it comes to harmful digital communication. This bill takes it a step forward, ensuring that the law is up to date with the sorts of things that we have seen happening and that the law can in fact be enforced against those who share intimate images in this way.

So I end this contribution where I began, which is to congratulate Louisa Wall, to also congratulate the select committee, who, I understand, heard some compelling and also very emotional submissions and who have worked to make small amendments that we see at the second reading. This is good lawmaking. I commend it to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Kei te mihi atu ki a koe, e te tuahine, e Louisa, mō te kaupapa nei. He kaiurungi o te kaupapa kaha, nē rā? Ka mihi atu rā.

[Madam Speaker, greetings. I offer thanks to you, my sister Louisa, for this work. You have shown strong leadership. Thank you.]

Acknowledgments to our sister Louisa Wall on having this bill pulled, to take forward what is a very important kaupapa to many groups across Aotearoa. But particularly what I’ll speak to this evening is around our rangatahi, our young people. We know that we’ve had exponential growth of our internet since my time as a teenager and decades before that. I referenced very early on in the day today about a platform called Bebo, which was the first of its particular kind. For anyone that sits in their 30s, you’ll remember it fondly. But what that gave us was an opportunity to engage with people outside of our home and outside of our communities, engage with family members, and, at times, people that we may have crushed on. But it meant that we were able to extend very much beyond where we lived and breathed, and that really shifted the culture of how we engaged in our lives and, in this case, engaged online.

So the harmful digital communications amendment bill is a very important one to ensure that we continue to have law that protects the individual, whether that be a young person, whether that be women, whether that be any New Zealander that, in a time of trust, chooses to share content online that others, therefore, can share at different times. It’s heart breaking to see when relationships may go bad that people take it upon themselves to take revenge and to use content in such a negative, hurtful, and harmful way.

The objectives of this bill are, obviously, to amend the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 but to introduce a new offence of knowingly posting a digital communication that is an intimate visual recording without the consent of a person who is the subject of that particular recording. It’s also to help protect victims of image-based sexual abuse and enable perpetrators to be held to account. We know that, at times that this has happened, that it is very, very difficult to prosecute someone to the extent that that harm has caused. The problem that we’re trying to address in this is really to ensure that this doesn’t happen, that people don’t have very personal content shared to an audience that they have not given that particular consent to. It’s also to ensure that we protect the mental health and the safety of our young people and that we take action against what, I believe, is gender-based violence.

And can I acknowledge the speech this evening from the chair of our Justice Committee, Ginny Andersen, and also, to my right, the chair of our justice caucus committee, who would have heard the submissions from many, many groups in relation to this particular bill. One that I’ll start off with tonight is one that I researched from the New Zealand Nurses Organisation. Their feedback really comes back to the concern about how normalised some of this behaviour has become. We know that people are sharing particular content, and we know that they are sharing this on in turn, and not in the right way. But, most of all, one of my responsibilities in our caucus is as the chair of our rainbow caucus, which means we get to have a particular lens on how this law particularly impacts our rainbow communities. In this particular submission, it was heard very loudly on the impacts of harmful digital communications on our LGBTQAI community. So we have to take a bit of action.

I also come back to the second submission that I’m going to speak to this evening that came from RespectEd Aotearoa, Madam Speaker—Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Yeah, we’re supportive of quick changes here.

SHANAN HALBERT: Mr Speaker, my you’ve changed. My apologies. But the submission from RespectEd Aotearoa was in regards to non-consensual posting of intimate visual recordings that they believed was a very alarming issue. They quoted the NetSafe survey that was completed in 2017 that revealed 3 percent of the respondents had experienced the non-consensual sharing of intimate recordings. In 2018, this number increased from 3 percent up to 4 percent. For women aged between 18 and 29, the rate is over twice as high, up to 7 percent. That’s significant and impacts on particularly our wāhine. Can I acknowledge our wāhine in the room, but also those that have been negatively affected in this particular circumstance.

What is important is that we continue the work to protect our young people, protect our women, protect our rainbow groups from a culture that is the internet, that we can no longer trust, that we know can be misleading. We know that misinformation is shared and, in this particular instance, we know that content is shared that has not been consensual.

So, finally, I just want to acknowledge once again my colleague, friend, and tuahine Louisa Wall. Kia kaha tonu, e te tuahine. [Stay strong, sister.] I commend this bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real treat to get to rise and speak in support of Louisa Wall’s bill, the Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill, this evening. I do need to echo the voice of others in this House to congratulate her for her luck but, actually, more importantly, for the quality of the bills that she has been bringing to this House that make a real, substantive difference to the lives of a huge number of people in this country, and it’s a pleasure to be able to speak in support of another one of those bills tonight.

I wasn’t lucky enough, because I wasn’t on the Justice Committee and I’m not our justice spokesperson, so I haven’t got to follow this. So it’s particularly lucky to get to speak on it tonight. It was very interesting in that I think the public support for this bill, as well as it being cross-party, is quite clear in the balance of the submissions, where there were 75 submissions made and only one was in opposition, I understand. I think that demonstrates that this is a bill whose time has come.

What the bill does, which has been outlined by others, is that it amends the Harmful Digital Communications Act of 2015 to make it an offence to post any intimate visual recording of someone else without their consent. “Intimate visual recording” is already defined in the Act as any picture or video of someone’s naked or undergarment-clad genitals, buttocks, or female breasts where that person would normally expect privacy. The current offence in the Act covering this issue requires a number of steps before the offence is made out, which is where we’ve had the real problem. It has been difficult to establish and, therefore, the main bar to prosecution at the moment is that the offender, under the current legislation, has to share the material with proven intent—an incredibly difficult thing to do—and the victim must prove that they have actually experienced harm, which is, again, a very difficult thing to do. An objective standard of proof applies to whether harm was actually experienced by that victim—tricky.

The new offence in this amendment bill would involve a simpler test, where it is established that sharing without consent implicitly recognises an intent to cause harm. That, to me, is just logical, and it is fantastic to see this problem being solved this simply, I think. The select committee has made an exception for scenarios in which posting of an intimate visual recording may be necessary, involving educational, legal, medical, scientific, or law enforcement purposes; so they’ve made sure that removing the intent to cause harm doesn’t result in too broad a reach.

I understand that, as introduced, the bill had a concept of express consent and that this was an area that the committee spent quite a lot of time on, and it’s very obvious to me that the committee was very thoughtful in the consideration of this bill and this was one of those points. My understanding is that they’ve decided to move away from that because the concept of express consent doesn’t exist in our law at the moment. Therefore, we don’t have case law interpreting that, and that could potentially undermine or be in conflict with existing case law relating to consent.

I’m really interested in understanding more about that and the reliance on our current definitions of consent, and I note that in the last term of Parliament, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary initiated a body of work within justice to start reviewing our legal definition of consent because there are serious concerns about the fact that it’s basically impossible to get a conviction of rape or sexual violence in this country if the victim has been drinking. We have a definition of consent that is negative rather than positive, and I’m not saying that having a positive definition is the answer, but it definitely feels as if it is time in this country to be exploring that issue properly so that we can uphold the intent of the legislation in practice.

I also want, too, to point out that the member along the way was raising the fact that she would have liked to have seen ACC provided for where there are convictions but that this isn’t in the schedule for ACC. She said she would point anybody listening who would like to see the expansion of ACC to everybody who’s experienced sexual violence to the Green Party petition that was launched today campaigning for that very thing, because it’s just a reality that there are too many barriers in the way of survivors of sexual violence getting the help that they need, and surely, as a country, we’re at the point where that’s our priority and we don’t need needless, bureaucratic, harmful barriers in the way of doing it.

I also would like to commend the work that the committee did around the age of consent and clarifying that consent cannot be given by somebody under the age of 16, because they are not in a position to be able to understand the implications of that image being shared. I also note that, while that doesn’t apply for 16- and 17-year-olds, actually, as the committee pointed out, the posting of an intimate visual recording of a 16- or a 17- year-old could still be considered objectionable under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act. So there is an interesting kind of graduation in our legislation coming in with this.

Also, from a Green Party perspective, we were pleased to see the reduction in the penalty from three years’ imprisonment to two years’ imprisonment. Part of the work that was also initiated last term was looking at alternative pathways for resolution of sexual violence cases, because our court system is just not working for so many people. We’ve had the discussion tonight about how long cases are taking to get through the courts and the harm that’s happening in the meantime, but it is also just that, quite often, when there’s a history with the person or the person’s family and they’ve been loved or they’ve been part of your extended network, actually going up against them in a court case in a really public way is not how people want to resolve that issue. So that work to create alternative pathways for addressing the harm of sexual violence, I believe, is really, really important to sit alongside our formal justice system.

But the Greens would also like to see our formal justice system being led far more by the values of Te Ao Māori and those approaches to justice as an investment in prevention and rehabilitation across our system. That is work that this Government, I know, is very active and engaged in, and we really look forward, years in the future, to when we look back at this time and think that that was some real progress—our getting to the point where sexual violence wasn’t the feature of our society that it is now, which is an aspiration I hold to very deeply.

Finally, just acknowledging the really important provision of enabling interim court orders to take down the material before a court case decision has been made, because, as we’ve said, these processes are taking far too long and we can’t allow harm to just compound in the meantime. So being able to take those images down is really important.

So congratulations, and it’s fantastic to hear really thoughtful and considered speeches across the House. I love it when we all turn our minds to what’s best for the people in our communities. Kia ora.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak towards the Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill.

I am not a member of the Justice Committee, but I am a huge fan of their work, and I just want to commend the chair, Ginny Andersen, who spoke earlier, and the whole of the committee for the incredible work that they do. It would be completely remiss of me not to add my congratulations and gratitude to Louisa Wall, who is bringing this bill to the House. As my Green colleague Jan Logie has just said in detail, and I wholeheartedly agree, we are incredibly fortunate to have had such incredible legislation be brought to the House by Ms Wall, and we are very grateful for it.

Another group of people that I’d like to thank in addition, obviously, to all of the officials and clerks who have worked so hard would be the 74 submitters—22 of whom, I believe, spoke to the bill in person. I just want to say that speaking to a bill of this nature takes an enormous amount of courage, and the issues and situations that they were describing were, I understand, extremely distressing. I know that it would have required a great act of courage for them to do so; so I thank them for doing so in order that we could create better legislation. Because that is really what we are trying to do here. The aim here is to prevent and mitigate the harm caused by image-based sexual abuse. It’s an increasing problem for us here in Aotearoa New Zealand. According to NetSafe, I believe that 5 percent of adults have either been threatened with and/or have had personal intimate sexual content shared without their consent. That’s an extraordinary amount of people.

What we’re aware of with content, once it enters the internet, is that it is completely uncontrollable and spreads like wildfire. And this legislation actually has some points in place that will enable us to actually bring that under control a little bit more swiftly, which I’ll talk to a little bit later. We’re really talking about the situation of revenge porn. Revenge porn can often have, and often does have, the name and contact details of the persons who have had their image used without their consent published. And you can imagine, Mr Speaker, that I’m not overstating it when I say that the effect of that is similar to sexual assault. Five percent of—sorry, I beg your pardon, 51 percent; I can’t read my own notes, 51 percent of those victims had contemplated suicide. The distress that it causes is extraordinary, and the legislation that is currently in place is not providing those protections. When those contact details are published, it enables the victims to be further stalked, bullied, and stigmatised.

Under the current legislation, section 22, there is a requirement, as we’ve heard in detail, for an intent to cause harm to be proven. That’s an incredibly difficult thing to prove. And what you miss in those situations is capturing situations where the person sharing the image is potentially arguing that they’re doing it for their own pleasure or just to show off or for a joke. As if this sort of thing was ever funny. This bill recognises that the non-consensual sharing of intimate images is intrinsically harmful. The harm is implicit. As soon as that upload button is pressed without the consent of the person whose image is being shared, it is given that harm is caused and intended. So that really enables us to move forward with this piece of legislation.

Who does it affect? Well, it basically affects anybody—anybody—who has placed their trust in another person either to take an intimate image of them or who has shared an intimate image that they might have taken of themselves with them. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong in doing that—absolutely nothing wrong at all. The offence is committed and the harm is done when the perpetrator takes that image, takes the trust that’s been placed in them by that sharing of that image or sharing of the video, whatever it is—which is a precious trust, I think—and violates that by sharing it without their consent.

Now, we’ve got a study that basically covers the United Kingdom with the UK Safer Internet Centre and an Australian Office of the eSafety Commissioner, as well as NetSafe New Zealand did a study in 2017. And what they found was that one in five young people has been asked to share nudes, and 24 percent of those are women. It is, unfortunately, a form of gender-based violence, because it does affect women at a much higher rate than men, although I would absolutely accept that it does affect men too.

If we look to the people and the effects that we’re having, a simple Google search—although I would be careful when you put your search terms in—does bring up the story of a Christchurch woman who spent thousands of dollars on a civil court action to get a sex tape removed after it was posted without her permission. She won the civil case. The man admitted publishing the footage; he did it on multiple porn websites. It was almost impossible for her to get those images removed. She had to contact every single website herself and go through their application process to have that content removed. It was live for a year and had about 35,000 views. It caused her to be “devastated”, in her own words.

So we were updated on that particular situation in July, and the offender, or the fellow who admitted doing this, admitted uploading the footage without consent. But he can’t be charged, and that’s the problem that we’re trying to solve here. He can’t be charged, because the police don’t believe that it can be proven that he intended to cause harm. So the victim is angry. And of course she’s angry, as well as devastated and upset, but she’s angry at the legislation that enabled this. She’s angry at those of us in Parliament who have created the legislation that enabled this, and, quite frankly, I don’t really blame her. That’s why we’re here today: we’re trying to actually make it right.

Now, Ginny Andersen spoke of how, if this bill is passed, it’ll make life easier for the police too. I’m really glad about that, because I can’t imagine how frustrating it must be for the good people that I know that work in the police force in Christchurch. I’m aware of the detective inspector—I know him personally—who worked on this case, and I can imagine it would have been profoundly distressing for him to have to not be able to bring charges. So I’m sure it will be a great relief to the police that they will be able to do that.

To give you another example of the sort of thing that we’re looking at, a case reported in Stuff in 2019, and I’m going to read directly here from the article: “ ‘I’m going to make you famous,’ he said. ‘Keep an eye out on the web.’ ” And that’s exactly what he did. Do you know what he did? He took an intimate photo and published it with offensive sexual comments, her son’s business name, her Facebook and Instagram accounts, and even her physical address. She found out about this when she started receiving propositions from complete strangers on Facebook as a result of that man’s actions. So this is a really important piece of legislation and it will help us to protect, largely, women, but men and young people too—a large amount of them—from the harm that’s caused.

One of the things that’s really important, I noted, as a recommendation by the committee, was, as we heard, setting the age of consent at 16. So you can’t ever, ever be considered to have given consent to your images being shared if you are under 16. But I would also say that 16- and 17-year-olds might still find that the visual recording was considered objectionable under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act. There are some other interim orders that enable it to be easier for the court to order to take down or disable material and order that the defendant cease or refrain from the conduct, as well as not encouraging other persons to engage in other communications.

This is a really important piece of legislation. We really need it. I congratulate Louisa Wall in bringing it to the House, and I thoroughly commend it. Thank you.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): It’s a pleasure to stand here today, and thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity. I’d like to start off by thanking Louisa Wall. A lot of the reasons why I came to Parliament myself were to make a difference for victims and to make a difference for people who don’t have a voice. Often, this can be quite hard because the conversations are quite awkward, and people don’t like to talk about these kinds of things. Unless we acknowledge there’s a problem, and unless we dig deep and actually have these hard conversations, nothing’s ever going to change, and I really appreciate Louisa Wall bringing such a hard topic to the House.

I’d also like to thank the committee that took this on. Sitting and listening to personal stories like that mustn’t be easy, and I know there are times that, even sitting on a jury, a judge will give you a set amount of time to not come back to a jury because it can be quite harmful even listening to the stories. So I appreciate the time the committee took to hear the concerns. And to the people that made the submissions, your bravery is appreciated. It’ll make a difference to a lot of victims in the future. We got to hear the harm that it causes, the lifetime of inside scars, because not all victims wear their scars on the outside. Scars heal—the scars you see on the outside—but sometimes, on the inside, those scars will never heal, and people can’t see them, so they don’t know they’re there. And often, victims suffer in silence. And so I really appreciate everybody that came forward and told their story.

I stand on behalf of the ACT Party to support this bill, and there’s a few reasons behind it. My focus today, and I will be speaking on behalf of young people, and as a parent—I have four children, and it would be my worst nightmare to have one of my children have an image or a video of them posted online in a vulnerable moment. We parents try to teach our children about safety online, but unfortunately technology has advanced so fast over the years our young people do not understand the consequences of the decisions they make. They don’t think before they do something, and in an emotional moment, sometimes the perpetrator of the harmful digital communication has not thought through the consequences of what might happen.

So some of the work that needs to be done is not just here in Parliament, not just by us here, but by society and by parents, teaching our young people that there are consequences for the behaviour and the way we treat others. Society will never change if there are no consequences for this kind of behaviour, and acknowledging that you cause harm when you do these things. Technology is fantastic when it’s working how we intended, but, unfortunately, these days technology can be used as a weapon. And when it is used as a weapon, this is just unacceptable, and our laws need to keep up to protect people from harm.

This is a good bill. It keeps our children safe. It also, having this conversation, makes people aware that this is actually a problem, because when I first heard about this bill, I thought, “How bad is this problem?” You know, you don’t hear about these things. It sounds terrible, but how often does it actually happen? So I was quite surprised reading through and finding that 288 children and young people, in the three-year period from 2018 to 2020, were proceeded against by the police for a harmful digital communication problem. That shows that this is something that is growing. Hopefully, we have caught it in time before it gets worse.

I listened to some of your talk on what was missed out, and what you may want to add in later on, and I am sure we will look forward to having a discussion on those intentions. Deep fakes, or digitally altered or created images, or synthetic images, or visual recordings are just as harmful. We can take a picture, send a picture, think nothing of it—we’ve given consent at that time, but what we haven’t given consent for is that person using that image or that recording in any other way, and I think sometimes that what we see as consent really needs to be looked at. I understand that you couldn’t change it right now, and that you did have a discussion around consent, but I do feel that this may be an issue we need to look at later on, because if you consent once, is it consent for everything, or do you have to consent each and every time? There could be some confusion on whether the consent was given or not. But I understand we couldn’t go that far.

It is very hard to remove an image from the internet. Even with a take-down notice, even if you get it very quick, somebody’s taken a screenshot, somebody’s shared it, and then it goes on and on and on, and this does not take long. So I appreciate the fact that you no longer have to wait for a court decision before you can start the process of a take-down notice, because the quicker you get this, the better the result might be. There is nothing worse as a victim than thinking that everybody’s looking at you. They may not be, but if you know your image is online, you know people are sharing an image of you, especially an intimate image, your self-esteem and everything about you changes. You can go inside of yourself, depression sets in, social isolation, and the shame, thinking you did something wrong. And what we need to understand is, no matter what kind of victim you are, whether it be physically or whether it be a harmful digital communication, the harm is the same, the hurt is the same. We don’t heal magically. Even if we do get it down in time, there is still the knowledge of the people that have seen an intimate image of you. There’s still the voice in your brain that says, “I wonder if that person walking towards me has seen that image.” It may not be a correct way to think, but when you have become a victim, you don’t think logically; you just think worst-case scenario. And I would hate to think that we end up with a lot of people hurting themselves or harming themselves because we haven’t kept our laws up to date with technology.

So ACT will be supporting this bill, and I would like to congratulate Louisa Wall again for such a good piece of legislation.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be here back from a long time in Auckland under lockdown.

Hon Member: Welcome back.

CAMILLA BELICH: Thank you. I just want to acknowledge, for anyone who might be watching from Auckland—to thank them for their hard work. Hopefully, they see now that there is light at the end of the tunnel and their hard work is paying off.

So I rise now to speak on the second reading of the Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill. This is a member’s bill, as we know, in the name of my colleague Louisa Wall. And before I get into the substance of this bill, which it is very heartening to see has universal support around this House, I want to pay tribute to her. Not only is she a former double international in netball and rugby, having won a Rugby World Cup for New Zealand in 1998 and a silver medal in the Netball World Cup; not satisfied with what I can probably be confident in saying are unparalleled achievements in this House, she has again and again and again brought important, considered members’ bills to this House, including, notably, same-sex marriage and also the next bill on the Order Paper, which is the abortion safe zones bill, which I also strongly support, to provide women safe access to the medical procedure of abortion. Ngā mihi nui ki a koe, e te tuahine, mō tō mahi o konei.

[Thank you, my sister, for your work here.]

But, for now, we will not be talking about that next bill; we’ll be focusing on this bill about harmful digital communications. I agree with my colleague from the Green Party, Jan Logie, when she said that it’s a bill whose time has come. I also agree with my colleague on the other side of the House Karen Chhour, when she said this bill is one of the reasons that we came to this place: to make a real difference for New Zealanders, to protect people from harm. I had actually noted that down before she said that, just like I had noted down what Jan Logie had said: that it’s a bill whose time has come. I think it is really amazing to see that shared strength of feeling around this important piece of proposed legislation.

Throughout the last two years, in 2020 and now in 2021, we can all acknowledge that more of our lives are spent online. We have Zooms, we have online school, online shopping, and social media that all play a role in our daily lives. It is therefore so important that abuse, when it happens, if it’s through an online platform, is also considered serious abuse that deserves the careful consideration of this House. In plain English, this is a bill that makes clear that posting an intimate video recording online without consent is sexual abuse or image-based sexual abuse, and it should, in my view, be treated as so. As we’ve heard from other speakers, this type of image-based sexual abuse is unfortunately increasing in New Zealand, and I think another colleague, Sarah Pallett, mentioned that 5 percent of New Zealanders have experienced this image-based sexual abuse. That is a huge number of people, and it is not acceptable from my perspective.

The reason why this is really important is that research has shown that the impact of image-based sexual assault is likely to be similar to the impact of sexual assault that may happen in the real world. This is still assault, it’s still harmful, and it still creates lasting damage on the people it affects. Research has also shown that the victims or survivors of this type of abuse are more often than not likely to be young people, women, or people in our rainbow community. And according to Women’s Refuge, image-based sexual assault is often used as a form of gender-based violence by partners or ex-partners as a form of control used to degrade their partner or former partner. This is why we need to take this type of abuse so seriously.

However, our current law is not fit for purpose in relation to this. Our current law requires intent from the perpetrator of this type of image-based sexual abuse. This bill, brought by Louisa Wall, would get rid of the mens rea, or intention element, of this offence, because it is implicit that, in the sharing of an intimate image without consent, that is an act of abuse. Some may argue that there is some implicit form in the existing offence; however, as those who have practised in criminal law will understand, when you prosecute an offence, you have to prosecute each limb of the offence, and proving the mens rea of an offence is a barrier which prosecutors need to overcome in order to have a successful prosecution of an offence. That is why removing that barrier, when so clearly an offence has been committed, improves the law and also improves access to justice for the victims or survivors of that particular offence. So I think that it is significant and it will improve the law as it stands.

In the past, some may have argued that they posted an image online—an intimate image of someone else without their consent—and they may have used excuses that, quite frankly, I think most people in New Zealand and in this House would find absolutely abhorrent. They may have successfully used an excuse to say that they didn’t post it online to harm the individual; they posted it for their own gratification or as a joke, rather than to cause harm. These are abhorrent defences that could possibly be used in New Zealand, in the law as it currently stands, and this is why it is so important that we change this law to make sure it is fairer and make sure that the perpetrators of these types of offence are more likely to be brought to justice.

I also want to acknowledge another colleague in the House, Nicola Willis, when she characterised these actions as weaponising intimate moments. I agree that, when people do these types of action, they are weaponising intimate moments. And I think the fact that it happens to so many—largely, women but also some men and some other people from other communities, like our rainbow communities in New Zealand—is absolutely terrible, and it is incumbent on this House, on us, to change this law in order to make sure that this doesn’t continue to happen.

Now, I don’t sit on the Justice Committee. I’m not a permanent member of the Justice Committee, although I have recently subbed on to it on a few occasions, but not in relation to this bill. I know that they’re an incredibly hard-working committee, and it was really heartening to hear the chair of that committee, Ginny Andersen, talk about how collegially the Justice Committee worked together on this bill in order to produce the version that we see today for the second reading. So thank you very much to the members of the Justice Committee for their work in this area.

I understand there were a number of submissions, about 70 submissions, and 60 were in favour, also a number of oral submissions—around 22. I just want to take a moment here to commend the people who were brave enough to come forward and give those oral submissions. It’s a really difficult thing to do—most people in New Zealand don’t do it—and especially when it’s on something as personal as this type of legislation, which talks about intimate recordings. To come forward and talk about the damage that that has done to you under the law as it currently stands is an incredibly brave thing to do, and I want to pay tribute to those people. Hearing some of the extracts of those submissions, as read out by my colleague Ginny Andersen, it was actually sickening to think that that type of treatment could go unpunished in this country, or at least would face significant barriers if one was to be prosecuted. And I do understand that currently, when you do try and prosecute these types of offences, it can be a very long process, it can be a process that needs to be initiated by the victim, and it can take many, many years. So I think that the improvements that the select committee has suggested will go a long way to improving that.

I just want to note a couple of those before I run out of time. So one thing that I just wanted to highlight was the use of interim orders, which would allow material to be taken down quicker. Interim orders, or those types of orders that can happen quickly, prior to the conclusion of the substantive matter, are incredibly important in legal cases, and I will commend the committee for suggesting this change to the bill.

Just in conclusion to my comments on the second reading of this member’s bill, of my colleague Louisa Wall, again I would say it is a bill whose time has come. The bill makes clear that posting intimate video recordings without consent is sexual abuse, and there can be serious mental health consequences of the offending in this way. This is why we need to treat this offending in a serious way in this House and why I am honoured to commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s an honour for me to stand and take a call on this Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill in its second reading. I haven’t been on the select committee—I’ve recently joined the select committee, but I wasn’t on the select committee to actually debate and work on this bill.

But I do want to acknowledge the member Louisa Wall. Especially for new members of Parliament, if you want an example of how to shepherd a member’s bill through Parliament, there is no better example of that than Louisa Wall. She brings meaningful bills to this House that actually are going to make a positive change in people’s lives. She will engage with every member of the House, doesn’t matter what party they’re in. She will bring experts in and she’ll organise briefings. She’ll bring people in that have been affected directly and are often the driver for her bringing these bills into the House. And she has experienced an enormous amount of success because she takes the time and she is genuine about it, and I want to acknowledge her for the way that she approaches these members’ bills. She has spent a lot of time with me, working with me on previous bills. It doesn’t mean we agree on everything, and we’ve had some direct conversations, but she is very effective because she’s deeply passionate about what she does and she spends the time to make sure that she engages with all of us as members of Parliament to try and get as much support and to allow us to understand what her intent is and what the bill is trying to achieve. So I want to acknowledge and thank her for bringing this bill into the House.

As legislators, she has highlighted an issue that we’re going to have to continue to face and work on, because, although the internet can be an enormous force for good, we can also see that it can be an enormous force for evil as well. Probably just about all of us in this House and our family members have been victims ourselves of poor behaviour—very deep personal attacks, trolling on the internet. I know that, as a father, my daughter, as a 15-year-old having gone through a breakup with her boyfriend at school, was the victim of online trolling and the use of proxies to attack her. I can tell you that it’s the only time as a father that I felt that I couldn’t protect her, and it was hard and it was difficult to try and work through that. You can protect your child from a physical threat. You can protect them against bad decisions. But it’s very, very hard for a parent to protect their children from the types of attacks that they can experience online. I’m an ex-policeman and I’m a member of Parliament—I’m probably in a much stronger position to try and do that—and even I found it hard and difficult to find a solution for that. So we’ve got some big issues to face as legislators.

Camilla Belich, I want to acknowledge you and the comments that you were making around the mens rea. This is really important, because I feel that the minute someone takes an intimate image of someone and puts it on the internet, that’s the mens rea. If they’ve done that without consent, then all of us know, any right-minded person knows, that immediately there’s a risk that you’re going to have a massive negative impact on that person and the person that’s been impacted; to the point where we know—and we see reports and we see articles; often it’s silent, and we don’t see it—people kill themselves. They commit suicide. Because can any of us even try to contemplate or understand the pain and the shame and the embarrassment of having intimate pictures or videos put up on the internet? We have a wider issue to deal with.

I know that in my own electorate it’s something that I talk to my principals about, as unfortunately today it’s very easy, particularly for young people and young men, to have access to pornography online. And what it’s doing is it’s starting to distort and taint how they view healthy physical relationships. And it’s almost becoming normalised in terms of sharing these images and putting these images online. We’re putting a line in the sand and we’re saying here in this Parliament, with this bill that Louisa Wall has brought here, “Actually, it’s not OK.”, and we need to have those conversations. We need to be able to empower the police to take quick action and to send a clear signal that we’re not going to put up with this; we are going to stop it. We have to be brave enough to have the conversations with our young people. And I don’t want to say this is just a male problem—I know that females do it as well—but predominantly it is males; it’s a male issue. So we need to be educating. We need to have strong mentors—male mentors—for our young men as they grow and they’re dealing with and trying to navigate and negotiate their way through a whole lot of issues as well.

But, Louisa Wall, thank you for bringing this bill to the House. It’s a very good bill. I consider it a vanguard, because I think that all of us, as legislators, need to carry on the momentum and keep looking at ways how we make the internet a much safer place and people much safer and protected from this type of behaviour. So thank you.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I actually rise with a bit of a heavy heart tonight, as I listen, as I prepare, as I reflect on the challenges that face a 21st century globe. As the previous speaker, Mark Mitchell, who just sat down, said, we’ve got a long way to go. I’ve felt for a long time that the internet is this experiment, that social media is an experiment, that apps and dating apps are experiments that we’ll look back on and actually think, “What the heck were we doing? The damage that it did!” As Mark Mitchell just said, we have a lot of work to do to ensure that our connectivity, that our internet, is a safe place for all people. And so I rise in support, and I want to thank Louisa Wall for bringing this into the ballot, into the House, and, hopefully, passing it into law.

As I’ve listened, I’ve reflected on Sarah Pallett when she said sharing an intimate image isn’t illegal with consenting adults, and we’re not here to talk about that; we’re here to talk about what happens when there isn’t consent. I’m glad to see that in our schools we’re doing a whole lot more work around what consent is, and I know the young men that I work with—it’s been a long, long journey around what consent is, what respect is. If you can’t respect yourself, how can you respect others? It is a long journey, and it is a continuous journey. The challenges we have with dating websites and apps—we need legislation like this to ensure that all people are protected.

Now, for myself, in looking at this, and when I read some notes about it, it talked about, obviously, as others have said, that young adults, women, and the rainbow community are the most affected. Being someone who comes from the rainbow community, it got me thinking. And it got me thinking about normalised behaviour and, growing up, what I thought or what I saw seemed normal but then realised, as I grew, wasn’t normal. I think of the football and the rugby and the cricket and the changing rooms around our nation and the normalised behaviour that used to exist—in some places, it probably still does, but mostly it used to exist—where it was OK to be that staunch bloke, that male that was all bravado and that would have happily shared a photo from their latest—I can’t even think of the right word to say that would be appropriate for this House. But we need to do something. We need to ensure that our young people are safe but also that they are educated.

This piece of legislation seeks to ensure that the police have the ability to prosecute people. Currently, under current law, the offence of causing harm by posting a digital communication requires the intention of causing harm—for that to be proven—but we want to make sure that it’s not just about, “Hey, I’m posting it to skite or to show off. I’m not just posting this image to use to catfish other people.”, but to ensure that it is enshrined in law that, if I do not give consent, that image isn’t able to be shared.

Now, several have spoken this evening around that 5 percent of adults in New Zealand who say that they’ve had personal experiences of image-based sexual abuse online. Now, that number is probably much higher, because there’s shame that comes in this space. There’s embarrassment. There’s fear of what might happen if people know what I have shared, what I’ve done that is wrong, when it never was wrong until it goes into this place where there was no consent. So I say to all those out there who have had experiences: if you need help, please seek help, because it isn’t OK to be treated so disrespectfully. I thank Louisa Wall for bringing this to the House, and I look forward to seeing it passing into law. Kia ora.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, happy to rise and take a call on the Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill. I would like to join with everyone else in the House in congratulating Louisa; she always brings thoughtful bills, well-considered and well-meaning and that also change lots of people’s lives for the better, so congratulations.

I’m only going to take a short call. I wasn’t on the select committee for this bill, but I did take a look through some of submitters and noted that a partner at Stace Hammond, and good friend of mine, Arran Hunt, submitted on the bill and made some very thoughtful comments. I actually gave him a call tonight and ran him through it. Now, Arran is probably one of the country’s leading legal minds in this area of law—in fact, he took the very first civil case under the original legislation. When I talked to him about the bill and his submission, this evening, he said it has been very difficult for the police, when they’re looking at whether or not they can prosecute, to figure out whether or not there was that intent to cause harm. He said, when it gets kicked to a civil proceeding, it can take years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to prosecute. He knows that very well because he took that first case and it took three years and hundreds of thousands of dollars, although I expect—I believe, actually—that he did a lot of the work pro bono, because that’s the kind of good guy that he is.

So this bill, by default, when taking away that burden of the police having to prove that there was intent to cause harm, keeps it, by default, with the police rather than in the civil courts, which is a good thing. It was interesting to note in his submission—and I was going to make a comment on this about the deep fakes, but Louisa has already mentioned that today, that she’s going to be bringing a Supplementary Order Paper. I thought that might be the case when I read this and saw that it wasn’t included in the bill. Of course, as my learned colleague Chris Penk alluded to earlier, we can’t at this stage give any of our assurances that we will be supporting that, because it’s a conversation that we need to have—and, indeed, we will have—but, clearly, there are some issues there that need to be sorted out and potentially should have been looked at by the select committee, but I understand why they weren’t.

So, with that, I’d just like to again congratulate Louisa Wall on a good bill that we’re very happy to support that builds on the good work of the National Party in the past, but as all legislation—especially in this area of law—needs to be updated, this is a very good bill. So I commend the bill to the House.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I intend to do a couple of things tonight as I rise to take the final call on this bill, the Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill. I do want to answer, as a member of the Justice Committee, some of the questions that have been raised about particular decisions we took. I want to honour the contribution of the wahine toa Louisa Wall, appropriately to my left, who has not been “lucky”—because you don’t get luck like this unless you are working so consistently and so hard and for the right causes. Your luck is the result of extraordinary energy and determination, and we all here tonight honour you for what you have done for our vulnerable people over the years.

I want to start by saying that I’ve been really very, very struck by some of the things that have been said tonight, and it seems to me that this bill is more than just a good piece of legislation; this bill is a really interesting moment in our collective conscientiousness in this House—because my colleague Karen Chhour had it right: it’s about shame and what shame does to victims. There’s an old saying—and I am the product of a 1970s second-wave feminist mum and dad—that rape is a tool to control all women, because it is the constant fear that we carry around, and I know also our rainbow community carry around on their shoulders all the time. When I walk home tonight, at the fine old age of 49, I will be watching doorways and under trees, because rape is a fear that all women carry all the time.

This bill is about shame. Rape and the fear of rape is not just the violation itself; it is the fact that sexual degradation is what rape is about. Sexual shaming is what this bill is about. It is about the fact that, for long, longstanding reasons, sex is something done to women that is degrading in a way it is not to cis men. And I say that with no disrespect to my male cis colleagues in the House. I have heard you tonight, I know you are with us, but this is the background to this bill. Mr Mitchell, I’m so honoured that you brought your experience as a father to us tonight, because I suspect that, for many men, that is truly the only time many cis men—that may be the only time you actually feel that burden of shame and helplessness that so many women and rainbow people carry every day. And it is used to keep us under control. It is used to keep us fearful. Well, no more.

Under the previous regime that Louisa Wall’s bill is designed to address, it is that sense of sex as degradation to women that is present in the legislation. So, if you look, the ways in which this sort of act of digital communication, sexual acts—if you look at how it is characterised—you have the Crimes Act section 216G; that’s about up-skirting, effectively. It is the crime where someone has non-consensually taken intimate video recordings of someone. And that’s fine; it’s a good law, but what I’m saying is it buys into that thing: sex is shaming, but if you didn’t consent to it, then you deserve some protection. There is no requirement of harm in section 216G of the Crimes Act.

If you then look at the other major candidate, it’s the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. And I do take the point that this was a good attempt, but it was a good first attempt, because what it did was take the case of the woman or the queer person who dares to consent to a sexual image being taken of themselves. In that case, if you want protection from the law, you have to prove serious harm has been done to you, that the intent was to harm you, that harm would have occurred to a reasonable person in your shoes, and that it did actually occur. And what we have watched time and time again is the courts in this country fail to recognise the effect on, largely, women who came before them seeking help, under this section, as harm—“You weren’t damaged enough.” And I cannot help thinking that the idea that the woman had consented to that initial image has something to do with it. If you want coverage under that old toxic masculinity we’ve been carrying around so long, you’d better be really beaten and bloodied if you want protection.

That is why I so honour this bill and I so honour the people in this room tonight who have stood together to say, “No more.” Because the crucial point about this bill is it defines the act from the perspective of the victim. You do not any longer have to show your scars or your bruises or the tears in your genitals, because it is recognised that the harm is implicit. And that is a massive step forward for the vulnerable people in our community, for your daughter, for my queer son and my daughter, for my women friends, for their daughters and their sons. This is a massive step forward to the rejection of shame, and the right standing and the equality of all of us in this country.

That is why, when we looked at this bill, we decided that we would try to create a discreet offence in new section 22A. I take my friend and colleague’s point that some aspects are not in this bill—deep fakes, for example—but that is because what we were concentrating on here is the breach of trust in interpersonal violence and in interpersonal relationship. I look forward to your Supplementary Order Paper and the debate that will follow.

We also refused to accept the idea of express consent. And this was again, to answer Jan Logie’s comment, because we refused to allow the possibility that it could in fact be weaponised against the victims again. Consent, express consent—the idea was to talk about how children or young people might want to convey their consent, so that the perpetrator would have to think through the process and whether they actually had consent. The problem is, as we heard from our submitters, that consent can be weaponised, because consent can be coerced; it can be persuaded. We are talking about children, at times, who are too immature to make that decision. We rejected the idea of express consent. We went for consent simplicita. We also decided to take away the concept of consent for children, and I’m pleased that we did that, because, going back to that same situation, there is such pressure on our young people. It is unnecessary to have to interrogate that point.

Finally, we made the response to the situation easy. We made it possible to get interim orders up fast rather than having to wait, because porn and revenge porn run around the world 15 times before a court has even got its robes on.

So I want to finish by saying to the people who submitted to us: you do not need to be shamed. You took back your power, and right here, in this House, right now, we’re holding on to that space for you. Don’t be shamed any more. Thank you. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Speaker’s Rulings

Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill—Process

SPEAKER: Members, before I call the next bill, there’s two points that I’d like to make. One is that, as with the previous stage of this bill, if members wish to have one, there will be a personal vote, and it will be treated through the debate as a conscience issue.

The other point I’d like to seek the leave of the House on: I’ve had a couple of members who indicated that they’d like to make short contributions. What I will do is seek the leave of the House for this to be a two-hour debate with speeches of not more than 10 minutes, so that if there’s time left from shorter speeches it can be used by other members. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.

Bills

Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

LOUISA WALL (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. I move, That the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

To begin, I would like to acknowledge the 890 interested groups and individuals who submitted on this piece of legislation, and note that 97 submitters were heard here in Wellington and by video conference. I want to acknowledge the advice of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Justice, the advice from the Office of the Clerk, and also the work of the Parliamentary Counsel Office.

I also want to note, under Standing Order 269(5) that the Health Committee also had to consider the advice from the Attorney-General. The section 7 reports, I think, are incredibly important. They highlight bill of rights issues—therefore human rights issues—and I want to take the opportunity, actually, to acknowledge the work of the Hon David Parker and the Office of the Attorney-General. I’d like to thank Liz Craig, as the chairperson, for her diligent work, and in doing so, we have an amazing Labour team, but I also want to highlight the members of the Opposition, particularly Simon Watts, also Chris Bishop, and Penny Simmonds, who I thought played an incredibly constructive role, I hope she doesn’t mind me saying, but given her reservations about this piece of legislation. I want to acknowledge Jan Logie, who did an incredible amount of work, and just generally thank the Health Committee for the thoroughness of their recommendations to the House. I want to note that they recommended by majority that this bill be passed, and they recommended all amendments unanimously. I actually think that is a very important point.

I’d like to reinforce what this bill is about. It aims to protect the safety and wellbeing, and respect the privacy and dignity of women accessing abortion facilities, and practitioners providing and helping with abortion services by providing a regulation-making power that would enable safe areas to be set around specific abortion facilities. I think focusing, at this stage, on the Hon David Parker’s inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is really important. Essentially, he said that there were freedom of expression issues—and freedom of expression in terms of being able to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form. I want to commend the select committee’s engagement, then, with the Attorney-General, and, in fact, their diligence in providing the evidence to overcome this particular inconsistency.

I have an opportunity tonight, after the select committee wrote to the Attorney-General asking that he present a formal paper to the House revising the opinion, given his initial report on the bill, and therefore the inconsistency. So with the leave of the House, I’d just like to quote from a letter from the Attorney-General dated 10 November 2021: “My concerns have now been addressed. The communicative behaviour criminalised by clause 13A(1)(c) is narrower than the original proposal. The broad phrase ‘communicating with’ has been replaced by three new tests, which are all narrower than the original proposal and have appropriate exemptions built in.”

He goes on to highlight two specific examples: “There appears to be little prospect that communication from support persons or service providers would be criminalised under the revised draft, as a result of the exemptions in clause 13A(1)(c)(i)-(ii); and ‘engaging in protest’ in clause 13A(1)(c)(iii) is narrower than the previous phrase ‘communicating with’, which means that communication activities which cannot be regarded as a ‘protest’ and might commonly be seen at or nearby a hospital”—and I want to emphasize this—“(such as an individual engaging in silent prayer) will not risk being criminalised.” I chose to highlight that particular contribution from our Attorney-General because I think that the work the select committee have undertaken to ensure now this bill is New Zealand Bill of Rights Act - compliant should reassure this House.

I particularly want to focus on some of the amendments proposed and how the committee made some of the decisions that they did. They have removed the definitions of “prohibited behaviour” and “protected person”, and they have done so to enable a clearer articulation of what will happen within a safe area, what will be criminalised within a safe area, but also from their perspective, to protect the victims of this type of abuse from having to give evidence if a prosecution was bought. So the prohibited activities, for example, are going to be “advising or persuading A to refrain from accessing or providing abortion services”, “informing A about matters relating to the provision of abortion services unless it was when the services were being provided”, and “engaging in protest about matters relating to the provision of abortion services.”

Because they now have removed a definition of who a protected person is, there will be no requirement for that person to give evidence in court. There is an exception to that rule, and it is related to the visual recording of a particular person. They have, through their deliberations, said that within the context of someone being visually recorded, the police have been very clear that they would interpret this provision to mean that a person would need to give evidence about their reason for being in a safe area. The committee were comfortable with this approach, and, obviously, with their comfort comes my comfort as well.

I want to highlight that there was quite a bit of discussion from organisations such as the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand (ALRANZ)—and particularly Terry Bellamak; I want to acknowledge all of her work as the president of ALRANZ—about having a blanket approach to all abortion facilities. She didn’t think we needed to go through a case by case process, but in fact, again, through the deliberations of the select committee, it’s proven that a case by case process is actually going to be the best method to identify which of the abortion facilities require a safe area.

In particular, I want to highlight that one of the issues for the select committee that we had to grapple with was the inclusion of private premises. I know that for many members of the committee, they did not want to encroach on private premises. So if we took a blanket approach, then there wouldn’t be an option or an opportunity through a case by case process for private properties to be excluded following consultation with the property owner.

I’m going to leave other specifics about the bill to the select committee members. I have to say, some of it is incredibly technical. I know the level of advice that the select committee received to come to a determination about the amendments that they unanimously agreed to happened because of, as I said before, the consideration, the ability for them to suspend, in some instances, their personal position about the bill, but actually to reflect the contemplation, as select committees must do, on the merit of particular pieces of legislation, but also a process that makes the legislation better.

So my final comments really are to the select committee to thank them for their diligence and, obviously, to work constructively as we progress this bill through the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I seek leave to table advice from the Attorney-General dated 10 November 2021 about the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that process being followed? It may be tabled.

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

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. I rise this evening, again. Sorry, you must be getting sick to death of me. But this is a really important piece of legislation, the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment, that I rise in support of. Again, I find myself congratulating and acknowledging my colleague Louisa Wall for a really important piece of legislation.

I am a member of the select committee and I do need to acknowledge, again, the incredible hard work of that committee. This was a really difficult piece of work, and it was undertaken with a degree of collegiality and respect even though we were coming from different points of—well, different perspectives. Like, some of us held very different views on this piece of legislation. I’d just like to genuinely acknowledge and thank my colleagues from across the House for the way in which we were able to engage and try to create the best possible piece of legislation. The history behind the need of this legislation, I think, has been well litigated, and we don’t need to repeat it. But, actually, I think what’s happened is we’ve been able to look at it in a great deal of detail, and I think we’ve created something that’s better. So I’m really proud of the work that this committee has done, and I’m really proud of every single member of the committee for the way in which we’ve worked.

I’d also like to thank the 890 submitters we had. We heard oral submissions from 97 of them. So there was a significant body of work in there. I’d just like to reassure people who might be listening that we do read every single submission and we do listen to every single person with respect and honour their perspective, even if we don’t agree. But I just wanted to say here that what this piece of legislation is not is it’s not actually relitigating the right of pregnant people to access abortion care. We’ve actually had that conversation. The House heard from thousands of submitters over many months and agreed in a conscience vote that abortion is a healthcare issue. So although I understand completely that there are some people who feel strongly that this isn’t the case, my point here is merely to say this isn’t the point of the bill. What it’s about is it’s just trying to ensure that safe areas are set up around specific abortion facilities, so that when people are accessing what I would absolutely describe, as a midwife in a previous life before entering the House, as absolutely essential healthcare, they can do so free of harassment, intimidation, or threat. I’d also like to add it’s not just about the people accessing the care; it’s about the providers of that care. It’s really important that they’re able to go about their daily business and go to and from work without having to fear or be subjected to abuse and harassment.

Every organisation, it’s worth knowing, that provides healthcare supported the bill. But some people did say when they were submitting that they didn’t feel that it was necessary because anti-abortion protesters were arguing that they don’t mean any harm, they just want to pray peacefully and quietly and offer sidewalk counselling. But unfortunately, although I completely accept that that’s absolutely the case for a group of people, they are peaceful in intention and they are well meaning, the effects of some of their actions are far from peaceful to the person on the receiving end. I can say that there is a need for this legislation because I’ve seen and experienced it myself. There’s a genuine fear in healthcare providers and among people accessing abortion care that the influence of misinformation and rabble rousing can and eventually will lead to violence.

This is a live issue. If you have the opportunity to watch on Netflix a really good documentary called Reversing Roe, which I do recommend, it explores in detail the threats and violence that abortion providers have experienced in the United States. I would say “Yip, that’s the United States. It’s not here.”, but we’ve seen for ourselves the influence of misinformation and of, I would suggest, an agenda driven from outside New Zealand, and the effects that that can have on what we might hope would be peaceful protesters. But the right to protest is incredibly important, and when we were doing this piece of work, we were trying to make sure that, above all, we had that balance and that we’d weighed up the right to protest freely against the right of every individual to access healthcare in a safe manner.

So, as Louisa Wall has mentioned before, we did a substantial amount of work, and this is the bit where I am going to get a bit technical and I apologise, but I don’t really apologise—I love it. We had to respond in a positive way because the Attorney-General, as you’ve heard, was of the opinion that in the bill as it stood, clause 5 appeared to be inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression. Every single person on that committee takes that opinion extremely seriously, and so we felt the urgent need to make sure that we did adjust the bill to make sure that it was compliant with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We have had the reassurance from the Attorney-General that what we have done has achieved that, so we don’t need to worry about New Zealand Bill of Rights Act compliance, which is incredibly important.

I’m going to have to read out a few bits here, so forgive me. What we’ve done is we’ve prohibited certain behaviours, rather than having protected persons. So, just to describe the sorts of things that are now prohibited in this bill now with the amendments from the committee, a person must not “obstruct a person in a safe area who is approaching, entering, or leaving any building in which abortion services are provided;”, which is pretty simply understood.

Also, they can’t “make a visual recording of another person … in a manner that is likely to cause emotional distress to a person accessing, providing, or assisting with providing, abortion services;”. This is the one area where the complaint by the individual who was recorded would need to be made, because one of the things that we have been trying to do was to remove the necessity of the victim of the harassment and abuse from having to come forward and make the police reports and, potentially, go to court, because whilst there is nothing inherently shameful at all about accessing abortion care, for many people, it’s a process that they would just like to put to bed when it’s over—like any healthcare provision, but especially so here—and actually being made to bring a complaint forward is something that would prohibit people from actually coming forward when they were, in fact, subjected to abuse.

So the things that can’t be done are “advising or persuading the individual A to refrain from accessing or providing abortion services”, because, quite frankly, they have the opportunity to access that advice from multiple different areas before the day when they actually need to go and access abortion care. The people who are excluded from that are people who are either with that individual—so they aren’t prohibited from actually talking to them about the abortion care they’re about to receive—or of their provider themselves.

But the most important thing that I wanted to address, I think, was that we needed to make sure that people’s express need to pray peacefully in what we would describe as the safe area—which I would just like to emphasise is a maximum of 150 metres from the property where abortion care is provided, and that’s a maximum on a case by case basis. So every single facility or unit will have to, if they wish, apply for and go through the process of applying for that safe area to be tailored uniquely to their particular needs. So we needed to make sure that the voices could be heard from people who perhaps wanted to exclude private property but, more importantly, we just made sure that we had the best and safest coverage for everybody.

What is completely not prohibited in any of this piece of legislation—and we felt this was really important—is the private, peaceful prayer that doesn’t in any way reference abortion care. So if you were, for example, standing with a poster that was of what you alleged to be an aborted fetus, that would be prohibited behaviour, regardless of whether you were praying or not. But if not—if you were standing peacefully and no reference was made to abortion care—that would not be prohibited. So I feel that that really achieved a balance of rights there.

Now, it’s clear that I could talk for a while on this piece of legislation—

SPEAKER: Not much more.

SARAH PALLETT: —much more; no, I’m going to stop—but I just wanted to thank everybody again for all of the work that went into this legislation and commend it heartily to the House. Thank you.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much for providing an opportunity to take a call on the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill, second reading.

I’d firstly, obviously, like to acknowledge Louisa Wall for this member’s bill. As a member of the Health Committee, it was, as has been noted by many speakers in this House, a thorough and comprehensive process that was undertaken by that committee. And at all times, I would commend you in terms of the pragmatism and willingness to listen and work with the committee in order to work through what were a number of significant challenges. I think that, as has been highlighted by other members of the committee, is for us as a group, taking aside our positions and our views and opinions around the bill, to unanimously support this through does send a really quite inspiring message around an element of collegiality, particularly around this bill. So thank you for what you have done.

Obviously this bill, and I think it’s an element that really needs to be reinforced, is really to be putting in place—to protect, primarily, women going through the process of abortion, and the reality of the type of woman is it’s generally young women. The age of 20 to 24 is sort of the highest proportion. Around 51 percent of women that have abortions are in their 20s, and for 65 percent of them, this will be their first child. So I think that was never lost on the committee in terms of, you know, the importance around why we were doing this. And I think the element or the issue around compassion—I think, it’s probably the right word in terms of this bill providing a purpose, which is to protect those individuals.

I think we listened to what were 890 submissions. We, obviously, saw 97 of those come through, but there was a number of submissions that I remember from young women across this country that gave their personal reflections and experiences of going through that process. I cannot imagine what that would be like, but it was definitely something that the committee took on board and I think that carried through with the recommendations that we made.

I was someone who went into this process and while supporting it at first reading I had concerns. I had concerns, particularly around clause 5 of the bill in regards to the conflict it had with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, section 14. I am absolutely, very proud actually, in terms of when Louisa read out the statement this evening from the Hon David Parker, the Attorney-General, in terms of what the bill was going into this process, what the select committee as a team contributed and did, and the outcome that we received. I think it cannot be underestimated that the outcome that the committee did in conjunction with all of those advisers, the Ministry of Health, Justice, Police, and all of the submitters is significant. I think, as a result, we’ve been able to bring a bill to this House that was significantly better than what it was before. So I just wanted to acknowledge that element of the process. For me personally, that was definitely a highlight of the process when I look back on it.

I think the other aspects—we’ve obviously made a number of changes in terms of the bill in terms of what are the defined elements, the behaviours that this bill would prohibit. We’ve heard about visual recording, which we’re aware causes emotional distress. We’ve heard about prohibiting certain activities in safe areas, and we’ve heard about only the need to testify in the cases of visual recording. I think that was a thorough process. I think the process also to expedite and get those safe areas put in place was an area that the committee spent a lot of time discussing.

The concept of a blanket application offset with a case by case basis—I think where we landed, as Sarah Pallett outlined before, around case by case, I think is the best approach. It balances really well, I think, the difference between some of the challenges around if a private home sits within 150 metres of the abortion clinic—and these are the practicalities that that we worked through with the committee—and if someone was standing on their fence, yelling across or putting a sign up in their backyard. How do we balance those issues around the importance of private property and the freedoms around that with the young women that we heard coming in that are wanting to be protected and feel safe going through this health procedure? So I think we landed in a good position there.

I think I’ve acknowledged, as I said, why this bill is so important in terms of the women that it protects and keeps safe. I think the element around the committee acting with compassion was very clear. And I think, just finally, I wanted to thank Louisa Wall again for her contribution in terms of bringing this member’s bill to the House. As a member of that committee, alongside all my colleagues in this House from across the political parties, I’m proud in terms of what we’ve brought back here. I commend this bill to the House.

SPEAKER: The time has come for me to leave the Chair. This bill is set down for further consideration next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10.03 p.m.