Tuesday, 16 November 2021

TUESDAY, 16 NOVEMBER 2021

TUESDAY, 16 NOVEMBER 2021

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Deputy Speaker): Kia tau anō te rangimārie ki a tātou. Kia inoi tātou. E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kuīni, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Amene.

[Allow peace to prevail over us once again. Let us pray. 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 and humility, for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]

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

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

SPEAKER: No petitions have been presented. No bills have been introduced. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

2020-21 annual reports of Callaghan Innovation, New Zealand Capital Growth Partners, and Mercury NZ Limited

2021-25 statement of intent for the Inland Revenue Department

Government response to the interim report of the Regulations Review Committee on a complaint about the Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations 2008.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.

Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Reports of the Petitions Committee on the petitions of Degu Geddebo, Joanna Spratt, New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union, Patrick Dingemans, and Paul Jackson

Report of the Primary Production Committee on the petition of Jen Hyde

Report of the Regulations Review Committee on the examination of COVID-19 orders presented between 21 and 28 October 2021

Report of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, New Zealand Transport Agency: Maintaining state highways through Network Outcomes Contracts.

SPEAKER: The COVID-19 orders and the report of the Controller and Auditor-General are set down for consideration.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Westpac bank’s latest quarterly economic review has reported that the economy has remained resilient in the face of the current Delta outbreak and is well placed for our recovery in 2022. The report stated that employment levels rose 2 percent and unemployment fell to a record low—3.4 percent in the September quarter when the country was at the highest alert levels. Household demand remained firm while businesses had adapted to the outbreak and were pushing on with their investment and hiring plans. Looking ahead, Westpac expects unemployment to remain low, and economic activity will rise back to firm levels. It’s forecasting solid average annual GDP growth of 4.6 percent in 2022. None the less, while the economy is performing strongly, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic means no one can be complacent. We’re working closely with business as we transition to the next stage of responding to COVID.

SPEAKER: Before I call the member, I want to remind members in the gallery that the rules as far as slogans and boxes apply the same way there as they do here. Thank you.

Dr Duncan Webb: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the first set of Crown accounts for the new financial year showed the continued strength of the New Zealand economy, despite the challenges of COVID-19. The result of the stronger starting position for the economy before the outbreak meant that core Crown tax revenue for the three months to the end of September 2021 was $2.3 billion above Budget 2021 forecasts, coming in at $24 billion. GST revenue was $184 million above forecast, owing to stronger than expected consumer demand. Overall, the operating balance before gains and losses was a deficit of $5.4 billion, $0.8 billion higher than forecast. This was a result of the Delta outbreak, which triggered a shift in alert level restrictions and, therefore, the payment of Government support to businesses and workers in order to protect jobs and livelihoods. It’s worth noting that net core Crown debt was 33 percent of GDP, which was lower than the 36.2 percent forecast by the Treasury, and significantly below most countries we compare ourselves with.

Dr Duncan Webb: What constraints is the pandemic placing on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The economy’s performance has exceeded the expectation of most economists and commentators. This has been reflected, as I say, in the Crown accounts, which do give us more options to respond to the ongoing effects of the pandemic. But this remains a happening in a challenging environment. The recovery is uneven for some sectors and regions, while the pandemic continues to disrupt global supply chains, which is affecting the New Zealand economy. Key Government actions to reduce the impact of the supply chain disruption is being led by the Ministry of Transport with an inter-agency forum, where we are working with both importers and exporters. But there is no quick fix to these global issues. The Government will continue to take a balanced approach and invest in supporting the recovery and meeting other challenges while carefully managing our resources.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. I especially stand by the Government’s decision to make booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine available to all New Zealanders 18 years or older who have completed their two-dose course more than six months ago. This announcement follows approval by Medsafe and will ensure the best protection possible for those who have received their earlier doses here in New Zealand or abroad. Unlike other countries, boosters will be available for all who qualify from later this month. I observe that in many countries in Europe, some have only just started their booster campaigns, and many are limiting who are able to access boosters. We expect around 450,000 people will be eligible for their booster shot before the end of the year. You’ll be able to make your booking on bookmyvaccine.nz from 26 November.

Hon Judith Collins: Why is she waiting until tomorrow to tell Aucklanders suffering through 13 weeks of lockdown what the rules will be for travelling this summer?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Simply because, as the member will remember, not every decision that’s made by Cabinet is then announced within half an hour of the decision. This is a particular decision that does have operational impacts. Once Cabinet made that decision, it’s only natural, of course, that we would want to ensure that agencies were aware of it before it was publicly announced.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she expect the rules to change between yesterday, when Cabinet discussed and decided them, and tomorrow, when she plans to announce them?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, but nor is that the reason; I’ve just already given the member the rationale. I would also highlight for the member that there are many decisions that we make that we do share immediately. Of course, alert level decisions, for instance, are discussed at Cabinet at 1 o’clock and then shared at 4 o’clock. This is, however, a decision where we did want to make sure that we had awareness across agencies and those affected by the decision.

David Seymour: How can there be operational implications requiring awareness by agencies when all she proposes to do is announce a date which is, presumably, several weeks away?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, without going into some of the detail, it will not just be a date.

Hon Judith Collins: Why didn’t the Government work out a plan for regional travel in the 18 months before this outbreak?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member will be aware, there have been a number of occasions where we have had to operate land boundaries; we have done so and then, of course, following elimination, they’ve been able to be lifted. Delta, for every country around the world, has been an absolute game-changer. It did not even exist 18 months ago. In fact, I would point out to the member that many of the countries’ experiences that they are having now—with the likes of the Netherlands and Austria, despite high vaccine rates—having to re-impose restrictions, is because Delta is behaving very differently than, for instance, Alpha. If we were still in that phase of the pandemic, we wouldn’t be having many of these conversations.

Hon Judith Collins: So does she stand by her statement yesterday that the traffic light system “provides greater protection for New Zealanders than we see with the current alert level system.”; if so, why haven’t we moved to it already?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, when coupled with good vaccination rates. At the time that we announced that framework, the vaccination rates simply weren’t high enough to be able to move into it—particularly, it also would have had equity issues. We, of course, in that framework do require the use of vaccine passes to ensure that you’re able to operate at a reasonable level; having a reasonable number of people vaccinated is also required. I would also point out it would not have been safe, at that point, to transition to the framework in Auckland with the outbreak the way it was, with the vaccination levels at that rate. It does require decent vaccine levels.

Hon Judith Collins: So whose fault is it that 20 percent of New Zealanders were double-vaccinated when the latest lockdown occurred?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Unlike that member, I’ve never been in the practice of blaming the existence of COVID-19 on anyone. Every single country around the world has had to take on this challenge. And do you know what? As a Government, the fact that we have one of the lowest mortality rates in the world, one of the most successful in terms of the recovery of our economy, the lowest unemployment rates; growth in GDP, and some of the lowest case rates around the world—as a Government, we acknowledge the hurt that many people have experienced, but relative to other countries, it has been far, far less. I think history will tell the story of the team of 5 million.

Hon Judith Collins: Point of order. My question was very clearly who is at fault.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! That was answered in the first part of the answer.

Hon Judith Collins: Why are thousands of people allowed to go shopping at Sylvia Park in Auckland, but an Auckland restaurant cannot serve people in their outside dining area?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Taken across, as a whole, the profile of hospitality is just different to retail, and that has been recognised throughout this pandemic.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Leader of the Opposition asked a question. Her own team should not be shouting down the answer, if, in fact, it was a serious question.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: You will not find a country around the world that I can think of, that in the way that they have worked with hospitality, have treated hospitality and retail the same. In that vein, there are some countries who have only recently allowed their hospitality services to reopen fully since February 2020. We’ve been in a vastly different set of circumstances. Yes, they have been at the front line of restrictions, but when we move in to the new protection framework, that is when the industry will have greater certainty, and that will be part of our progress in our response to COVID.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. I waited until the end of the Prime Minister’s answer to point out that the interjections by my colleagues, which I would consider to be rare and reasonable in the circumstances, were not a reflection of the quality of the question but of the quality of the answer. If you are suggesting now that those rare and reasonable interjections, and from time to time, some levity, cannot be part of the exchange in oral question time, I think that would be a shame.

SPEAKER: Well, I totally agree with member if they were rare. They weren’t rare; there was a barrage from at least 15 members.

Question No. 3—Research, Science, and Innovation

3. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: How is the Government backing high pay-off, innovative research projects, including those that support the fight against COVID-19 and climate change?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research, Science and Innovation): Science and innovation are primary tools in helping Aotearoa address significant challenges like COVID-19 and climate change. I recently announced that through the Marsden Fund, we’re investing more than $82 million over the next three years across 120 projects. This includes opportunities for funding pioneering blue-sky research to create new knowledge as well as applied science to support the transition to a low-emissions and climate resilient economy.

SPEAKER: Before I call a member, I just want to indicate to members who have been away for a while that you don’t need to put your mask on in between your supplementaries and the main question.

Naisi Chen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How will the research funded through this Marsden Fund round underpin New Zealand’s climate change response and understanding?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government is committed to addressing the challenges created by climate change and transitioning to a low-carbon future. Through the Marsden Fund, we’re investing in a range of projects to help us understand and respond to the effects of climate change. Climate change projects include how the Antarctic ice sheets will respond and the effects on our oceans; research into how our oceans behave, including carbon sink areas that could have implications for global carbon budgets; and research into the behaviour and implications of micro-plastics in our environment. The researchers carrying out these projects will drive New Zealand’s ambitions in pioneering world-leading research.

Naisi Chen: How will this Government’s investment into science support the Government’s COVID-19 response efforts and ongoing health response?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Science has always been at the heart of the Government’s response to COVID-19. Projects funded through the Marsden Fund include supporting research into the impact of the last 18 months on our rangatahi as they moved into an online learning environment and understanding why people change their beliefs. We’ve also invested $33 million through the COVID-19 Innovation Acceleration Fund to support innovative research projects and technology that mitigate the impact or prevent the spread of COVID-19. These included epidemiological modelling, genomic sequencing, and detection of COVID-19 in waste water, which has underpinned New Zealand’s ability to respond to COVID-19 and contain the virus. I want to congratulate and thank everyone involved for their impactful work that will benefit this country’s long-term future and transform people’s lives for the better.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s statements and policies?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. In particular, I stand by the actions of this Government that have seen the gender pay gap drop to its lowest level, at 8.6 percent. This is the direct result of many efforts made. We’re also seeing the unemployment rate for women dropping to 3.4 percent—the lowest in over a decade—and the under-utilisation rate for women drop to an equally historical low of 10.9 percent. We know more needs to be done. We’ve got further work to go on reducing the pay gap for Māori, Pacific, and Asian workforces, but this demonstrates that reducing the gender pay gap is possible with concerted effort and with the Government, public services, and unions working together.

David Seymour: Why does she believe those employment statistics when unemployment keeps going down at the same time that the number of people on the job seeker benefit and the amount spent on welfare keeps going up?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, we have seen declines across job seeker relative to early on, particularly in the COVID-19 pandemic.

David Seymour: Does she believe her Government implements its policies competently, and, if so, why is it now using debt collectors to recover up to $36 million worth of managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) fees it didn’t collect when the guests stayed—something that every private sector hotel in the world somehow manages?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would refer the member to the fact that—if I recall correctly—we’ve had something in the order of $99 million worth of MIQ costs paid by individuals who have come through the system. Over the course of the programme, we have altered the invoicing system to ensure that we obtain greater efficiencies around it, but it’s not unfair to have an expectation that people pay the bill that they were fairly issued as part of our border protection framework.

David Seymour: Which of her statements more accurately describes the Government’s policy for vaccination targets: is it her own 14 September statement that “we’ve not given a specific number”, or her 22 October statement that we’d need a “90 percent fully vaccinated [target set] across each DHB region” before the rest of the country moves into the new traffic light system?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, the member well knows that we’ve said all along that we want the highest rates of vaccine in New Zealand possible—the highest rates. In fact, Dr Bloomfield himself has continually talked about milestones. There will never be an endpoint for us so long as there are individuals in New Zealand who are eligible to be vaccinated who are not vaccinated. Every single percentage is an extra layer of protection for the country, and I would hope that we can all agree on that. The member has asked a question around when we would alter our COVID strategy as a result of vaccines. Yes, we’ve given an indication that the COVID protection framework—indicatively, we’d want high vaccination levels in order to move into it. We’ve got a decision-making day with Cabinet on 29 November, and we have indicated that we will be pragmatic around some of those calls relative to our vaccination levels.

David Seymour: Does she stand by her statement that “There’s a strong view coming through from the Ministry of Health that we should consider moving to the protection framework, or traffic light system, earlier because it provides greater protection.”, and if she does stand by that statement, at what level of vaccination is the traffic light system safer than the alert level system?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I do stand by that statement and—as I said in an earlier response to the Leader of the Opposition—it does require, though, of course, it to be coupled with high rates of vaccination. Ultimately, though, the higher the rate, the greater protection we have as a whole. The COVID protection framework then uses that layer of protection via vaccine passes. There is a balance to be struck in there, though. You do want to make sure that you’ve got enough people who are vaccinated to fairly and equitably still be accessing parts of the sector who will be relying on vaccine passes to operate.

David Seymour: So at what rate of vaccination does it become true that the traffic light system offers more protection than the alert level system?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The traffic light system offers protection by ensuring that only vaccinated individuals are accessing certain facilities. If you do not have COVID in your community, then, actually, that becomes a moot point, but we are starting to see COVID cases that need to be managed and that we need to protect people from. The COVID protection framework allows you to do that without having to have people in level 3 restrictions.

David Seymour: So at what rate does the traffic light system offer more protection than the alert level system, and does she understand that New Zealanders would really like to know that because it would explain when a move might be safe to make, or is it actually the case that—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s had two legs.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve already responded to the question. The COVID protection framework cannot operate unless you have vaccinated individuals in the community. That is why, on the advice of experts—they’ve said the higher the rate, the better the protection. They have said that a target of preference of 90 percent—we’ve said that on 29 November, we’ll assess our rates at that point and make decisions about the movement into the framework.

David Seymour: Is not the real problem that the law and the software for the COVID protection framework are not ready yet, and the vaccination rates are not the problem; she’s just buying time for the software—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely not. In fact, one of the concerns—until you have high vaccination rates, if you choose to no longer use some of the blanket restrictions we’ve had available to us, there is concern of course that outbreaks, both because you don’t have high enough vaccination rates and because you aren’t using widespread restrictions, get out of control. That is why you have to have both good vaccination rates and a framework that utilises those vaccination rates to maximise the safety for the whole population. I’m happy to have the member receive a personal briefing on some of the decisions that have been made to date on the COVID protection framework if he so chooses.

David Seymour: Well, thank you for that offer. Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement “Climate change is my generation’s nuclear-free moment.”, and does she stand by her Government’s policies where New Zealanders face higher electricity prices, rising carbon emissions, and record imports of Indonesian coal, or was the nuclear-free moment always meant to be coal-powered?

SPEAKER: Order! Before the Prime Minister answers, I am going to remind members in the gallery that their interjections count in the same way as those on the floor do.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I do, and the point I’d make to the member is that without considerable investment—for instance, if we continue to simply rely on the 80plus percent of renewable electricity generation we have today and do nothing about the fact that we have no renewable solution for when we have a dry year—then, yes, we will continue to be relying on fossil fuels, which is why we’ve made investments to try and overcome that issue, alongside the work that we’re doing with the private sector to decarbonise energy generation in those fossil fuel - dependent industries. I note that the member would choose to do nothing in that regard.

Question No. 5—Health

5. Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his September statement, “The reality is we have available at the moment roughly 325 ICU or ICU capable beds”; if so, how does he reconcile that answer with his response to written question No. 50686 that “there are 284 resourced ICU/high dependency unit beds”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Yes, and officials advised recently that they have changed the basis on which they calculate ICU and ICU-capable beds.

Dr Shane Reti: Does he agree that it is resourced ICU beds that are important and that ICU nurses are a limiting factor?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What’s important is for people to know that, if they require intensive care because of COVID, in our public hospital system, they will get that care, and the care that is required means a bed, means a ventilator—if that is necessary—and it means staff who are capable of providing that care, and we will have that care in place.

Dr Shane Reti: How, then, does he reconcile his claim that we can add 225 surge ICU beds if needed with Friday’s peer-reviewed editorial in the New Zealand Medical Journal, which found New Zealand only has enough ICU nurses to add 67 ICU beds, not the 225 he is claiming?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, very easily. We have a number of beds that are in designated ICU wards in our hospitals around the country, and then we have a number of other beds in other parts of hospitals—for example, in post-operative recovery and in other areas. And, then, with the additional training that has been given to nursing staff and others, and with the additional ventilators that are available, officials advise that we can provide surge capacity for that additional care if we need it.

Dr Shane Reti: So are the three ICU specialists who wrote in the New Zealand Medical Journal wrong?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I go on the advice of Ministry of Health officials—which includes the Chief Medical Officer, who himself is a senior surgeon from Counties Manukau Health—and a range of other specialists and experts, who put that advice together, who are very careful about making sure that the facilities we have available in the New Zealand public hospital network are capable of providing the care that is needed, particularly in the face of the pandemic.

Hon Todd McClay: Why are there only four resourced ICU beds in the whole of the Lakes DHB area, with either three or all four beds in use for 60 percent of the last two months, and will he give an absolute assurance to the people of Rotorua and Taupō that no one who needs a resourced ICU bed will miss out?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The answer to that question is very simple, and that’s the “graph of shame”. [Holds up graph] If you want to have a look at the history of investment in public health facilities over the last 14 years, the nine years of short, stubby blue bars is the National Party, and the tall handsome red ones are the Labour Party. The reality is that the Labour Government, in four years, has invested six times as much in public health facilities than the nine years of the previous National Government. What I can reassure that member, because of his failure to speak up for his own constituents in the time that his party was in Government, is that we will have the care available for people who require hospital-level care as a result of the pandemic. And, if it’s not in their local hospital, it will be because the response that we are putting in place is organised on a regional hospital basis, and they will get that care in the public hospital system that they need.

Hon Todd McClay: Point of order, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: I’m going to warn the member: if he complains about the answer—

Hon Todd McClay: No, I’m not complaining about the answer, and you’ll be able to judge when I finish.

SPEAKER: I can’t imagine what another point of order would be.

Hon Todd McClay: Well, that’s the great thing about points of order; one doesn’t have to imagine.

SPEAKER: All right. The member will have a go, and if it’s disorderly, he’ll go.

Hon Todd McClay: Thank you. Mr Speaker, there was so much noise I couldn’t hear the Minister—whether he confirmed there were only four beds.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s exactly the point I made to the member. It was a complaint about not being able to hear it. The member will leave the Chamber.

Hon Todd McClay withdrew from the Chamber.

Question No. 6—COVID-19 Response

6. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) to the Minister for COVID19 Response: What recent announcements have been made on New Zealand’s COVID-19 vaccine immunisation programme?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Following Medsafe’s approval of the Pfizer vaccine as a booster, the Government announced yesterday that we’ll roll out a booster vaccination programme and that doses will be available from 29 November. The Pfizer vaccine will be used for boosters, regardless of which vaccine was used for earlier doses. It’s the same Pfizer vaccine that’s been used for the first and second doses for most New Zealanders through our vaccination roll-out. Vaccination is the best protection against COVID-19. People will be able to access boosters in New Zealand, whether they received their earlier doses here or overseas. With our eligible population now at 90 percent for first doses, and 81 percent fully vaccinated, we’re now amongst one of the most vaccinated countries in the world, and we can continue to keep ahead of the pack by rolling out boosters.

Vanushi Walters: What criteria, if any, will there be to obtain a booster shot, and what does this mean for people who have had two doses?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I would note that most other countries are rationing booster doses to certain segments of their population. We’ve made the decision to make boosters available to everybody six months after their primary vaccine course was finished. Accordingly, most of this roll-out will happen naturally in 2020. That ensures simplicity and it also helps to ensure equity. Our focus will be on encouraging the most at risk of COVID, including our health workers, our border workers, and our Māori and Pacific communities. We’ll also be making sure older people and our kaumātua, including people in aged residential care, have good access to booster doses when they become available. People don’t necessarily need to rush to get this done. If you’ve been vaccinated, you’re still very well protected from infection and from becoming seriously ill if you were to get COVID-19—Pfizer protection, for example, ranges from 85 to 93 percent in its effectiveness against severe disease, for hospitalisation it’s is 80 percent - plus.

Vanushi Walters: How many people will be eligible for a booster shot this year, and do we have sufficient stock to accommodate all eligible New Zealanders?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are currently 144,000 people in New Zealand who’ve been vaccinated for six months or more. By the end of the year, we expect that to increase to 455,847 people. We’ve got heaps of vaccines available to support the booster shots for eligible New Zealanders, and, of course, we’ve ordered an extra 4.7 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine for 2022. I’m also pleased to say that we have recently approved the use of AstraZeneca for those who are unable to get the Pfizer vaccine. We’ve got enough supply, as well, to ensure that if future eligibility extends to five- to 11-year-olds, or we have a surge in people getting vaccinated through the booster programme, we’ll be able to meet that demand.

Question No. 7—Finance

7. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Finance: Have wages kept up with inflation in New Zealand over the last 12 months; if not, does this mean New Zealand households are worse off than they were 12 months ago?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The member knows that across the world we are seeing higher rates of inflation, and New Zealand is not immune from that. We can see this in the 4.6 percent average rate of inflation across OECD countries for the year to October 2021. Though inflation has risen above the rate of hourly earnings increases as a result of the recent quarterly data, over a longer period of time real wage growth has been strong. Since 2018, wages have risen by 3.5 percent on average annually, while inflation has risen by 2 percent annually over the same period, and, as recently as the second quarter of this year, wages had been rising ahead of inflation. In answer to the second part of the question, this is not necessarily the case. For example, approximately 116,000 more people are employed than 12 months ago, and 37,000 fewer people are working less hours than they would like to. The Government has also announced an historic investment in our welfare system, which builds on earlier measures, such as the Families Package and the indexation of benefit levels to wages. I do acknowledge that the rising cost of items such as petrol and food places a strain on household budgets. However, the Government’s approach of supporting employment through COVID-19 and improving the adequacy of income support has put many households in a better position to manage these increases.

Andrew Bayly: Can he confirm that with inflation at nearly 5 percent, it is over double the increase in wages and salaries, which means New Zealand households are materially worse off?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I can confirm is annual wage growth, using the average hourly earnings measure, was 3.5 percent in the most recent data, compared to 4.9 percent for inflation.

Andrew Bayly: How does he expect a family to afford fruit and veggies when prices have risen just under 10 percent in the year to September, the largest increase since this index was measured?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my primary answer, the cost of food is something that places a strain on household budgets. It’s one of the reasons that we focused on making sure we lift the incomes of low-income New Zealanders. I welcome this change of heart from the National Party to support benefit increases.

Andrew Bayly: How does a young student or pensioner on a fixed income afford to pay their rent for new tenancies—new tenancies—that have increased by almost 8 percent in the year to September?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is using the flow measure, as he notes, of rental prices—

Andrew Bayly: And are you going to use the stock?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: He’s reading my mind. But, actually, I’m not. What I’m going to tell him is that while it was 7.8 percent in September, it was 5.8 percent in October. It shows the volatility of that particular measure. He is better off using the stock measure, which was an increase of 3.3 percent.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Has he seen any opposition to measures that are designed to increase household incomes?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Sadly, I have seen opposition to measures such as increasing the rates of benefit, or, indeed, increasing the minimum wage on a regular basis to support low-income New Zealanders, but consistency is not something I’m looking for across the House.

Andrew Bayly: What does he say to Aucklanders who have spent 91 days in lockdown, who are facing rapidly increasing costs of living, making it much more difficult to put food on the table and to buy presents for Christmas?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I say to Aucklanders is what I’ve said several times in this House—that I thank them for the sacrifices that they have made on behalf of New Zealanders to make sure that we can get through this pandemic, and I also say to them that they can rely on the Government to stick to the plan we’ve got, which has led to us having one of the lowest mortality rates in the world, and an economic recovery better than many other countries in the world.

Question No. 8—Police

8. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has she seen regarding Police’s efforts to disrupt organised crime?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): I’ve seen reports that Police Operation Mist has resulted in the seizure of more than 50 kilograms of cocaine; nine individuals arrested; and $300,000 in cash, cocaine, and cryptocurrency wallets seized. Operation Mist has delivered a massive blow to an organised crime syndicate who Police believe to be one of the major suppliers of cocaine into New Zealand. Based on waste-water data, Police believe this group were supplying the majority of cocaine into New Zealand. The success of this operation is testament to the hard work of police officers and the relationships they have built with their international colleagues, including the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, Colombian national police, the Spanish customs service, and the Cook Islands customs service.

Ginny Andersen: What other recent actions have Police taken to disrupt organised crime and the illicit drug trade?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I’ve also seen reports that, as part of Operation Freya, Police and Customs have dismantled a sophisticated drug dealing and smuggling operation, making 12 arrests and seizing $8 million worth of drugs in the process. Together, these two operations have struck a major blow to organised crime and the supply of illicit drugs in New Zealand.

Ginny Andersen: How is the Government supporting Police in their efforts to disrupt organised crime?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This Government recognises the harm caused by gangs and organised crime in our community, and that’s why we’ve undertaken significant cross-Government work to respond to local, national, and transnational organised crime. We’ve committed to amending the proceeds of crime legislation to ensure that those involved in organised crime would have to demonstrate their assets were obtained through legitimate means. If they can’t, their assets will be seized. We’re putting a record number of police on the front line with a specific focus on organised crime. This Government’s record investment in Police will include 700 additional investigators. This operation highlights the excellent impact these officers can have.

Question No. 9—COVID-19 Response

9. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: On what date did the Ministry of Health sign a contract with MATTR to develop a vaccination pass for domestic use, and is he satisfied with progress in the development of a domestic vaccine pass?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Work began to establish My Health Account and My COVID Record in April 2021. I’m advised that a standard tender process was followed for the work to put the certificate part of that system in place. That commenced in July. A request for proposals was released on 9 July to seven suppliers. The Ministry of Health standard procurement process was then followed. The evaluation panel recommendation was approved on 15 September and the contract was signed on 13 October. In answer to the second part of the question, yes. Like all matters related to COVID-19, the Government’s taken a measured and considered approach to ensure that New Zealand’s got access to reliable and safe technology to protect ourselves from COVID-19, both domestically and around the world.

Chris Bishop: So just for clarity, can he confirm to the House that the contract for the development of the vaccination pass was only signed by the Government a month ago?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, for the very last part of the process, which is the actual downloadable certificate part of the process. But, as I indicated, what sits behind that, which is people’s vaccination records and the ability to access their vaccination records, the work on that began in April.

Chris Bishop: What is the explanation, if there is one, as to why it took until October 2021 for the very final part of the vaccine certificate process to be contracted for development?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated, the tender part of that process started back in July, and given the member who has just resumed her seat has criticised the Ministry of Health in the past for not following tender processes for IT-related projects, I’m sure he would support there being a full tender process.

Chris Bishop: Did any of the health advice that was provided in the lead up to yesterday’s Cabinet meeting make any reference to the fact that My Vaccine Pass is still in the final stages of development, and did this inform decisions not to move Auckland to the COVID protection framework earlier than later?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m very confident that the vaccine certificates will be available when we move to the protection framework.

Chris Bishop: Point of order. Mr Speaker, that wasn’t actually the question. It was: “Did any of the health advice for yesterday’s Cabinet meeting make any reference to the fact that My Vaccine was still in the final stages of development?”

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Speaking to that point of order, Mr Speaker, I addressed the last part of the member’s question. It had multiple prongs to it and I addressed the second one.

SPEAKER: That’s the rules—you have multiple legs; you only have to answer one.

Chris Bishop: Can he confirm that the decision to keep Auckland at the current alert level 3, step 2 setting and not move the region to the COVID protection framework has nothing to do with the fact that My Vaccine Pass is not available to Aucklanders and, in fact, New Zealanders today?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think the question somewhat contradicts itself, but the fact that the certificates are not yet available to download is not a factor in the current situation in Auckland.

Question No. 10—Economic and Regional Development

10. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What announcements has he made regarding climate standards for new Government buildings?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): Last week, Minister Shaw and I announced that from 1 April 2022 all new non-residential Government buildings with a capital value of over $25 million will have to meet a minimum Green Star rating of 5. As of the 1 April 2023, this standard will apply to all new non-residential Government buildings with a capital value of over $9 million. These minimum standards will ensure Government buildings achieve a level of excellence and climate-friendly design and construction rarely seen in New Zealand. Our Government has committed to achieving carbon neutrality in the public sector within five years, and this announcement takes us a step closer towards delivering on that promise.

Willow-Jean Prime: How will this rating system work?

Hon STUART NASH: The Green Star standard operates on a system of 100 points, with 4 star, 5 star or 6 star ratings available. A 5-star rating requires between 60 and 74 points, with points allocated for reductions in operational and embodied carbon, construction and operational waste, as well as other climate-friendly features such as reduced stormwater discharge or peak electricity demand. Buildings are big emitters, but the solution to this, such as improved design, better waste management, improved water and energy efficiency, and the low use of low-carbon materials, is achievable. This particular Green Star system is administered by the New Zealand Green Building Council and is adapted to suit a New Zealand context.

Willow-Jean Prime: What feedback has he received on this announcement?

Hon STUART NASH: A lot of positive feedback. For example, Cristina Gamboa, head of the World Green Building Council, speaking from COP-26 in Glasgow, has said, and I quote, that “This government promise … catapulted Aotearoa to the forefront of countries who recognize that buildings have a critical role to play in tackling climate change” and that “This ambitious policy shows exactly the kind of leadership that is needed, and we’ll be using it as an example to encourage other national governments to follow in New Zealand’s footsteps.”

Hon Eugenie Sage: How much does he expect applying the Green Star 5 standard to non-residential Government buildings will reduce the waste produced in their design and construction, and how will the Government measure that reduction?

Hon STUART NASH: It’s my understanding that the Green Star framework requires about 70 percent of construction waste to be diverted from landfill. This will be achieved by, for example, using recyclable products like building out of wood.

Question No. 11—Housing (Public Housing)

11. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): Does she expect Kāinga Ora to evict public housing tenants where their ongoing anti-social behaviour is threatening the wellbeing of others, or does she agree with the decision of Kāinga Ora to not evict a tenant living in public housing in Whangārei, despite the tenant reportedly subjecting their elderly neighbours to a “prolonged campaign of intimidation and fear”?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): Everyone has the right to feel safe and secure living in their home, and I would expect Kāinga Ora to do all they can to ensure that this is the case. I’m concerned about reports on this particular case and I’ve asked for an update from officials. Kāinga Ora takes complaints seriously and I expect them to get involved as soon as they become aware of an issue at one of their properties. Eviction is a very specific process. It involves the Tenancy Tribunal ending a tenancy and a court bailiff taking possession of the property. It is not the only tool available to Kāinga Ora to deal with antisocial behaviour. People who need help to be housed can sometimes have complex issues in their lives that may lead to antisocial behaviour. Our Government is committed to sustaining tenancies to ensure that they have a secure foundation from which they can get the support that they need.

Nicola Willis: Has Kāinga Ora evicted any of its tenants in the past three years, and if not, why not?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: An eviction is a very specific process that involves, as I’ve said, the Tenancy Tribunal ending the tenancy, and the court bailiff taking possession of the property. I’m advised that three evictions from Kāinga Ora homes have occurred since September 2017. I would note that eviction is not the only tool available to Kāinga Ora to deal with antisocial behaviour.

Nicola Willis: Did Kāinga Ora evict any tenants this year, in 2020, or in 2019, and if not, why not?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: It’s worth acknowledging that while Kāinga Ora has not evicted households for antisocial behaviour in recent years, in the last 12 months alone, we have worked to relocate 159 households with antisocial behaviour concerns.

SPEAKER: Order! That did not address the question. The Minister will answer again, addressing the question asked.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: No. It is worth—

SPEAKER: Well, the member has now answered the question. Thank you.

Nicola Willis: Well, is it correct, as reported, that Kāinga Ora now has an internal policy that has prevented the agency evicting even the most difficult abusive tenants for the past three years?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: We do not have a no-evictions policy. What we do have is a sustaining tenancies policy, a policy that has been in place since the last National Government. If the member would like more information on the sustaining tenancies policy, I would refer her to the Hon Amy Adams’ letter of expectations to Housing New Zealand, dated April 2017.

Nicola Willis: What would it take for a tenant to be evicted on that Minister’s watch, if not the death threats and ongoing abuse experienced by a retired couple in Whangārei whose Black Power neighbour threatened to slit an 82-year-old’s throat to watch him bleed out?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: As I’ve said, everyone has the right to feel safe and secure when living in their home. Kāinga Ora take seriously complaints regarding antisocial behaviour and I expect them to get involved as soon as they become aware of the issue at their properties. I would also note that there is also an opportunity for them to call the police if serious threats are being made.

Question No. 12—Agriculture

12. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he stand by his statement that, relating to PKE, “the New Zealand Government would not support importation that has led to illegal activity in foreign nations”; if so, why?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare)) on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture: To the first part of that question, yes. And second part: because New Zealand does not support the illegal importation of goods. New Zealand businesses need to ensure the integrity of their supply chains and that they are operating consistently within the laws of the relevant country.

Teanau Tuiono: Has the Minister directed his agencies to investigate recent reports linking Fonterra’s palm kernel expeller (PKE) supplier, Wilmar International, to illegal palm oil plantations and deforestation in Indonesia, and, if not, why not?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: On behalf of the Minister, while I can’t speak on behalf of Federated Farmers, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and industry are working together with farmers on how they can farm without PKE, and this work will continue.

Teanau Tuiono: Is the Minister concerned that New Zealand’s status as the largest importer of PKE in the world is a reputational risk to our agricultural sector, following the Government joining a global commitment to halt deforestation by 2030 at COP-26 last week, and, if not, why not?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: The Government takes deforestation very, very seriously. In relation to that specific question, for the member, the dairy system is overwhelmingly pasture based. So I’m advised that approximately 80 to 85 percent of a New Zealand dairy cow’s diet is pasture, with the remaining being supplementary feed. And all crops growing PKE account for approximately 6 to 7 percent of the total feed consumed by New Zealand dairy cows, and around a third of the non-pasture feed. It might be of interest for the member to know that PKE imports peaked in 2018 and have fallen by 17 percent, by volume, since then.

Teanau Tuiono: Does the Minister agree with the recent comment from Federated Farmers’ dairy chairman that, referring to PKE, “We have farmed without it before and we could again.”, and, if not, why not?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Absolutely. Actually, the Federated Farmers chairman, Wayne Langford’s full quote, which I support, goes: “It would definitely be a change to the systems currently in place. But we have farmed without it before and we could again.”

Teanau Tuiono: Will he seek advice from his officials on New Zealand’s use of PKE sourced from palm oil plantations overseas and options for addressing this?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: I’m advised that this Government, and through the work of MPI—that we have an enormous regenerative farming programme that’s currently operating throughout the country now. This Government has invested $6.5 million in regenerative agriculture projects through the Sustainable Food and Fibres Futures. So, yes, we would be looking at overseas models, for that member, but we’ve got our own programme of work that will address the very issue the member has raised.

Question No. 5 to Minister

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I regret not raising this at the end of question No. 5, but in your reflections on today’s question time, I wonder if you would review whether answers by Ministers that led to disorder were consistent with or in breach of Speaker’s rulings 191(1) and (2).

SPEAKER: I’ll certainly have a look.

Parliamentary Service Commission

Membership

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That under section 15(1)(d) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000, the Hon Michael Woodhouse be appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Service Commission.

Motion agreed to.

Offices of Parliament

Office of the Controller and Auditor-General—Appointment of Auditors

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That pursuant to section 38(1) of the Public Audit Act 2014, the House appoint PKF Goldsmith Fox Audit as the independent auditor to audit the financial statements, accounts, and other information of the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General for the financial years ending 30 June 2020, 30 June 2023, and 30 June 2024.

There was a brief discussion about this at the Business Committee. Of course, while I’m the person bringing the recommendation to the House, this is the recommendation of the Officers of Parliament Committee. There are only a limited number of auditors who could possibly do this work. Most significant audit firms do work contracted by the Office of the Auditor-General and therefore it would be a conflict of interest for them to themselves be auditing the Office of the Auditor-General. When previous processes have attempted to run a tender for this work to take place, it has by and large been relatively unsuccessful. In this case, the incumbent auditors, the current auditors, PKF Goldsmith Fox Audit, are happy to continue in that role, and that is the recommendation of the Officers of Parliament.

Motion agreed to.

Deputy Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That, pursuant to section 164 of the Intelligence and Security Act 2017, this House recommend to Her Excellency the Governor-General the appointment of Mr Graeme Ian Speden as the Deputy Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security for a term of three years.

Motion agreed to.

COVID-19 Orders

Approval

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I move, That this House approve the following orders made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020:

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) 2021

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Amendment Order (No 2) 2021

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order 2021

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 2) 2021

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 3) 2021

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 4) 2021

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 5) 2021

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 6) 2021

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Amendment Order (No 3) 2021

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 7) 2021

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order (No 2) 2021

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Amendment Order (No 4) 2021

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 8) 2021.

This is certainly not the first time the House has had to do this. Under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, orders that the Government makes—or that I make as the Minister for COVID-19 Response—under the aforementioned Act, have to be endorsed by the Parliament. They only apply for 90 days if not endorsed by Parliament. In between me making an order and it coming to the floor of the House for a vote, it’s scrutinised by the Regulations Review Committee. And I can tell you, as the person who receives the correspondence from the Regulations Review Committee, that they do a very thorough and diligent job of scrutinising those orders, of ensuring that they are being made consistent with the Act, of ensuring that they are not being done in a way that unduly tramples on people’s rights and freedoms—although there is recognition in the Act itself that people’s rights and freedoms may be affected by the COVID-19 response.

So I want to run through, briefly, the orders—and there are 12 orders that are under consideration today. I’ll deal with them in groups.

Eight of the orders in question deal with alert level - type changes. So the purpose of the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) was to prevent and limit the risk of the outbreak or spread of COVID-19 by setting the level 3 conditions that are in place in Auckland, and the level 2 conditions in place around the rest of the country. Subsequent amendments have been made to that as the response has continued. The changes covered by those amendments include things like: the level 3 boundary that was put into effect in the Waikato; the level 3 period that Northland was placed at that alert level; the mandatory testing requirement for those crossing the border for work; amendments in relation to gatherings and physical distancing requirements in certain circumstances, like early childhood education; and the requirements for movement between Auckland, Waikato, and other parts of the country. I want to acknowledge that the Regulations Review Committee did make some useful comments around how we define the boundaries in the Northland region. And it recommended that the boundaries should be described by reference to roads, rivers, or other geographical markers—which the public would be more familiar with—rather than the cartographical references that are used in the current orders. I think that that is a reasonable suggestion.

The committee also expressed concern about amendment order No. 7 which imposed a new prohibition on people travelling to a secondary home or place of residence after a Government announcement of alert level change, and before those changes came into force. The committee was concerned that there was insufficient communication of the new rules, and if there was insufficient communication of the rules, it could lead to people unknowingly committing a criminal offence. I want to be clear here that that’s always the case when an alert level changes and a boundary is put in place. This particular change was to effectively stop the Coromandel exodus that has happened once or twice from Auckland when the alert level has escalated there. People knowingly, knowing that Auckland is about to go into a lockdown, abandoned Auckland and headed out to the Coromandel to their beach houses—that somewhat defeats the purpose of having a boundary in place in order to contain the risk. So while I acknowledge the committee’s concern in this particular case, I don’t necessarily agree with it.

Two of the orders amend the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Order that was put in place last year. That’s the order that establishes managed isolation and quarantine. Amendment Order (No 2) updated the definition of medical examination and testing to include the use of saliva testing. Amendment Order (No 3) prescribed the requirements for self-isolation by those taking part in the Government’s self-isolation project. There was one concern expressed by the Regulations Review Committee, which said that the order “assumes a link between a person’s participation in the programme and their employer.”, which would not necessarily be the case, but the rationale for creating a legal obligation on the employer for the behaviour of the participant is to ensure that the employer only puts forward employees who the employer trusts to participate in that pilot programme.

The COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order (No 2) updated the principal order to extend the meaning of “vaccinated”, to recognise some of the people who may have been vaccinated with vaccines other than Pfizer abroad. So it includes vaccines like Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, etc. The COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Order 2020 was designed to protect and limit the risk of an outbreak by requiring testing and medical examination of affected people for COVID-19, and it put in place—for staff at various education locations and facilities—the requirement to provide a negative test before they physically enter the site. It puts in place a weekly testing requirement for unvaccinated workers at an affected education service until mandatory vaccination requirements come into force on 1 January. The committee raised some concerns about the clarity of that order, as they often do about orders, and we’ll have a look at those as a package—though these orders have been pretty central to our COVID-19 response, and they’ve helped to play a very significant role in limiting the spread of COVID-19 cases across New Zealand. Often, they are put in place in a hurry. Often, the Regulations Review Committee—and in fact the work that officials do after orders are put in place—identify further changes, refinements, clarifications that can be put in place. That’s one of the reasons why these are often regularly amended.

Some weeks I seem to be up until midnight most nights awaiting the day’s order coming through so that it can be signed and gazetted that night, because, inevitably, given the pressure that the drafters work under here, there will be points of clarification that need to be made, and I want to thank those who do that. I do really just want to underscore that point: that when decisions are made, the process of putting the legal instruments for those in place is a very compressed one. The people who do this work do so under enormous pressure and often right into the night and into the early morning in order to make sure that the law is clear and that it can be complied with, and I certainly thank them for their efforts. They have been integral to our COVID-19 response, they have been diligent and conscientious, and they deserve our acknowledgment and our thanks.

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

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the Minister for COVID-19 for that long, or reasonably long, explanation as to the various orders that the House is approving. For those listening who perhaps are not so au fait with the procedure here, what the House is doing now is actually a very important constitutional role. Pursuant to the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act, the House has given the Government quite extraordinary powers to promulgate various orders and restrictions on people’s movements, and make people do a variety of things—for example, if you work at the border, you have to get a test regularly, and other things.

So Parliament has given the Government extraordinary powers, and now Parliament is exercising its constitutional duty to make sure that the Government is exercising those powers responsibly. As is its wont, Parliament has given the Regulations Review Committee the heavy burden of doing that work, and the Regulations Review Committee, as the Minister has indicated, does a very good job in doing that. We take that job seriously, we do it conscientiously, and we do it diligently, and I want to extend my thanks to the very hard-working team who support the Regulations Review Committee. Basically, what we are trying to do is to make sure that the powers exercised by the Government in the orders, in the legal parlance, vires—so, in other words, they are legal and they follow consistently with what the powers that Parliament has given to the Government are.

So, in that regard, I want to indicate that we’ll be supporting the motion moved by the Government to approve these orders, but I do want to make four particular points around four of the orders.

The first is in relation to the variety of orders to do with saliva testing, and I want to put on the record, from the National Party point of view, the great concern we have, still, with the way in which saliva testing is dealt with by the Government. So COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Amendment Order (No 5)—and you’ll forgive me, sir, if sometimes we get the exact number wrong, there’s so many of these orders—that relates to saliva testing and amends the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Order 2020. We believe that saliva testing is not being utilised to the extent that it should be in our managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities, and I want to place on the record our great concern at the Auditor-General’s report released last week—well, not report, I should say; it’s more of a letter to the House, or I think it was actually to the Rt Hon Winston Peters and others—in relation to the procurement process for saliva testing, generally, this year. That report is of grave concern, and, at some point, we are going to have to have a reckoning as to what has happened with saliva testing in New Zealand.

We are concerned that, still, if you are in MIQ, you cannot take a saliva test as part of the mandatory testing in MIQ as a returnee. The trial that was meant to be under way already has been suspended by the MIQ operators, for reasons that are not fully understood, and so we are concerned about that.

The second order I want to deal with relates to the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 6). This was the one that was presented on 12 October 2021 in relation to the alert level decision by adding Northland as a new separate part of the alert level 3 area. The concern here, and this was recognised by the Regulations Review Committee, was clause 15 inserted a new Part 3 in Schedule 3 of the principal order, and it described the Northland part of the alert level 3 area as “the area within the boundaries of Northland Region, as shown on LG-01-2019-Con-1.”, which is a text-based numerical description, I think, of—it’s essentially a map reference. But the point that the Regulations Review Committee made was that that is not readily accessible to most people. I didn’t really know what it meant—it’s a rule of law issue, which is that people should be able to work out what the boundaries are of the travel restrictions, and simply saying “LG-01-2019-Con-1” is essentially hieroglyphics, basically, for most people, in fact, 99.9 percent of people, unless you’re familiar with how to read maps; most people would have no idea what that even means.

So that goes to a rule of law issue, and that has now been fixed and the Regulations Review Committee has done a good job in highlighting that, but that is not the way these things should be done, and the Regulations Review Committee wrote to the Minister saying that there needs to be a reference to things that people know about—so roads, rivers, geographical markers that ordinary, reasonable people can identify so they know what they can and can’t do. That’s perfectly reasonable, and that is an example, actually, of the committee doing its job to improve the order.

The other issue I want to pick up is in relation to the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 7), which is the issue to do with the prohibition on people travelling to a secondary home or place of residence after a Government announcement of the alert level change, and the Minister made reference to this. So it’s after there’s an announcement of an alert level change, but before the changes come into force. The committee’s noted that this is an unusual provision. It imposes an obligation that relies on a subsequent oral announcement. Now, the Minister didn’t have a lot of concern with that—or I think he indicated that he didn’t really agree with the concern—but that is unusual. So for the Government to impose an obligation on someone that relies on a subsequent oral announcement—and the committee’s noted: “Although the main part of the obligation is in this order, elements of the obligation only exist when an oral announcement is made.”—that places a reasonably heavy burden on people to actually listen to the oral announcement and, again, from a rule of law point of view, that is, I would say, suboptimal. Things should be as clear as possible in writing so that people can follow the law and follow the rules. So I respectfully disagree with the Minister in his disagreement with the problems with that order.

Finally, I want to deal with the issue of the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12). This is the one that was presented on 23 September that moved Auckland and the Upper Hauraki to alert level 3, and kept New Zealand at alert level 2. This is in relation to the rules regarding the obligation to carry evidence of a COVID-19 test. So the existing obligation at the time was to carry evidence for a COVID-19 test taken no more than seven days before a journey. It then introduced an obligation of no more than 72 hours before a person’s journey. The point I want to make is that with Delta, 72 hours is actually, arguably, still too long a time—that for the imposition of these requirements on people, we really should be moving to rapid antigen testing, as I think David Seymour said.

So members will be aware of the truck driver—this is a while ago now, but we’re dealing with things from a while ago—who left Auckland, went to Palmerston North, and tested COVID positive. He was only on a weekly testing cycle, and, yep, 72 hours is better, but how good would it have been if we had rapid antigen testing in the country and he could have taken a daily test before he started work? Now, it’s likely—we don’t know, obviously, but it’s likely—that that test would have picked up the fact that the truck driver had COVID on the day he took the trip. As it was, he went four more days without testing positive for COVID, and, as I’m sure the Minister and other people would agree, how quickly you pick up COVID, particularly with Delta, is critical. You’ve got to pick it up as fast as you can, and, unfortunately, the Government’s failure to move fast enough on rapid antigen testing has meant that this order—we’ll approve it, but it could be so much more, and it could be that if we made use of the technology that we have available, we could have imposed an order that said evidence of a negative COVID test, or rapid antigen test, on the day of, or for people working through the night in the 24 hours before.

That would have been a better order, I think, more consistent with public health, and, actually, I would say, more consistent with the science, because as Professor Jackson’s report makes clear from the COVID-19 Testing Technical Advisory Group—in his words—we’ve been too slow on rapid antigen testing. I know the Government’s got an aversion to it, but we really should be using it more, and that’s what this order should have contained. But we will approve them, and thank you to the Minister for the explanation.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of these 12 orders, which, of course, are already in effect. We note the work of the Regulations Review Committee in preparing this report. I suspect you’ll be doing many, many more of them. Ngā mihi to the Minister for this introduction.

So we note these orders were first presented in the House between 21 September and 18 October; this is our first opportunity to actually debate them. They were made in that period when Auckland was first put into level 3 and other areas such as Northland, Waikato, and Upper Hauraki were moved to higher alert levels. So much has changed since then, but I think it’s important to always come back and check on these things. So, as the Minister noted, these cover isolation and quarantine, alert level requirements, required testing, and vaccinations. So—[Clears throat] aroha mai—I’m going to briefly comment on some of those.

I agree with the previous member, how important it is that saliva testing is much, much more prevalent in the work that we’re doing. So we’re looking to see much greater clarity around how that will be used and the prevalence of its use.

Many of the requests I receive are about clarifying the restrictions. People are getting very, very confused. So even sensible and very intelligent people are coming to me to say, “What about this, what about this, what about this?”, and it’s getting very, very tricky. So I realise that’s a significant comms issue, but if people can’t understand the rules it’s really hard for them to keep coming to them—so requirements about where to use face coverings or the numbers for gatherings.

Although I suspect incentives work better, from what we have seen in raising vaccinations, we note that it does create another infringement offence for people who are not displaying a quick response (QR) code. So just a shout-out to all those thousands and thousands of businesses who do have all their QR codes up there, that are following the rules, have their little stations, and are doing all the things. I suspect it’s only a very small number of people who are still not meeting that. So, if need be, if we must do infringement fees, that is in place.

But as COVID moves around the country, for those of us in Tai Rāwhiti and other areas where vaccination numbers are so low—and that’s for everybody, not just for Māori, and that’s despite the really hard work of our local providers and our community people getting that push out there—we’re watching very, very, closely what happens with the Auckland border and how people can move across alert levels.

So the Greens want to see an increase in the compassionate reasons for people to move across the border: being able to see whānau, being able to attend tangi—those things are really, really important. Family connection, especially, is critical—

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to draw the member back to the orders.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: Ka pai. I was just coming back, too. So we support more access to businesses and services, work and education, funerals and tangi, which is one of the things of this order. So we’re saying that we absolutely support those. Increasing permissions to allow children moving between caregivers and people going to or relocating their principal places of residence; we see this as particularly important for students who are all going to be leaving the main cities where their—which institutions they were in, and those who are going to be moving to them to take up study.

We support relaxing the border restrictions when it is safe to do so. So we do support people being required to carry evidence of a test or a negative result, and we do welcome the prohibition of people moving to a second place of residence. In particular, that Auckland people should not be—or anybody, really—able to go and do holiday on nearby places like Waiheke or Aotea. What we’re not clear on, though, is what this means in terms of transitioning to a traffic light area and how those prohibitions work. So we still would look forward to greater clarity on that.

The last part I want to address is around self-isolation and the pilot. So we note that this particular order is around the requirements for work-related trips, which, of course, also includes all of us. So we support increased guidelines on this, because, now that we’ve had a few deaths with people who are self-isolating outside of managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities or hospitals, we’re concerned about the capacity for people. So I certainly am hoping that that pilot has got clarity on how they’re looking after all these people—hundreds at the moment, but probably thousands eventually—who is testing them and who is checking whether they actually should be in hospital, and at what point that happens. So we said that anymore self-isolation needs to prioritise those who need it instead of putting people in overcrowded situations, or who are mainly in hardship. An opportunity, perhaps, to reunite split migrant families by including them in these trials and ensuring MIQ is available for community cases unable to self-isolate safely.

And, finally, we note our overall concern that the obligations and permissions made through these orders prioritise those who are most vulnerable, and lead to the safest outcomes. Kia ora.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of this motion to approve these 12 orders that the Government has made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act. We think that it’s been a good system, such as things go, to be able to give the Government the power to act quickly but also have the laws clearly written down, so people know what their rights are, and have ultimate parliamentary oversight and have those laws eventually debated, even if they couldn’t be debated at the time they were introduced. It’s a good compromise for an emergency situation but not the way that we’d want to have lawmaking done in the long term. I hear the Minister talking of sitting up late, signing papers well into the night, and I think about other historical figures who have done that, and it’s never a good company to keep.

This particular set of orders has, for example, rescinded the alert level 3 requirement that was briefly in place for the very tip of Northland. It’s an alert level change that never made any sense from a public health point of view. That particular alert level requirement meant that an area at the very tip of Northland, where there were a couple of cases—the line went through the centre of the Hokianga Harbour and then across to Kaeō and blocked off Kaitāia and the rest of the northern tip of Northland. Interestingly, the same day that that line was drawn, the Prime Minister of New Zealand had been visiting Rāwene, on the south coast of the Hokianga Harbour, and Kawakawa, just south of Kaeō. How convenient that the Prime Minister was never quite north of the line that went to alert level 3, and yet there’s so many reasons why that line might have been drawn further south. There were suspected cases all the way down to Wellsford and even Warkworth, but isn’t that interesting that the line was drawn just north of where the Prime Minister had been that day? [Interruption] I’m sure people will draw their own conclusions about that. Members at home might be able to hear Willow-Jean Prime, the member for Northland, chirping up there. I think she knows there’s something in that, and that’s why she’s a little agitated by hearing it said.

This legislation also puts in place the vaccination mandate for the health and disability sector. It required people be vaccinated with at least one dose by, actually, today, or as of last night. I’ll make a couple of comments about that. One is that it would be better if it was a vaccine or test mandate. That’s what they’ve done in Denmark. They have allowed people to demonstrate on their app. They’ve got their app rolled out already, which is helpful, and it says either you’re vaccinated, you’ve recently had a negative test, or perhaps you’ve recently recovered from COVID. In any case, you’re not a danger to people around you in so far as passing COVID on to them. I think it would have been helpful if it was a vax or test mandate. That’s what Air New Zealand will be using from mid-December to fly domestically on their aeroplanes. I hope that the Government will consider making it vax or test, because vaccine-only is rather blunt. It’s creating disruption and division in New Zealand. We need to think about our social cohesion in the long term, as well as our immediate battle with COVID-19.

The other thing about that particular order that brought in place a health and disability mandate is the way that it was introduced. It was two weeks. There were three weeks from when it was announced that health and disability sector workers would have to be vaccinated to the day, just yesterday or today—last night—that they had to be. In those three weeks, it actually took two of the weeks from the time the announcement was made to the time that the order was actually put in place, and that’s something people need to understand about how the Government is using these powers under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act. It’s getting up and making announcements, and then it’s taking two weeks to issue the paperwork. I can tell the House that the implications of that for people in the health and disability sector were immense. They found themselves in a situation where they didn’t know exactly who was covered, exactly who was liable for enforcing it, exactly who was in a position where they would be punished if they didn’t comply. It led to chaos in the health and disability sector for a fortnight, and I just wish the Government, having been given these powers, would actually get a bit more organised itself so that it didn’t impose disorganisation on the very people being regulated.

It allows for more frequent saliva testing, and I think that’s a very welcome thing, but I just echo what Chris Bishop has said: every 72 hours in a Delta environment—arguably even that is not regular enough. There’s certainly under-utilisation of saliva testing. It was interesting in question time today that the Prime Minister really gave some quite lively answers, actually. Uncharacteristically, she really let rip in a couple of instances. One of the things she said is we are no longer in an Alpha environment: we have Delta now. I think the Prime Minister is right to observe that. It’s very true. But, you know, the funny thing is our testing is still Alpha. We still have nasopharyngeal testing, and sometimes only once a week or once every three days. We should be moving to much more frequent saliva testing and even rapid antigen testing. But three days is certainly what Air New Zealand will be using as a standard, and it’s an improvement on once every week.

There’s something here about Waiheke Island. You’ll only be able to go there if you live there, and I know from people I know on Waiheke that they’ll be very pleased, because they don’t like Aucklanders visiting their island. I also just beg the Minister: can he make it symmetrical? Because while they’ll certainly enjoy not having us Aucklanders over there, if he made it both ways, then potentially we could enjoy them not coming over to see us either. There’s the potential for a real win-win, and I know Aucklanders and Waiheke residents alike will be really pleased not to see each other for as long as possible. So thank you for getting half the job done, Minister. Please complete it.

There’s also an amendment here that allows people—an amendment to a prior order, that is—to travel back to their boarding school. Now, I had several constituents—we have a number of boarding schools in the Epsom electorate—who had to, basically, miss out on sitting their exams if they weren’t able to get in from the Waikato or from Auckland. Thankfully, the Minister actually changed the law, apparently and coincidentally, just after myself and a local principal had written to him, and we’re very grateful for that change, because it meant that those kids were able to sit their exams. But it also showed how illogical some of these laws were. If you were the cook at the hostel, then you would have been able to travel, because you’re doing food and accommodation. If you’re the kid trying to sit the exam, going to the school, you weren’t allowed. I’m glad they changed it.

There’s also vaccine tests for schools. Now, that’s, in a way, expired, but for a while there, unvaccinated teachers could get tested instead. This, again, is why I think if there’s going to be a mandate, it should be vax or a frequent negative test. It will be a lot more inclusive of people who really, frankly, need a way back into inclusion, who are feeling very alienated from society right now, and it would also help us achieve our goals without the disruption and division that we have. The fact that the Government policy was vax or test up until yesterday, I think, is why they should bring it back.

Recognition of overseas vaccines—again, very sensible. A lot of constituents I’ve had—people that like to travel. Kiwis can fly. They get vaccinated overseas and then they find that their vaccine is not recognised. I even had someone who participated in a French trial in New Zealand of a French vaccine—only recently been able to have their vaccine recognised. So they’ll be very happy that now it can be. There’s an MIQ trial there that allows people—150 business travellers. Look, this is something ACT floated and, actually, really, we borrowed from Singapore in March, in our COVID 2.0 paper. We should have a business travel network. Very good that 150 business people can travel, but it’s not soon enough.

And just finally, I appeal to the Minister: there’s a number of orders here about movement across the Auckland and Waikato boundaries. I’ve got a constituent right now who has a $200 million residential and shopping centre being developed in Tauranga, and they cannot open it up. It should have been finished three weeks ago. They can’t open it up, because it’s not disability friendly, because they can’t get the people from Schindler Lifts to go down from Auckland to Tauranga and sign off the lifts. This is totally insane. So, Minister, I hope you’ll actually grant an exemption to them, because they’ve tried every other way to get through to you, and right now you’ve got $200 million, people trying to move into their apartments, people trying to open their shops, and they can’t because a few lift engineers can’t go down. The same lift engineers have just been installing lifts in a retirement village. Apparently that counts; shops and apartments don’t. So I really hope that the Minister will listen and make an exemption so that shopping centre in Tauranga can open up and those people can move into their apartments. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That this House approve the following orders made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020: COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Amendment Order (No 2) 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 2) 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 3) 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 4) 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 5) 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 6) 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Amendment Order (No 3) 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 7) 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order (No 2) 2021, COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Amendment Order (No 4) 2021, and COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 12) Amendment Order (No 8) 2021.

Ayes 118

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

Noes 2

Te Paati Māori 2.

Motion agreed to.

Orders approved.

Bills

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

Second Reading

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

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

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I move, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.

The bill makes amendments to the COVID-9 Public Health Response Act, a piece of legislation we’ve already just had a bit of a debate about in the House in terms of the orders that have been made underneath it. The overall goal of this is to ensure that we can continue to respond to the pandemic in a flexible and agile way as our response to COVID-19 continues to evolve in the coming months. I would like to thank the chair and the members of the Health Committee for their diligent consideration of the bill. I’d also like to thank those who made submissions on the bill.

I want to comment on some of the substantive issues that were raised, and I think it would be fair to say that one of the things that generated the most debate about this particular legislation was the changes to fines and infringement notices and the potential maximum level of fines and infringements. When this legislation was first established, it wasn’t entirely clear exactly what the sorts of orders that we may need to make under it would be. And so the level of fines and infringements that were provided for in the original Act that we’re now amending were relatively low. What became clear as we were heading through operationalising different orders that were made under the Act is that those levels of fines and infringements could be regarded as somewhat trivial relative to the consequences of people deliberately and knowingly trying to get around those rules.

So, for example, if we rewind back to when we had to reimpose restrictions on those coming trans-Tasman from Australia to New Zealand, in order to try and prevent COVID19, Delta in particular, getting into New Zealand—recognising that our current Delta outbreak that we’re dealing with now in multiple parts of the country actually originated in Australia—in our attempts to try and stop that, we had to reimpose travel restrictions. The reality is for people deliberately breaching those restrictions, the infringements available to us were trivial: $300 or a maximum of $1,000. Given the consequences that could be generated by people who brought Delta into New Zealand, which we’ve now seen what those consequences are—although in this particular case, that person was not at fault; they were a person who went through managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ)—but someone who was what we’d describe as a border averter: so someone who travelled from an Australian state that they weren’t allowed to travel from, to an Australian state that they were allowed to travel from, and did not tell the truth about their travel history. That person could have been creating a world of pain for New Zealand, and the ability to impose a proportionate fine or infringement upon them did not exist under the legislation. And so that’s why we reviewed that, and I have brought this bill before the House to increase the maximum levels of fines and infringements.

I want to be clear here that the Government’s intention from this point onwards is, effectively, to create a sliding scale of potential fines and infringements under this law that will allow for low-level risk to be dealt with by the existing kind of low-level fines and infringements that are available now. It would only be those where the consequences of the offending of the people breaking the rules was at the sort of more extreme end that we would impose the maximum fines and infringements.

The second issue that was raised, and I know that it’s one that generated a debate amongst members of the select committee, was regarding the potential to make orders relating to medical testing laboratories. The bill allows for orders to be made for a variety of purposes in relation to testing labs, but particularly would allow for the Government to make the best use of the national COVID-19 testing capacity in the event of a severe outbreak of COVID-19, including by requisitioning testing consumables or requiring that testing laboratories undertake testing solely for the public health response.

The Government does recognise that these are substantial powers and they would have a particular impact on the owners of testing laboratories. It’s for that reason that the bill provides for compensation or payment for those services should those powers be used. I would note that these powers are not unprecedented—these powers are not unprecedented. There are already provisions in the Health Act of 1956 that make similar kinds of provisions. These ones, however, are tied specifically to our COVID-19 response. They were in a piece of legislation that has to be consistently and regularly renewed by Parliament and that will expire. So by tying them to the COVID-19 response—yes, it is an infringement on the freedom of those businesses, if you like, potentially, but it would be a very high threshold to use that. The reason for it is simply this: if we’re dealing with a severe outbreak, testing is critical, and we have to make sure that we can make the best use of all of the testing available in the environment where supplies around testing are very constrained internationally—so our ability to get testing supplies on a large scale into the country continues to be constrained internationally, so we’ve got to make the best use of the ones that we have available.

David Seymour: What about legalising rapid antigen testing?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’ll just pick up a couple of other things. In terms of—the member asks about legislating for rapid antigen testing. That is allowed for under the orders that have already been made under this legislation. In terms of the other issues that were raised during the debate on this—

David Seymour: Can I go to the shop and buy one?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh, the member wants to be able to buy rapid antigen tests. It is still—and I think we may well get to that point in the future, but it is important that, actually, rapid antigen tests are understood for their strengths and weaknesses, and, actually—

David Seymour: Testing’s so important, but you can’t buy it at the shop.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, no, actually, reliable diagnostic testing—and everybody around rapid antigen tests would agree that they are not a diagnostic test. They are a surveillance test, not a diagnostic test. So the provisions in this bill deal with the provisions around diagnostic testing, which is critical in a severe outbreak. The issues around rapid antigen testing are different, and it does have a significant role to play in reducing the pressure on our diagnostic tests, because if we are using rapid antigen tests to do some of the surveillance testing—which we are moving to doing more and more of them; that’s already happening—that means that it frees up our PCR labs, effectively, to make sure that they’re being used in the best way possible.

Other issues that were raised during the select committee debate on this were around the role of MIQ and whether we need to have a more developed framework for our managed isolation and quarantine facilities, which the bill allows for. I would note that there are some in the House who believe MIQ’s time is done and we should simply stop isolating or quarantining anybody at the border. That is not the position of the Government and, therefore, we do still need a robust arrangement for MIQ in place at the border, and we’re likely to need that for some time for those who are higher-risk people, those who are unvaccinated, and to make sure that we don’t end up in a situation where we get hundreds of additional cases coming into New Zealand across the border, seeding in the community and therefore triggering a very large-scale outbreak.

So we want to manage the reopening of the border in a careful way so that we are continuing to suppress COVID-19 in the New Zealand community, so we don’t have massive, flaming outbreaks of COVID-19 that cannot be controlled. There is a balance to reach here. And, yes, we will see more movement across the international border in the coming months, but we’ll be doing that in a way that is careful so that we don’t end up being overrun by COVID-19. Because, bear in mind, as we do start to liberate settings at the border, many, many more people will come into the country. So it’s not fair to look only at the positivity rate of those who are being tested in MIQ, because we potentially would be multiplying the number of people coming in by many, many fold, and that does create additional risk of COVID-19 taking off in parts of the country where it would be very difficult to control and to contain.

So, ultimately, these amendments are ones that I think are sensible. I do just want to mention one further amendment that’s been made by the committee, with the full support of the Government, and that is to provide additional privacy protections for people’s QR code data and for data that they share as part of the COVID-19 response to our contact tracers. I’ve always been confident that the systems in place to protect that information are very robust. There has been some concern, though, that there could be additional measures put in place. Some of the amendments made by the committee do further strengthen the level of reassurance around the protection of people’s data, and, therefore, I think that they are welcome.

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

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. On Sunday, I visited Auckland for the first time in 13 or 14 weeks, and it was not a decision that I took lightly. But I had had a number of people reach out to me in the preceding days, saying, “You’ve got to come up here and see for yourself the scale of the devastation and the anguish, and talk to people face to face.” So I visited Auckland and, unlike another prominent political leader who also went to Auckland the week before, I actually went and talked to people on the ground whose businesses were affected by the COVID restrictions.

I’ve got to tell you that what I discovered was actually really heartbreaking: hospitality owners who are just thinking about the Christmas period, knowing that Aucklanders will probably leave Auckland over Christmas and that that time of year in January, when it’s a bit of a slow period, will be even slower. They’re trying to make money now and they can’t open. When they hear that they can’t open right now because the vaccine certificates aren’t ready because the Government only signed the contract with the IT provider a month ago, there is going to be outrage, and rightly so.

I talked to people who are mortgaging their homes, who are selling their cars, and who are just doing what they can to get by, and what they don’t want is platitudes and they don’t want this bill—which does nothing to make life better for them—they just want some certainty. They want a date and they want to know what the rules are and they want to get back to business so that they can start employing people again and start making some money to try and get through the next few months, and this bill does nothing—it does nothing for them. It does nothing for Auckland hospitality, it does nothing for Auckland small business, it does nothing for Wellington small business, and it does nothing for Christchurch business.

What it does is continue and perpetuate the Fortress New Zealand mentality that underpins this Government’s COVID response. Even despite the changes in terms of vaccination, it continues the idea that we can be locked away in splendid isolation for ever. It reflects a world in which the Government cannot move on from elimination, which failed. It reflects a world in which the Government is psychologically incapable of acknowledging that elimination failed, they didn’t have a back-up plan, and we have to move to suppression, and it reflects a world that’s actually quite scary.

Shanan Halbert: Welcome to Delta.

CHRIS BISHOP: Oh well, the member says “Delta”. Yeah, exactly—exactly. The member says “Delta”. Yeah, Delta turned up in April. Delta turned up in April. What did the Government do?

The Prime Minister thinks it arrived in June. It arrived in managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) in April. When did the Government establish a COVID-19 testing group to tell them about rapid antigen tests? Did they do that in February, March, April, May, June? No. They did it in August—August. When did the Government authorise vaccine certificates? Did they think about vaccine certificates in February, March, April, May, June—like every other country was doing? No. The Government authorised vaccine certificates to be developed in July, and they signed the contract with the IT company on 13 October.

So everyone listening out there needs to know, if you’re in Auckland and you want to leave the “Auckland Prison”, you want to go back to work, or you want to go and have a beer outside on Ponsonby Road in a courtyard and you can’t, the reason you can’t is because there’s no such thing as a vaccine certificate in New Zealand yet, and the reason there isn’t a vaccine certificate is because the Government was lazy and incompetent and didn’t do the work earlier this year. That’s the reason.

Vaccine certificates could be in place right now. If we had vaccine certificates in place right now, Aucklanders could leave, they could go to the pub, they could go outside and go for a meal, they could go shopping, and they could go back to work. They can’t, because this lazy, useless Government assumed that elimination would work, and they had no back-up plan whatsoever.

So we’ll oppose this bill for three reasons: one, it’s predicated on the wrong assumption, Fortress New Zealand; two, it reflects a world in which elimination is the mentality, not suppression; and, thirdly—this was the point I was coming to before the soon to be former member for Northcote interrupted me and made the point—it reflects a world in which the Government thinks that confiscation of private property for no reason is acceptable. The member—

Terisa Ngobi: You’re angry, eh?

CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, I am angry. The member who’s soon to be the former member for Ōtaki interrupts from way down the back of the House and says that I’m angry. Yeah, I am angry. I am angry. I am angry, and there’s a reason I’m angry, because, unlike that member, I have visited the people in Auckland, who are locked down and who have been in one of the longest lockdowns in the developed world, and I’m angry because I stare at a Government—an arrogant Government—that pretends that the developed world’s slowest vaccine roll-out is acceptable and, frankly, it’s not.

This Government is overseeing a public policy disaster of epic proportions, and it’s not good enough for the Government to say, “Oh well, Mr Bishop’s angry.” Yeah, I am angry. This side’s angry. We are angry, and I’ll tell you what: if the Prime Minister were to visit Auckland and not just go to a manufacturer that never had to close, but if the Prime Minister walked down Ponsonby Road and went into the Longroom or went down to the Viaduct or went over to Takapuna, like I did on Sunday, she would discover anger and despair and venom, because people are furious. They have mortgaged their livelihoods just to get by, and they stare at a Government that has overseen the developed world’s slowest vaccine roll-out, that was slow to order boosters, and now they’re slow on vaccine certificates. The reason why Auckland remains the “Auckland Prison” is because of this Government’s incompetence.

Let me talk about MIQ, because this bill is littered with the re-erection—in fact, the reinforcement—of the MIQ regime. Here are the facts. There are 4,000 people isolating at home right now in the North Island: 2,000 of them have COVID and the rest of them are close contacts. These are the numbers. There are 35 people in MIQ with COVID: 4,000 of them are in the community and three people have died in home isolation—at home—and yet this Government oversees a regime in which, when fully vaccinated travellers with no COVID arrive in New Zealand, do they go into home isolation? No, they go into MIQ.

So we have this perverse system where, if you come in without COVID, you take up a space in MIQ with the doctors and with the nurses and with the public health protection, and if you do have COVID and you need that support and you need the testing and you need the support of the nurses and the doctors, you’re stuck at home. “Good luck to you,” says the Government. “Don’t go into MIQ. We’re reserving the MIQ space for fully vaccinated people without COVID.” How ludicrous is that? How bizarre, how perverse is that scenario? Fully vaccinated, no COVID: “Good luck in your 14 days”—or now seven, but—“your seven days plus your three in MIQ.” But if you’ve got COVID: “Good luck in the community.”

It is bizarre and it doesn’t make any sense, and it’s not lined up with the science, because Professor Michael Baker, who’s the architect of the elimination strategy—he agrees with us. He says that it doesn’t make any sense and that those spaces would be better used for people who actually have COVID. We need to end MIQ right now, end the lottery of human misery and allow fully vaccinated Kiwis to come home.

Finally, on private sector testing capability, the Minister says very blandly, “Well, yeah, the bill allows us to requisition private sector capability and make use of all the capacity.” Here’s an idea: don’t just give yourself the power as a Government to steal their property. Why don’t you just negotiate and contract, which is what most normal Governments do? You’ve got a contract with Asia Pacific Healthcare Group for nasal PCR testing. Do the same thing with Rako Science and the other testing providers. Rako can do 10,000 tests a day. I got one on the weekend. It took nine hours.

Here’s a point: while Aucklanders were waiting 10 hours to even get a test at the start of this most recent outbreak, Rako Science was saying to the Government, “We’re prepared to help.”, and the ministry told them, “Sod off. Don’t requisition your testing capacity. We don’t want you.” What a disgrace—just like this bill and just like this Government.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. So, since the bill was passed in May last year, the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act has provided the framework for reducing the spread of COVID-19 in the community. But, moving forward, it’s going to be important that we have the flexibility that we can adapt our approach, and what this bill does is allow us to do that. But what I’d like to do is just talk to a couple of the changes that we’ve made as a select committee, because we did receive some feedback and we have made some recommendations about changes to the bill. I think, as already spoken about, what the bill did was significantly increase the maximum infringement fees for those breaching orders, and, basically, they rose from $300, which wasn’t seen as particularly a disincentive, up to $4,000 for individuals, and $12,000 for other persons.

But what the bill also allows for is, what the Minister has referred to as, a sliding scale. It’s, basically, regulations to be made which allow different penalties for different infringement offences, because it was never actually intended that that maximum level for the fee would apply to all offences, but to only those that cause the maximum amount of harm in the community. But what we heard were some concerns that, basically, what that high level of fees might do is entrench some inequities that were currently in the justice system. So what we’ve done as a committee is looked at some extra protections that we could put in place. One of them is making sure that the Minister recommends the regulations be made, but also to specify in the bill some of those things that the Minister might need to do to consider before doing so. One of them is to make sure the Minister considers the severity and impact of those breaches, but also, basically, thinking about the appropriateness of the penalties for some of those particular groups that might be impacted—and then, finally, also thinking about what comparable offences there might be when you’re looking at other legislation. So it’s really important to have those protections there.

We’ve also added some changes that would, basically, make it quite clear around the use of contact tracing information and that it shouldn’t be used for other purposes than what it was intended for, which is a public health response. We’ve recommended some penalties in that area. But this is, really, an important bill that allows us to have that flexibility and to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the community. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I rise on behalf of National as the MP for North Shore to talk on the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2), second reading. Obviously, as we’ve heard just before from my colleague Christopher Bishop, National opposes this bill. I was part of the select committee team that has reviewed this bill, and what is clear is that this bill deals with the past and not the future. As a member of the select committee, along with my colleague Penny Simmonds as well, and I acknowledge the other members of the committee from the other side of the House and the chair, we went through a number of aspects of this bill. National also, obviously, opposed the bill and provided a minority report, which outlined the key reasons why we felt that this bill was simply unnecessary. I’ll cover that in a little bit of detail in my speech.

I want to go back a little bit in terms of time, in terms of when this bill was presented, and that was on 21 September. I must say, a lot has changed in the way in which COVID is being managed within our communities across this country since this date. That is the reality of dealing with COVID. It is no surprise. We simply need to look overseas for the way in which this disease is changing and this virus is being managed. But the way in which this bill is being drafted is a bill that is drafted in a world that was in that past. A huge amount of things, significant aspects, in terms of the way in which we are managing this and the way in which we will manage this going forward, are not reflected in this bill.

That is a great shame, because, as my colleague Christopher Bishop mentioned, in terms of the impact of this bill, this bill impacts our communities, and it is a grave shame that we are going to be pushing through some legislation that does not actually put a positive aspect in terms of what we could be doing at the moment—seizing the opportunity that we have in front of us.

The key aspect that has changed, obviously, since 21 September, is the introduction of, obviously, the traffic light system, which wasn’t envisaged previously. I think that in itself has created a huge amount of confusion in terms of whether it’s red, yellow, or green, or just flashing orange all the time. The fundamental changes around managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ)—we heard the Minister, you know, just quite flippantly, I think, refer to the fact that MIQ is potentially going to be changed in the future. But, I think, 99.9 percent of Kiwis would look at the MIQ system for travellers that are coming in from overseas, that are double-vaccinated, that tested negative on departure—99.9 percent of sensible people would look at that and go, “Why the hell are we doing MIQ for those individuals?” There is not any logic to that, and that is the frustration that is built into this bill and across a number of areas. I must say, as part of the process which we are going through, it is hugely frustrating to see a Government that is out of touch with the people. I want to cover a little bit more around that.

National opposes this bill for two specific reasons. One is in regards to clause 7 of the bill, and the introduction of new section 11, which relates to the COVID orders being able to be applied and require owners of businesses, and in particular laboratories, to, in effect, provide their services under Government directions. It also includes, in effect, the ability for the Government to nationalise, in effect, private businesses. And what we heard from the Minister before is that the circumstances in which these rules would ever be envisaged to be deployed are in extreme or severe circumstances. Well, I’m sorry, the purpose of this House is not to simply introduce legislation for that one-in-a-thousand-day event that we may or may not see. It is actually to try and restrain the amount of legislation that we are putting in place, that allows our communities to get on and live their lives.

We seem to forget that for 91 days, members of our communities in Auckland, and until recently the Waikato, have been in lockdown. I recognise that the impact of that lockdown is much wider than Auckland and the Waikato. It impacts people in the Coromandel. It impacts people in Selwyn, in the Bay of Plenty, in Whangārei, around this country and here in Wellington as well. But this Government has simply ignored that fact in this bill, and what we are now paying for is the consequences of that inaction.

I am worried about the mental health of our business owners across our country but particularly in my electorate of the North Shore. On Sunday afternoon, we met with numbers of hospitality business owners. And I hear the member from Northcote laughing across the other side. He has the audacity to laugh about such a serious topic. But members of that community, the hospitality community—hairdressers and hair salons—who have not had income for 91 days are paying the price of this Government’s inaction.

This bill provides those people with no certainty. This bill provides those businesses with no hope. This bill provides those businesses, those real people, those human beings that are living in our biggest cities with families, with children, with obligations around mortgages, with financial commitments, with anxiety and stress that is growing and growing by the day, with no plan to move forward. That is the great irony and sadness about this bill. It fails to address the reality of what we face in the future, and it simply deals with a past that we are no longer part of.

The other aspect of this bill that I wanted to raise is in regards to the MIQ facility, and I referred before to clause 22 of this bill in particular. We talked about the fact that the bill refers to changes in terms of MIQ and other aspects. The MIQ system for those international travellers that are double-vaccinated, that have a negative test, should be abolished today. It has no place in this country. And, as we’ve heard, 4,000 people are isolating at home at the moment—2,000 of those with COVID, and only 35 have actually got COVID. What an absolute wasted opportunity. This Fortress New Zealand that we have—this bill simply reinforces that fortress at a time when we should be starting to dismantle this fortress and get on with our lives and get back to normal. Why is that important? Because it is important for our communities to be able to move on, to have a sense of hope, and that is what’s missing again from this bill.

I want to refer also to clause 23 of the bill, which puts in place regulations for the Minister to set infringements. We had a lot of discussion in select committee around this point. Why are we trying to introduce more infringements, more fines, that may be appropriate in a highly restrictive environment, but, again, that is in the past; it is not the future. We are starting to relax those environments, relax some of those restrictions. Heck, the Minister and the Prime Minister can’t even articulate when Aucklanders can actually get out of the city, when I can get down to the Waikato and see my mother and father, who I haven’t seen for 91 days; my grandchildren to see their grandparents. There will be stories across this country and across Auckland of that, and that is real. The border element is completely unnecessary in regards to that, and the element around infringements, which have been increased in that, is a stick-stick-stick approach, which works well in the past but not in the future.

I want to finish off by just acknowledging those members of my community in hospitality, and here and the businesses that have had no income. We in this House are thinking of you at the moment, and we are doing our damnedest to support and get you out of where you are and to where you need to be, and that’s back into business. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As a member of the Health Committee, we considered several issues in relation to this bill, and I think there’s two points that are worth highlighting.

The first point is the bill increases the maximum penalties that can be imposed for a breach, and I think it is worth highlighting, because I don’t think that we can overestimate that a breach of a COVID-19 order can cause huge harm and put all of our hard work at risk. And, to date, despite some of the protestations across the room, we have had one of the most successful responses to COVID-19 in the world by whichever metric you choose to define that—certainly, by mortality rates, certainly by the low number of cases, let alone the buoyant economy, and let alone the low unemployment rate, and they all prove this. So there should be significant infringement fees and fines for those willing to purposely or repeatedly breach those very measures that enable our success.

Secondly, the issue is about suitable precaution and preparedness. Should we face a severe outbreak, and a significant resurgence of the virus, one that threatens to overwhelm our public resources, then, I’m sorry, it is all hands to the pump and people very rightly expect the Government to do everything possible to keep them safe, as we’ve done to date. This bill allows the Government to use all of our testing, diagnostic testing capacity, by, yes, requisitioning some consumables, or, yes, requiring that private testing labs focus solely on COVID testing, bearing in mind that the bill also provides for suitable compensation and payment for service. Furthermore, these particular orders, as the Minister said, are not routinely used, and the threshold is incredibly high. It’s for very serious risk for a limited time. People do expect that we’re prepared if we need to be, and testing remains one of our most important tools. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora. I rise on behalf of the Greens to support his bill, the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2). We initially only supported it to select committee because of the concerns we had about the infringement fees and that system. And so, as a member of the Health Committee, we were fine with the place that we got to with it. I agree that I hope that we do not need to use them for much longer, and we are strong proponents of restorative practices and other ways of dealing with people not wanting to take part in a certain thing and behave in a certain way. We believe in incentives and calling to peoples’ best values and interests.

I wanted to speak briefly about the importance of a framework: that we have to balance between what we dealt with just prior to this, which is a whole lot of orders and details which have already occurred, already in effect, and we are retrospectively approving them, to being flexible enough to change with what’s happening, because it’s moving so, so fast. We look at the things that are written here now and we’ve moved so far beyond some of it. That framework needs to allow that agility while still holding our Government to account in this place here.

So, for managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ), we absolutely understand the frustration. I have so many family members trying to get home who’ve had tickets, who’ve had bookings, and then they get cancelled. So that lack of surety—and this bill covers people’s behaviour in that place. We’re suggesting that all those things that lead into why people behave in a certain way also need to be taken into account. We support more recent decisions to make that stay shorter. I believe that alone will improve the morale of people inside MIQ facilities no end. We very much want to get to the point where people who are fully vaccinated and have negative tests can go home as soon as possible, and all of our whānau—all of the New Zealanders who are wanting to come here—should be able to do so.

We see that this law also allows the Minister the discretion to prioritise between different classes of people coming in. This now, surely, is the opportunity to reunite split families. For a very, very long time, we’ve had people coming to us and saying, “What is the rationale? We cannot understand why this is still happening.” And so we want to make sure, if the Minister is going to prioritise that, to unite split families, and we want to advocate for the health and education workers who have been approved to come here and are still waiting to get a place. Our hospital and our health system was already overloaded before COVID hit us, and with all of the gaps and vacancies now that are going to happen across many sectors because of people refusing the mandate to get vaccinated. So we want to make sure that, as soon as we can, we can get our people home and we can create spaces for the people that we need to come and work here.

We’re very happy to see the delegation of our roading enforcement powers that’s going to allow Māori wardens and other iwi representatives to have roles in helping protect their community. In the Tai Rāwhiti and, I’m sure, many others areas where there are low vaccination rates, we are really, really worried about the commitment that Aucklanders can all travel by Christmas. We’re worried that many people will slip through, and they’re all coming to the holiday destinations—the Tai Rāwhiti amongst them. So we see that this allows for us to have iwi checkpoints, which the Greens have always supported, and the right of whānau to protect their members while our vaccinations continue to rise, albeit slowly.

And the last thing is we did have the opportunity to talk about these penalties, and we will always go for lower penalties, greater incentives. This was discussed at length. We did bring in the officials and sent them away a few times to get more information for us, but we did agree in the end that where we got to was workable. We are concerned. We will be watching for any profiling that happens, because, in other parts of our justice system where there are fines, penalties, convictions, Māori are disproportionately affected by that. So we will absolutely be keeping a watch on that in this case. But, nō reira, we commend this bill to the House.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill is a really sad day for the evolution of New Zealand’s COVID-19 response. It has to be seen in that wider context. Let me give you a Cook’s tour of how we got here, where we need to go, and where this bill is taking us.

No country had greater natural advantages in dealing with a pandemic than New Zealand. You don’t have to take my word for it. I’ve asked the Minister for COVID-19 Response to name a country that had more advantages than New Zealand, and he couldn’t think of one. If he can’t think of one, then I don’t think anyone can, because no country has New Zealand’s combination of isolation, of low population density, a young population, a population that has high social capital, where, if the Prime Minister says, “Oh look, it’s pretty bad; just go home for seven weeks, put a teddy bear in your window, and we’ll call you.”, people actually do it. Now, you try doing that in France or Italy! We have a country that is wealthy compared with most countries. Our country was prepared and in a better place to respond to COVID than any other country, and we were the 63rd country to get a case; so we actually had time to prepare. But even then, the Government didn’t.

Let me take you back to the days of 21 March, 23 March, and 25 March of 2020. Those were the days that the Government announced the alert level system—1, 2, 3, 4—put New Zealand on Monday the 21st into alert level 3 and on Wednesday put New Zealand into alert level 4. And in those days, when the rest of the country was already dealing with it, and we’d been lucky so far, this Government said, “We think we have to flatten the curve.” Even the elimination strategy was not deliberate; they actually stumbled into it. A few weeks in, the Prime Minister thought, “Oh, I think we could completely eradicate it.”, and we did. And we, as a country, enjoyed a long summer, both metaphorically and literally, with very little COVID, afforded by our ocean fortress, with the Tasman, the Southern, and the Pacific Oceans protecting us from COVID. Three times we managed to beat back outbreaks, in August, in February, and again later in 2021. We managed to have an outbreak and eradicate it, and that was a good thing, helped by our natural advantages.

But the Government, at that point, like a lot of people who are lucky, started to think it must be all us and they got a bit complacent. They didn’t increase the number of ICU beds. They didn’t think, “Gee, we should order some of those vaccines everyone else is ordering.” And, when they did order them, they didn’t think, “Hmm, everybody’s got a QR code scanning app on their phone. Maybe there should be a QR code in the vaccine booths so that people can make an electronic record that might come in handy a bit later if we want vaccine certificates.” They didn’t think of any of those sorts of things, and suddenly something else came along: Delta. And, when we were hit by Delta, the Government was helter-skelter. They did not make the preparations for this new paradigm.

The Prime Minister, in question time today, was saying, “We don’t have Alpha anymore; we have Delta.” It was like she was shell-shocked, like she’d just figured it out now. I mean, it was quite extraordinary. I think it takes a while for things to sink in with our Prime Minister. That is the sad truth, charismatic as she may be. The problem was that the Government got a bit complacent and they thought they were going to hit a perfect home run. Here’s what they thought, and I know this to be true because I had a special briefing from the Minister for COVID-19 with my good friend and colleague Chris Bishop, and Ayesha Verrall, who I really like because she’s very honest and probably shouldn’t be in politics, said in that briefing, “Doesn’t matter. We’re going to have the vaccine.”

Chris Bishop: Yeah.

DAVID SEYMOUR: You see, this Government thought—oh, and the great thing is, I say to Chris Bishop, the Prime Minister offered me another briefing. So I went along to Chris’s briefing, and I think that I should take him along to the briefing the Prime Minister’s promised me. So we’re looking forward to that new briefing. But, nevertheless, I digress. You see, they thought they were going to hit this home run. The vaccine was going to give population immunity and the managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) would keep the virus out, so we would be able to go all the way through with no problems, and the Labour Government, with the Midas touch, would sail through and say, “We had almost no outbreak, almost no deaths, almost no impact. It was all good.”

But, unfortunately, two things went wrong. One was the Delta variant that broke through MIQ. And the second was the vaccines weren’t quite perfect. Now, Madam Speaker, I know you probably read ACT’s COVID 2.0 paper back in March that said there are mega trends driving this pandemic now. One is vaccines, the other is variants, and the other ones were technologies and fatigue. Well, hasn’t come true. We have a problem now where the variant meant Delta got through the border and the vaccines haven’t been done in time, and we don’t have the vaccine passports; so we’re actually stuck, unable to move to the traffic light system, and New Zealanders are now paying and paying and paying.

I could give you story after story, having visited Auckland a couple of weeks ago and walked around and visited real shops—not staged photo ops like the Prime Minister—just walking up to people and saying, “How are you going?” and hearing what real people had to say. I heard, for example, someone who was an accountant, and he said, “I probably shouldn’t tell you this, but I’ve got a hairdresser who, on my books at the start of this outbreak on the 18th of August, had 100 grand in the bank, cash, ready to handle anything. Now they’re in debt. They’ve burnt all their cash reserves, keeping their staff in some level of wages, and paying their rent and their insurance and their bills. And now they are broke and they don’t even know when they’re going to be able to open.” That’s the effect of a Government that just was not prepared to deal with Delta.

Along comes this bill, and this bill—here’s what it could do. It could be saying that COVID is going to be endemic, everyone in New Zealand will get it, and the question is how safely we transition, how able we are to protect lives, how long it takes, and how much costs we stack on to Government and business and future taxpayers in the meantime. Those are the only things that matter. This bill could be taking us on a pathway to get vaccination rates up in those final few percentage points with incentives and partnerships. It could be about using new technology. But it’s not about any of that. It is about reinforcing the command and control approach of locking down and locking out—party like it’s March 2020. That’s where this Government’s mind-set is still at.

We heard from the Minister—I mean, one of the most extraordinary things in this bill is that it, basically, allows the Government to take people’s property if they are a testing lab. It’s a little bit like, if you wanted there to be lots of generators—I heard Eric Crampton say—if you wanted lots of generators in your community in case there was a power cut, imagine if the Government passed a law saying: if there is a power cut, we’ll confiscate your generator. What’s that going to do to investment in generators? What do you think it’s going to do to people investing in lab technology in New Zealand if you live in a country where the Government can just take it?

And the Minister—I mean, one of the Labour members—I sometimes find they’re interchangeable. But one of them said, “Look, there’s compensation.” Well, it says compensation at the market rate. What’s the market rate, Shanan Halbert, in the middle of a crisis? How do you set that market rate? Oh, and once that rate’s been set, there’s no court of appeal. Now, I think Shanan Halbert is a lawyer, I think. Now, he should surely know that usually you’re allowed to appeal. This legislation means you can’t appeal beyond the District Court. Taking that property is totally outrageous, and the Government says it’s because testing is so important. Well, here’s the question: if I’m in New South Wales, I can go to the pharmacy and buy a rapid antigen test; I can’t do that here, and yet this Government says testing is so important. This bill could be legalising rapid antigen testing for everybody, but it’s not.

Sadly, we have a Government that is stuck in 2020, lets people pay and pay, putting forward legislation that kicks the can down the road while people keep suffering. That’s why ACT cannot support this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Sarah Pallett.

David Seymour: Oh, this’ll be good

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): I’m glad you’re looking forward to it, Mr Seymour! Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was going to rise and go through the finer points of one of the amendments that the select committee had suggested, but I thought, before I did, it would be a really good idea to a little teeny bit of the “why?”, because I think, when you’re looking at legislation, why you’re doing it in the first place is a really good idea.

So what I think is that any Government’s primary responsibility is to keep their people safe. That’s their primary job, is to maybe stop them dying. So let’s look at the facts: in the UK, 165,534 people have died with COVID-19 as the cause of death. If we do a little bit of basic maths and adjusting for population that would mean 12,353 New Zealanders would have COVID-19 on their death certificate as a cause of death. Now, the 35 that we’ve lost is a complete tragedy, and I’m never ever going to minimise the effect on their whānau or of the people who love them.

And, Mr Watts, I’m sorry to hear that you haven’t been able to see your family for 91 days; it’s very sad, and I appreciate that the sacrifice is really huge. I haven’t seen my dad for two years, and it’s going to be some time before I do; so I really do understand the frustrations—I understand the frustrations. My heart goes out to those businesses who’ve been affected. But those 12,300 people, those are the reason, they are the reason why this Government has been taking the action it has, and why it has been so successful, and I’m proud to stand here today in support of this bill and commend it to the House.

Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Pleasure to take a split call on this bill, which, fundamentally, in the legislative statement, says this bill amends the COVID-19 Act to incorporate what has been learned about the COVID-19 pandemic to date. I want to talk about what hasn’t been learned. We have not been a learning enterprise during this whole COVID-19 response.

I want to start with the Government’s own independent Roche report on 1 June, where they asked independent advisers to advise—and remember COVID Part II hadn’t arrived yet; Delta hadn’t arrived—and here’s what they were told. They were told that the classification system that says “close contact” and “close contact plus”, and “casual contact” and “casual contact plus” was far too complex; it needed to change—immediately was the time frame—to close and casual. Did that happen? Has it happened? No, it has not. In fact, what happened was another category was created called “high risk”. So it completely ignored the recommendations from the independent committee.

They were told that ARPHS—Auckland Regional Public Health Service—which is the responsible body for managing the COVID-19 response in Auckland, needed to increase by 25 FTEs within three months’ time. They were even told what sort of classifications were required, what sort of job descriptions. What I can tell from written questions to the Minister is clearly that did not happen before the 17 August outbreak was announced. They were understaffed, so understaffed that, if I look at the action report—so the outbreak started on 17 August—if I look at the action report No. 3, which is 3 September, it talks here about the welfare of staff. So this is 18 days into the current outbreak. Here’s what it says under “Welfare”: “Monitor staff wellbeing—ARPHS response staff are tired and stressed from the demands of dealing with COVID-affected cases and contacts. (Many are in a distressed state.)” That’s only 18 days into this outbreak. So I inquired a bit further of that with the Minister and asked him, in a written parliamentary question that I got back last week, “Is it correct that in the action report for 3 September 2021, less than 20 days into the current coronavirus outbreak, it is reported that many ARPHS staff are ‘in a distressed state’?”—“No, the phrase was referring to COVID-19 - affected cases and their contacts.”

You’ve got to be joking; you have to be joking. Let me just read that again from the action report 3 September, subsection “Welfare”: “Monitor staff wellbeing—ARPHS response staff are tired and stressed from the demands of dealing with COVID-affected cases and contacts. (Many are in a distressed state.)” To the Minister, “Were staff in a distressed state?”—no, they were talking about affected cases and contacts! That’s just not possible. What happened here was ARPHS were undermanned. They did not listen to the Roche report, 1 June. They did not take on the 25 full-time equivalents as they were requested to do within three months. A shout out to the really difficult work that ARPHS is doing. They were also told to build the infrastructure. This is clearly a story around ICU infrastructure for another time because there are other things we can talk to in this bill, which I do want to talk to.

This bill talks to laboratory testing, and we’ve already mentioned the abysmal case of saliva testing, and I have a real concern that rapid antigen testing is going the same way. But I want to talk to the laboratory tests for the two Northland women who started off the Northland outbreak. What I don’t understand is why the results were lost for 48 hours. For 48 hours, their lab tests disappeared from the laboratory system. What happened here? I asked the Minister and asked him to explain that and said, “Can you tell me what happened to those test results for those two women who first came into Northland?” He said, “I’m advised both cases were tested in the late evening on 20 October.” No, they weren’t. It was before lunchtime on 20 October—20 October was a Wednesday. The Minister is saying they were tested late on the Wednesday. No, they weren’t. I’ve got the date timestamp from the machine. At 11:58 that day, the lab tests were in the laboratory—not just being picked up; in the laboratory—and they disappeared for two days.

Now, maybe it’s just two days in Northland? No, it’s not. Because, on the Friday, they were able to do a lab test within 90 minutes. What happened to those two women’s lab tests for those two days? The lab machine has caught you out. The date timestamp has caught out the Minister. We need to know the truth. There needs to be sunlight on what is happening with laboratory testing in Northland, and you’ve been caught out with these two women. It’s another story for another time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Before I call the next speaker, could he clarify whether he is seeking the call that the Māori Party didn’t take or whether he is seeking his 10-minute call.

Tangi Utikere: My 10-minute call, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you. I call Tangi Utikere.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Kia orana. I rise, as a member of the Health Committee, to speak in support of this bill. I want to reflect on the contribution of my colleague Sarah Pallett, because I think she put it rather succinctly and ideally spot on, and that is: what is the purpose of this bill? Fundamentally, when the Minister and when the Director-General of Health is looking to make orders, exercise discretion under the legislation, they are doing that in order to keep the community safe, to keep our community safe. And, fundamentally, that’s what this bill is about.

The select committee spent some time looking at this bill, and there are a number of changes that have been selected, and aspects of clarity as well. One is around the restrictions on the movement of people in managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities and ensuring that what is captured there in new section 11, set out in clause 7, includes those in self-isolation; so it widens the definition. Another, when we look at the select committee report, is around the level of support available for those in self-isolation opportunities, because, while this bill provides an opportunity for an internal complaints process for those in MIQ, there is a different approach for those that are in self-isolation situations. So you’ll see, in the select committee’s report to the House, that there is an expectation that there would be timely responses for those who perhaps have a complaint to make, to ensure that that is considered in a timely fashion.

The other aspect that I want to briefly touch on is around clause 12, and it’s extending the power to stop motor vehicles and people at checkpoints and roadblocks. I just want to acknowledge the good work that our Māori wardens and our Pasifika wardens do in our community, because they are mentioned specifically in the bill. We’ve all had our experience in a positive light in that sense even more recently, and so it’s good to see and to hear at the select committee that there is a level of training so that there’s comfort there. So I’m delighted to be able to commend this bill to the House.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in opposition to the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2) at the second reading.

The Health Committee, which I am a member of, heard a number of submissions in a very short space of time over the consultation period for this amendment bill. We heard a number of people speak very pessimistically about the signals given with the extension of the expiry date of the Act by a year, from May 2022 out to May 2023. The concerns that lockdowns, managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ), alert levels, etc. might extend through to May 2023 were certainly a very sobering thought for many. We also heard concerns about the strengthening of the infringement regime. We heard worries that the significant increases might impact on those who could least afford it. And we also heard concerns about the enforcement of stopping vehicles at checkpoints and how that might also continue on to 2023.

National opposes this bill not only because of the things that were brought up in the submissions but also because, fundamentally, this bill is already out of date. It was out of date in September, when it was referred to the Health Committee. All throughout the bill was talk of the elimination strategy, which by that time was clearly out of date. Further matters that have come in since that time in terms of a new traffic-light system, changes in MIQ, and, hopefully, more fundamental changes than are in at the moment, a vaccine certificate regime—none of these things are being accounted for in the elimination strategy and in this amendment bill. What it shows is that this Government did not use the advantages that this country had in preparing for Delta and moving into this suppression phase. So the bill was written around a world in which elimination was the aim of the Government. We’ve been left scrambling in this country over the last few months, with rushed announcements, announcements about announcements, changes of systems, and general confusion for all involved.

The bill’s been predicated on a situation where we have to have highly restrictive border settings continuing through into the foreseeable future, all at a time when countries all across the world are opening up their borders. We only need to look across the Ditch at Australia and see opening up not only to Australians coming home but to international students who are able to come in without MIQ, if they are fully vaccinated. In the meantime, we are still looking at MIQ where our fully vaccinated returning New Zealanders are having to go into isolation, while out in the community those with COVID are at home isolating. National believes that we should now be looking at legislation which dismantles MIQ for fully vaccinated travellers. We should be looking at pulling down the borders, not legislation that is continuing on an outdated time in this COVID recovery.

We heard submissions particularly around clause 7, which enables COVID-19 orders—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! [Member in the Chamber not socially distancing] Thank you.

PENNY SIMMONDS: Sorry, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Penny Simmonds.

PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We heard a considerable number of submissions around clause 7, which allows COVID-19 orders to be made which requisition testing consumables and resources from private labs. We also heard the situation in Australia, where, right from the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there were private and public partnership meetings to ensure that the Government knew about the inventory that was held right across both public and private laboratories, they knew when there would be pinch points identified for resources, and they knew what alternatives could be considered for testing. But in New Zealand, that didn’t happen. So we didn’t have that sharing of information, that private-public partnership sharing, right from the start, and so now we see a clause which will enable the Government to take that testing equipment when they need it from private laboratories.

We also need to look at the Auckland situation and understand that the Auckland situation is entirely due to this Government’s handling of the pandemic over the last year. The slow vaccination roll-out and the slow process to get vaccination certificates are fairly and squarely in the hands of this Government. It must be heartbreaking for Auckland businesses and Auckland individuals to know that they are in this situation because this Government did not do its job. People are sick of it and they are angry.

I have heard people up and down the country—

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

PENNY SIMMONDS: —and I see the member across the aisle laughing, and I suspect that there are many people in Auckland who find that incredibly disrespectful. People are angry because they are sick and tired of this Government telling them what to do, telling them that they can’t run their businesses, telling them that they can’t move out of their regions, when this Government didn’t do what it should have done, when this Government did not do its own job, but instead they want to tell other people how to do theirs.

I can understand why this Government doesn’t see the issues for businesses. They haven’t run businesses. They don’t know how difficult it is to deal with cash flow. They don’t know how difficult it is to pay wage bills or meet tax bills. And they simply don’t care. They sit across the other side and laugh when we bring that up. It is an insult to those people in Auckland who are risking and losing so much. We have heard of businesses where they have put all their reserves into trying to keep their businesses going, and they still know nothing about when they are going to be able to open. I hesitate to talk about businesses in the South, but I do it in the context of saying that even at level 2, hospitality and tourism businesses are struggling to make ends meet. So I fear for Auckland businesses that they are hoping they will get an incredible bump when they finally can start operating, but if it’s anything like what we have seen, it will be a very slow and hard crawl out of their situation.

I also want to touch on the lost health opportunities, or the costs to our other health services: the tens of thousands of operations that have been cancelled; the undiagnosed cancer that is still there, it just hasn’t been diagnosed yet. I think about our head of obstetrics at Invercargill hospital, and the ridiculous situation we were in with that person who was so critical to our maternity care in Southland, three times having to try to get his MIQ places to get back. The costs across our health sector—

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

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Sadly, can I open this week by saying there is nothing worse in this House than being “Invercargill-splained” by the member Penny Simmonds, or, in the first speech of the day from the Opposition, being “Bish-splained”, when we stand here, and I stand here this afternoon as an Aucklander and somebody that has sat in lockdown since 17 August. Can I acknowledge every other Aucklander that is in this House this afternoon.

What’s worse is that my fellow member from the North Shore, Simon Watts, also criticises this Government’s effort but has failed over those three months to even lift a finger to help lift vaccination rates on the North Shore, and lift testing rates. These are the things that a local MP does in order to help the efforts. This bill—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! We’ll just calm things down a bit.

SHANAN HALBERT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Speaking calmly, this bill is a public health response, and what we’ve forgotten in this discussion this afternoon is that in Auckland, for those of us who have been locked down since 17 August, there have been 6,000 cases of COVID-19. Can I remind the House that on 17 August, we had something called the Birkdale cluster. It all started with the Birkdale cluster, and we saw rapid growth of COVID-19 across Auckland’s North Shore and then out to Auckland, and particularly out to our most vulnerable communities in South Auckland. That is the reality that we have lived in.

What this bill does is adjust our laws, and our response, to ensure that the experiences that us Aucklanders have faced over the past three months—people protesting, can I remind us, laws that haven’t kept people staying home, which doesn’t support the public health effort that we’ve been trying to achieve. I’m very, very proud that we have continued to vaccinate—vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate; all of us. We are part of the effort to lift vaccinations as a part of Super Saturday. I didn’t see my North Shore colleagues at Super Saturday, can I just say, but now at Waitematā DHB, we are in a very, very good position—93 percent of first doses; 86 percent second doses. Without vaccination, as Aucklanders, we cannot move. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 45

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I seek leave to present a legislative statement on the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I move, that the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I beg your pardon. Sorry, that was me. So leave is sought. That legislative statement is published under the order of the House and it can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Today, we’re discussing a bill designed to strengthen New Zealand’s regulation of decommissioning. The cost of decommissioning varies, but can be substantial and run into the hundreds and millions of dollars. If a permit or licence holder cannot afford to carry out this work, then the cost lands on the taxpayer. This is not theoretical; this happened here in New Zealand in April 2020, when the Crown needed to take on responsibility for the decommissioning of the Tui oilfield after the operator Tamarind Taranaki Ltd went into legislation. When we first came into Government in 2018, we fixed the legislative loophole that existed that allowed for this to occur, and this bill is a further protection for the taxpayers of New Zealand from having to pick up the costs for this.

The Crown had to set aside $155 million for this decommissioning, based on a 2015 study decommissioned by the previous permit holder. We’ve made good progress on that decommissioning, but the costs have greatly exceeded those original estimates and further funding was needed to be appropriated in Budget 2021. This scenario highlights the importance of clarifying that petroleum permit and licence holders are responsible for decommissioning. We must get our regulatory settings right to ensure funds are set aside for decommissioning while petroleum is being produced and profits are being made. Globally, Governments are turning their attention towards planning for decommissioning and New Zealand should be no exception.

So the bill amends the Crown Minerals Act of 1991. The aim of these changes is to mitigate the risk to the taxpayer of having to stump up with the funding for the decommissioning, and this bill does this in three separate ways. Firstly, it clarifies who is responsible for the decommissioning, what they are responsible for, and that there will be consequences for failing to fulfil these responsibilities. It seeks to encourage all permit holders to carefully consider who they transfer to, by introducing perpetual liability. Second, it also enables a proactive approach to monitoring permit and licence holders’ financial positions and provides the regulator with enhanced oversight of planning under way for decommissioning. Third, while most operators want to do the right thing and plan for decommissioning, financial situations can and do change. That is why the bill that we have in front of us introduces the additional requirement that permit and licence holders must establish a financial security which can be used to fund and carry out decommissioning in the event that things do go wrong. The bill also requires a permit and licence holder to make a payment or provide a financial security that could be put towards the cost of any post-decommissioning work that is required.

The committee received 23 written submissions, which were supplemented by 11 oral submissions. I want to thank the committee for the work that they did on this bill. There was general agreement that the rules governing the petroleum sector’s responsibility for decommissioning needed to be strengthened. Concerns were raised, particularly by industry participants in the oil and gas sector, in relation to the impact this bill could have on future investment in the petroleum sector and the security of gas, but this bill is simply clarifying the existing expectation that exists, that decommissioning forms an important part of the petroleum life cycle. There were also concerns about how certain provisions will affect the existing petroleum permit and licence holders. The fundamental of the bill—that decommissioning must be carried out and funded by those who held the permit or licence—is not a new requirement in the New Zealand regulatory regime. I appreciate that some of the requirements will be new—for example, the requirement to hold a financial security.

The three aspects of the bill which drew the majority of attention were the perpetual liability, criminal liability for directors, and the requirement to make post-decommissioning payments. Several submitters raised concerns with the provisions that implement perpetual liability—that is, holding a former permit holder liable for the costs of decommissioning if the current permit holder fails to pay. The committee recommended retaining perpetual liability on the basis that this would only be used as a last resort. The committee did take on board the recommendations of some submitters to clarify the implementation of these provisions.

The bill also introduces a criminal penalty for knowingly failing to decommission. This is reserved for the most serious breaches and could apply to individuals, including directors in companies. Some submitters argued that this is not justified and expressed particular concern about the potential for a director to be criminally liable years after the company had transferred out of a permit. The select committee has recommended limiting this provision so that only directors of current permit or licence holders can be held criminally liable.

The provisions that enable funds to be collected for the post-decommissioning also attracted some attention for being a new levy or tax. I do not consider it to be either of these. It will not be a blanket fee calculated using a generic formula; instead, I propose it is determined based on the assessment of risk. The committee did not recommend removing the requirement entirely, as some submitters suggested. In response to the submissions, the committee made amendments so that the companies that still exist in New Zealand may propose a financial security. Most petroleum permits and licences in New Zealand are held by limited liability subsidiaries. I do not expect these companies will exist years from now when problems around decommissioned wells and infrastructure may arise and potentially fall on the taxpayers of New Zealand, and so this is why we require either a cash payment or a financial security that can be used for any future post-decommissioning work.

The committee also considered further advice from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment in response to additional analysis carried out after the bill was introduced. This included proposals which were considered to contribute to the overall aim of mitigating the risk to the Crown or to improve the implementation of the provision. Among others, changes were made to the penalties and enforcement tools and to introduce a penalty for the failure to make payments towards post-decommissioning. This was to make clear that where there was an obligation to do something, we would expect it to be complied with.

So in closing, I do want to thank all those who have been involved in every aspect of this bill. It’s encouraging to hear that there was support for what we are trying to achieve here. While there may not be consensus on how we achieve it, I hope that parties are reassured that this bill has been thoroughly considered and views have been listened to. The aim is to provide a flexible approach to regulation which will allow requirements to be implemented in a proportionate way.

This bill tackles a very difficult question we have about the legacy of oil and gasfields as we look to our future, but in other ways it is very simple. It is putting in place measures to reduce the risks that the costs of decommissioning or further remediation work will entirely fall on the Crown or the taxpayers of New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House. It will modernise and improve the regulation of decommissioning and bring New Zealand into line with international best practice established by like-minded countries.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill will bring another blow to energy affordability and security in New Zealand. When the Minister just said that there was support for what the Government is doing in this bill, I think that was a step too far. There is support for decommissioning from the industry, and the industry came into the select committee and have no problem with their responsibilities around decommissioning, but this bill is absolutely a step too far. Most bills have consequences, and the consequence of this bill is going to be like other bills that this Government has done: it is going to drive investment out of this industry, and before we know it, the energy security of this country, as we’ve seen in many things that this Government has done in the last four years, is detrimental to our future.

As I said, the industry wants to decommission. The industry acknowledges the responsibility of the petroleum sector to decommission, but this bill is an absolute overreach. The National Party supported this bill at the first reading because we wanted to go into the select committee. We believe in a process with legislation where you give the industry a chance to have a say, and the say was that this was a complete overreach. It was based on one bad experience. Last sitting block I was in the House talking about another bill that was based on one bad experience when a livestock ship overturned—a maritime accident. So one thing goes wrong and this Government goes into ban mode: “Let’s ban it. Let’s overreach. Let’s do whatever we can to destroy the industry.” I think that’s actually part of the plan with this bill, actually, because that’s what we’ve seen.

The financial requirements and penalties for companies decommissioning here are disproportionate to the risk. The bill is applied retrospectively and impacts on existing permit and licence holders, altering their rights and duties—some of these have been in place for decades. It will reduce New Zealand’s appeal as a location for petroleum investment and could also reduce our attractiveness for other investments because of these retrospective liabilities. The Minister said that the world is watching what is going on here. This is the most far-reaching piece of legislation in the world. So guess what, if these companies are going to go somewhere, they’re going to look around the world and they’re going to go, “Where are we welcome? Oh no, that’s right. First of all New Zealand closed us down for business, and now they’re putting these retrospective rules on us. They’re looking at perpetuity. Why would we go there? We’re certainly not going to go there.”

The comments that we got back in select committee—and it was really interesting, because I’ve been in select committees where Ministers are open to ideas and participants in select committees ask lots of questions and try to make a bill a better bill. Well, this wasn’t the case with this bill. The Opposition members were asking lots of questions, and we were trying to make it a better bill, but unfortunately no one was listening on the other side. So the Government is always wanting to be the first and the best in the world; we hear it again and again and again. We heard it in question time today. Never hear them talking about how the agricultural industry is actually number one for zero-carbon readiness. Never ever hear them talking about things that they don’t want to talk about where we’re the best in the world, but of course they want to be the first and the best in the world, and this proposal is stricter and leaves us with the highest level of regulation. And there are no other known directors in New Zealand who are bound to the requirements that this bill requires. We heard that from submitters that came in the room. In fact, I specifically asked the submitters if there were any other directors in this country that would be submitted to the requirements that this bill imposes on the directors of this industry.

The costs of this greatly outweigh the benefits. Each year the industry contributes around $2.5 billion to the New Zealand economy. It brings in about $750 million worth of export receipts. It generates approximately $500 million in royalties and income tax for the Crown. Now, it is adding value to this country, and even the Climate Change Commission has said that we are going to need gas to take us through into the future, because we have a black hole coming in this country when it comes to energy, I predict, and I’m not talking about coal but it will be filled up with coal. We’ve burnt more coal in three months of this year than we burnt in the whole of 2016 and 2017. We know we need gas to help us get through to 2035. The Climate Change Commission knows we need gas to help us get through this transition period, which Government actually defines transition as: “Well, let’s ban, let’s cut things off, and let’s figure out what’s going to happen in the middle and let the lights go off.”

Dr Duncan Webb: Have you read the bill?

BARBARA KURIGER: —because that’s actually what’s going to happen. And we’ve got a member over there, Duncan Webb, who actually asks if I’ve read the bill. Well, I have read the bill. I sat in select committee and I can tell you, mark my words, the lights are going to go off as a result of the decisions that this Government is making. Last time they went off it was a communication outage. Next time it goes off it’ll actually be a power off.

Hon Member: The lights are already off in Labour.

BARBARA KURIGER: Yeah, lights are off for Labour. And there will be consequences of this bill, and it’ll mean that that Government won’t be in Government next time, so that’ll be fantastic—the country will get a huge advantage out of that.

So when we look at the stakeholder commentary—none of which has been taken on board, none of which has been listened to—Business New Zealand said a balanced approach to decommissioning was needed. Both Business New Zealand and the BusinessNZ Energy Council have registered their opposition to proposed rules for decommissioning oil and gas infrastructure. So who are the people that really understand how this works? Not the Government. The Government doesn’t understand how this works. The industry understands how this works; they’re right behind decommissioning, and they know that this is actually an unworkable solution for our industry.

Energy Resources Aotearoa said the decommissioning overkill needs a rethink, but if you’re not interested in listening to the industry then law professor Philip Joseph “finds the bill to be retrospective and ‘constitutionally objectionable’ and ‘raises a fundamental rule of law concern’, which would be damaging to business confidence.” But, of course, this Government’s already damaged business confidence, so it’s not something that terribly worries them on the other side of the House.

Justin Smith QC “expresses serious concerns about ‘trailing liability’, which means former permit holders can be liable for fields they have transferred and no longer control. He says it is ‘a truly novel and draconian provision in New Zealand’ ”—Draconian. We’ve heard before that this Government’s taking us back to the 1970s; I think they’re taking us back to the Dark Ages and the coal age. Consultants Wood Mackenzie “find the New Zealand proposals are far stricter than comparable jurisdictions and unnecessarily duplicative. They find that ‘such a strict regulatory system is not necessary to obtain … level of taxpayers’ protection.’ ” And economic consultants Castalia “finds the proposal’s costs to greatly outweigh the benefits with net cost to New Zealand of almost $1 billion, generating only 11 cents of economic benefit for every dollar of cost.”

So perhaps, Mr Duncan Webb, you could read the bill. Asking me if I’ve read the bill—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Order! The member won’t bring the Speaker into the debate.

BARBARA KURIGER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Duncan Webb might like to read the bill, rather than accusing people on this side of the House of not reading the bill, because, actually, this bill is going to take us back into the coal age, and we actually will oppose the bill on this side of the House with great gusto. Thank you.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I find it really interesting how the other side—or the Opposition—has forgotten the cost of decommissioning the Tui oilfield. Let me reiterate to this House and remind the House and everyone listening that the Tui oilfield costed taxpayers $155 million. That is $155 million that we will never get back. That is hard-earned taxes of New Zealanders that we have to put into decommissioning the oilfield, and there are plenty of other oilfields in this country that we need to look into decommissioning if it wasn’t for this bill being passed. One hundred and fifty-five million dollars—how many more $155 million do we need to spend decommissioning all of the gas- and oilfields in this country?

Enough is enough, and that’s why we need to legislate this bill. I absolutely do not accept that the select committee process was by no means a collaborative, or one that we went into with open mind. In fact, the Minister, in her speech, had touched on all of the different terms in the bill that we have now actually adjusted because of the select committee process. I want to thank all of the submitters who came into our select committee, those who are experts in the field. Look, I really have to say that you guys are all great advocates for your industry, but, unfortunately, we do have to have a balance of approach to this. We need to make sure that we are good keepers of the taxpayers’ money at the same time while regulating industry. And so all of the little changes that we’ve made, for instance directors who, if you’re no longer serving on that board you are no longer criminally liable—all of these little changes, including to the Minister’s discretionary powers, have given more clarity because of the Regulations Review Committee. All of these changes were because the select committee process had worked. So I thank all the submitters. I thank all of our advisors. This is a great bill that is saving taxpayers’ money. I commend it to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s deeply ironic and a bit rich, frankly, to hear from one-term Labour Party backbench MPs about the benefits of not wasting taxpayers’ money. Here is a Government that has borrowed, printed, spent profligately more taxpayer money in the last four years than any Government in the history of our nation—most of it poorly spent. Most of it very poorly directed, poorly spent. So to have a one-term backbench Labour MP come to this House and cry crocodile tears about taxpayer money just doesn’t ring true.

We have a Government that is significantly out of tune with the New Zealand public, significantly out of tune with commerce, with industry, with the productive sector in New Zealand, and nothing actually reflects that more so than this bill. Members on this side have supported the bill at first reading. We thought that the Government might want to actually listen to the sector, listen to submissions from people who understood the sector, who operated in the sector, who had long-term interests in the sector, but, sadly, no—there was no attempt.

I listened carefully to my colleague Barbara Kuriger, who sat on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. I didn’t sit on the select committee, but I have read some of the submissions. Barbara Kuriger rightly indicates that often a Minister that is open to ideas, suggestions, and improvement will take into account submissions that are made from industry and sector groups that do know what they’re talking about. This has not been one of those cases, and this bill is the poorer for it, because it is an overreach.

It is a bill that goes several steps beyond what is necessary, and with all the potential for unintended consequences that come with a Government that doesn’t understand commerce, business, or, actually, the extractive mineral sector. They have a fundamental ideological opposition to the extractive sector; they just don’t like it. But they do like everything that comes from and with the extractive sector. They like to be able to use their cellphones, drive their cars, they like to be able to turn the lights on, they like to be able to heat and warm their homes, and they like all the benefits that come from an extractive sector, but they like none of the downsides that involve actually getting minerals and resources out of the earth, processing them, and then turning them into the beneficial aspects of our day-to-day life that we all like.

This is a Government that is sort of like that old analogy of, you know, wanting to go to heaven but not wanting to die. They’re full of grand gestures, virtue signalling on a grand scale but, actually, when the nitty-gritty comes down to it, it’s just a fundamental philosophical objection to the extractive sector, but also a fundamental philosophical objection to business and to commerce and to enterprise and to productivity. They don’t like profit, either.

Look, nobody in this Chamber would argue that the sector doesn’t have obligations to decommission; that’s a given. That’s understood, and completely proper and right. But from time to time, things don’t happen quite as they should, and this bill, which is an overreach, is a response to one situation of that sort. And yes, sadly, the taxpayer, the long-suffering taxpayer, has had to underwrite the decommissioning in this situation. But had this Government gone about putting in place a more practical, a more pragmatic, and a more sensible solution, then we would be able to support this legislation on this side of the House.

But we can’t, because they’ve introduced into this legislation a new, fascinating, and quite scary concept of perpetual liability. For anyone that has been in business or ever done a commercial transaction or been a director or a shareholder of a company, the concept of perpetual liability is an unknown one, but also kind of scary. It will have a chilling effect on the commercial sector, without any doubt, because what perpetual liability essentially means is that if a business sells their interests in an enterprise to another business, and then that business in turn sells it to another business and then so on, and the chain of sale and purchase continues through multiple owners of a business over many years, and decades, indeed, the original owners of that business, even though they may not have had a financial interest or a day-to-day management interest in the business for decades, will remain liable—not just civilly liable but also criminally liable for the misdeeds and the failures of the company or entity that is the one that drops the parcel, so to speak.

Now, that is a fundamental change to commercial law in New Zealand, and it has, I think, the potential for great disquiet amongst those who seek to engage in commercial activity in New Zealand, whether it’s in the extractive mineral sector or not. The concept that this Government wants to put this in place sends a chill up the spines of, I think, directors and shareholders and business people all around the countryside.

Chapman Tripp are a well-regarded law firm, and their corporate and commercial partners put out a paper about this bill, and they made some quite poignant, I think, comments about the failures of this bill. In their paper on this bill, they said, “We expect these provisions will cause significant anxiety in boardrooms.” They said the changes expose “sellers to a potential cost double whammy – first in the form of a lower purchase price to reflect the cost exposure created by the Bill, and later if the purchaser fails to carry out and fund the decommissioning activities.” They go on to say that “At the very least, this will make transferring permits or licences more intensive and cumbersome – particularly for the seller who will have to undertake substantial financial due diligence in relation to a purchaser’s ability to meet [future] decommissioning costs [into an unknown] future.” They go on—and this is the last quote from this piece—“We expect sale and purchase agreements going forward will include indemnities from the purchaser, indemnifying the seller for any liability under the Bill. However, those indemnities cannot extend to directors of the seller – a point which is explicit in the Bill.” Dr Duncan Webb comes to this Parliament with a reputation for being an academic lawyer—a lecturer, no less. He should understand the implications of this piece of legislation, and he should realise that this is a step too far.

There were a number of other submissions made. In fact, I think that there were 11 that were actually heard from of the 23, but one organisation that did not have an opportunity to submit has, as recently as a week or so ago, on 11 November, written to the Minister in charge of this bill, raising their concerns, and that is the Institute of Directors in New Zealand. Their chief executive, Kirsten Patterson, wrote to Dr Megan Woods in these terms about this legislation, and she says, “We support the intent of the bill, but we’re concerned about director liability and potentially unintended consequences, such as deterring capable, experienced directors from serving.” Now, that’s a real warning to this Government, who probably doesn’t understand the concept of what directors do.

She goes on to say the proposed director liability regime is overly onerous, and then says that “When designing a regulatory regime, it’s important that the director liability settings are proportionate and reasonable to the issues the regime is designed to address. This regime includes wide threshold for criminal liability that holds directors accountable for actions that are potentially totally beyond their control.”—potentially totally beyond their control. Now, that’s not how our commercial law should be based, and we think that that is wrong.

So if the Institute of Directors in New Zealand thinks there are issues, if prominent lawyers from big professional firms such as Chapman Tripp think that there are issues, and if there are submissions from industry and sector groups that say there are issues, then we’ve got a problem when the Minister won’t listen. That means that this will end up being poor legislation passed by a Government with an absolute majority that doesn’t listen and doesn’t care.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to take a call on the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, which is amending the Crown Minerals Act of 1991.

Now, 1991 was quite a different time to 2021, where we’re at now. For me, being in Taranaki where many—in fact, most—of the impacts of this bill are, a lot has changed in that time. For many of the businesses who have made their money in petroleum, who have made their money through exploration and discovery, and, of course, then onselling it—for a lot of our petroleum wells, they are beginning to come to the end of their lives, and what that means is that for many of our big companies, they’re very much around discovery, they’re very much around, then, extraction, but they’re not often around end-of-life stuff. So the issue we have with Tamarind—

Hon Member: What a load of rubbish.

GLEN BENNETT: It’s completely true. So with Tamarind, they came in, because that’s how it works, to squeeze the last little bit out, and unfortunately, tragically, not $155 million the Government’s shelling out; it’s more like $394 million—I think it was around $195 million was added to the Budget this year because it is so extreme and it’s such a concern.

So I’m here this afternoon to support this piece of legislation ensuring that those who undertook to profit from petroleum, that they will be doing the right thing, that they’ll be very cautious when they onsell, they’ll be very cautious in those spaces, because obviously they don’t want to have legal action against them. They want to do the right thing, as I know they always do, because they want to care for the spaces that they onsell.

So we want to make sure that we get legislation right. I look at the United Kingdom, Australia. The United Kingdom has most of these things in place already. Australia is proposing to bring many of these measures in place. For that reason, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. I’m pleased to take a call on the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and I’m speaking because Julie Anne Genter, our energy spokesperson, is on leave.

The Green Party is pleased to support this bill. It highlights, I think, the extent to which Aotearoa has been naive, and the public sector and regulators have been dominated by the protests of the oil and gas industry, that there are currently no explicit provisions in the Crown Minerals Act which set out the responsibilities of petroleum permit and licence holders for decommissioning wells and operations into the future. It doesn’t set out at the moment the length of time that they’re responsible for that, and it doesn’t set out the consequences of not doing that decommissioning.

Decommissioning, for anyone watching at home, occurs when it’s no longer profitable for a company to continue to extract oil and gas—the whole process of decommissioning commences. It’s the process of taking the infrastructure and the wells out of service, plugging the well so it doesn’t release hydrocarbons, remediating the site, removing production facilities and any equipment. But at the moment, the way the law is drafted means that permit and licence holders are only responsible for decommissioning for the issues that arise during the life of the permit and within six months of the resource ceasing to be active; not after that.

We’re supposed to have a regulatory regime in Aotearoa New Zealand which is based on “polluter pays”, where those who benefit the most from environmentally harmful activities bear the costs of any associated remediation and clean-up activities. Petroleum permit and licence holders are supposed to plug abandoned wells and they’re supposed to decommission the infrastructure, but that hasn’t happened. And as other members in this House have noted, that imposes significant liabilities on the Crown if it doesn’t.

What happens if things aren’t properly decommissioned? There are huge environmental impacts. You can get the contamination of groundwater because the fluids from the well leak into groundwater, contaminate aquifers and, potentially, our drinking water. If hydrocarbons build up under pressure, they can potentially blow out. If the wells and the infrastructure are offshore, then those may come loose from the seabed. And of course, if you haven’t got a properly decommissioned well, if there’s something like an earthquake that can also cause problems.

As the regulatory impact statement notes, there are currently 27 active petroleum mining permits and licences in Aotearoa; five of those are offshore, 22 of them are onshore. Some of them are large, like the Māui field, and some of them are much smaller. These are ageing and, as others have noted, when these wells age there is an increased risk of problems occurring, leaks occurring.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment recommended way back in 2014, when she looked at the whole regulation of the oil and gas industry, that there be changes to ensure that the industry bore the cost of both ongoing monitoring of abandoned oil and gas wells, the remediation of future leaks by, for example, the imposition of an annual levy. But the former Government didn’t act.

We’re getting action now because of what happened with Tamarind. That was a private equity company which bought those permits to operate the offshore Tui field. It claimed that it specialised in taking end-of-life fields and extracting the maximum oil and gas. It claimed that it would bear the risks of doing that. But it went into liquidation in December 2019, and, as the Minister noted, at an estimated initial cost of $155 million. So when the National Party talks about overly onerous responsibilities, they don’t seem to be recognising the opportunity cost of that initial $155 million, which has blown out to $394 million of cost to the Crown, to the public. What is the opportunity cost of that? How many thousands of hip replacements could have been funded from that? A new Whangārei Hospital, predator control over all of the conservation estate, but $394 million because Tamarind as a shelf company was able to get out of its responsibilities.

So this bill fixes big gaps in the Crown Minerals Act. It ensures that with this concept of perpetual liability, there is responsibility into the future. It’s creating a clear obligation to decommission, much greater monitoring powers, and a requirement to obtain and maintain a financial security to carry out decommissioning work and potentially have that paid through the future. So there’s an explicit legal obligation that the bill is creating.

I really acknowledge the work of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, because it did very detailed scrutiny of the bill and made a number of changes which—the National Party is seeking greater flexibility for the industry. There were some quite significant changes that the committee made so that it did, for example, amend the provisions that would enable a company to apply to the Minister to seek an exemption for a permit holder if they wanted to leave the infrastructure in place, for example. There are regulations, I think, that are out for public consultation at the moment on how this would all work. And it did do things like amend the definition of “petroleum infrastructure” to be less broad. So there are a number of quite specific changes that the select committee made in response to submissions.

But the concerns around perpetual liability—my understanding from reading the report and some of the submissions was that there were also changes there so that they would set out the priority in which the Crown would enforce liability. It would go to the current permit holder first and then whoever owned it before them. So there were changes made in response to submissions.

But this bill has a big gap. It doesn’t apply to mining operations. In the hills behind Reefton, OceanaGold has created an enormous tailings reservoir. Yes, it has a big impoundment, but in an earthquake, in heavy rain events, there is a risk in future that there may be cracks in that impoundment. The whole responsibility for the maintenance of that impoundment should be on the company in perpetuity. It shouldn’t risk falling to the Crown. So this bill is a great step forward in dealing with the petroleum industry, but it should apply to all mining operations, particularly those that create big reservoirs and impoundments as OceanaGold has done at Reefton. We commend the bill to the House.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The ACT Party supported this legislation to go to select committee where it could be properly evaluated. It turns out that despite the objective being laudable, to improve the regulation of the decommissioning of petroleum structures and installations, it turns out that the Government has oversold the benefits and wasn’t clear and honest about all the risks.

Now, ACT supports the concept of “polluter pays” and that operators should take responsibility for decommissioning their oil and gas assets at the end of their life. We support making it a statutory obligation where previously there was no obligation. We can also support the ability of the Crown to assess the financial capability of petroleum permit holders to undertake their obligations. But what the ACT Party can never support is a trailing or perpetual liability on directors of companies who have undertaken and fulfilled their duties according to the law, to environmental best practice, who have met their social and economic obligations to communities and shareholders alike but would find that in years following their association with a business that may have been successful, they are held criminally liable for decisions taken by officers of the business in operational roles quite remote from the governance role that they held as directors. ACT cannot support that. It is chilling, destructive, and will have a very negative impact on any business intention to invest in New Zealand. It will result in the hollowing out of investment in quality businesses and a reduction in the quality of people who are prepared to stand up and become directors of companies.

We also do not support the creation of a post-decommissioning fund. Now, as a civil and environmental engineer, I’ve been involved in decommissioning extremely hazardous facilities like timber treatment operations and closed landfills, for example. But at the end of the process, an engineer, a scientist, a planner have to get together and propose to regional councils or to the regulator that they have cleaned up and decommissioned that facility as best as possible to manage the foreseeable risks. At that point, if you have a resource consent for an operation or a facility, the regulator will sign it off and say, “Here’s your bond back. We recognise that you have fulfilled your obligations as far as reasonably practicable at this point in time”—notwithstanding any other acts of God that might happen in years or decades to come, for which no director, no company should be held liable or could possibly plan for.

That’s why, if we’re talking about liability, engineers design buildings to withstand a certain earthquake load, not the unimaginable earthquake that might occur sometime in the future. They have to pick an actual earthquake level that they design for. There’s no point in designing for an earthquake that’s so enormous that might have happened once or might possibly happen in the future. You have to design for the risk that you can reasonably foresee. And so once a decommissioning activity is complete, then at that point the directors in the company should be released from any future obligations.

Now, we also oppose a mandatory financial security. If a business can demonstrate that they have the financial capability and the expertise to fulfil their obligations, then that should be sufficient. If, however, they choose to enter into an arrangement with a regulator where they would prefer to put up a bond or put up a security voluntarily rather than manage that themselves with their own bondholder, then that’s entirely up to them. But it should not be mandatory. We also find that the concept of a default to total removal of all structures—we’re talking about the bases, the feet, of very large oil rigs or other installations made out of steel which might sit on the seafloor. They’re covered in barnacles. They’re home to octopus. They are a treasure trove of biodiversity where they stand, in the natural environment. Yet this regulation, and the Minister who’s left the House because there’s obviously not enough, there’s—

Hon Member: You can’t say that.

SIMON COURT: Clearly the information that’s been presented is too hot. But default total removal means that, actually, businesses involved in petroleum exploration, field development will have to remove things that could reasonably be left in place based on the opinion of an environmental scientist or a marine biologist or an ecologist who might say, “Look, look at the flora and fauna growing on the legs of this wonderful old structure. It’s like a shipwreck on the seafloor. There’s no reason why it should have to be removed as long as it’s made safe, as long as it meets the threshold of a low risk.” So the ACT Party opposes the default to total removal of all structures. It’s nonsensical.

Now, when we think about what decommissioning is, it must address the reasonable risks, and that is all. The reasonable risks include—look, what’s the balance in terms of health and safety versus environmental performance if you have to send divers down to remove things that were never intended to be deconstructed or removed. It’s only more recently that we’ve actually designed structures and buildings, for example, with the idea that they will in fact one day be deconstructed. Many things built in the past were not designed in that way, and it’s very dangerous to try to remove them, particularly if you’re talking about places where there are significant currents and movements on the seafloor. So decommissioning should be limited to what is required to meet environmental objectives while taking care of the health and safety of the workers involved, and make sure that what’s left behind is recorded so that we know what’s left behind. But that should be the limit of it.

As I’ve pointed out, when comparing this regime to a resource consenting or a building consenting regime, it’s important to note that this proposed legislation goes far beyond what is required in order to make sure that businesses fulfil their obligations to leave the environment behind in a suitable state and manage all the risks before they go to a low level of risk. Not zero risk, not no risk ever, for ever in perpetuity, but to an acceptable level of risk that is a low risk.

Now, this flawed piece of legislation has also threatened to drag in mining and quarrying. We have submissions from mining and quarrying organisations who have said, “Look, this bill is not clear enough. It’s supposed to address the risk of petroleum installations, but it also drags us in.” The mining and quarrying activities already have resource consents. They already have bonds in place. They already have consent conditions that they have to meet around making safe their sites when they leave, deconstructing any structures, replanting, and leaving the environment—in many cases—a much better place than they found it. Just like the OceanaGold Reefton Globe Progress Mine rehabilitation, which is an example of one of the best mine rehabilitations ever carried out anywhere in the world. New Zealand can be proud that businesses operating here are operating to a very high standard of environmental performance, and that must be taken into account. New Zealand businesses are good at this stuff. Engineers and scientists based here are good at this stuff, and they should be trusted, not punished, not having their directors penalised—in fact, discouraged.

What this bill represents is actually an attack on business. It’s an attack on business confidence. We’ve seen for the first time since the global financial crisis (GFC) that New Zealanders have less confidence in Government now than at any other time since the GFC. And legislation like this only contributes to and compounds the sense that the Government running this country doesn’t understand how business operates, what communities need to be successful. They are not listening. They have demonstrated time and again that despite the best evidence from businesses who say, “We want a better environment.”, that’s not enough. They won’t listen to them. For that reason, ACT opposes this bill. We do not believe that the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill should proceed beyond this point. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Fa‘afetai tele, Madam Speaker, and as always, it’s a privilege and an honour to take a call in the House as the member of Parliament for the Ōtaki electorate. While I didn’t sit on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, I want to thank those who did, and who did the mahi—or the work—on this, the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The committee, I note, made some changes after hearing from submitters, I’m sure, to make this bill the best it can be. Thank you, again, to those committee members.

This bill ensures that the oil and gas operators meet the cost of decommissioning their wells, and that then, in turn, mitigates the risk to Crown, or, essentially, to the taxpayers and other third parties from these costs being passed on. We also know that this bill prevents the Crown from having to pay for decommissioning of petroleum fields if an operator can no longer afford to pay for that or is no longer operating on that site. So, further, in April 2020, as the member Naisi Chen mentioned, the Crown had to take on the decommissioning of the Tui field after their operator went into liquidation—again, costing the taxpayer.

This bill will also allow for more effective monitoring of the permit holder’s financial ability to decommission their petroleum field, and it would also ensure that the operators are able to pay for the clean-up costs by requiring them to make sure they set aside decommissioning funds for that.

Ultimately, this bill is yet another example of this Labour Government doing what it said it would: delivering not only for our planet, for Papatūānuku, for te ao, but for our people and our future. Kia ora.

MELISSA LEE (National): Madam Speaker, thank you so much. It is the first time in, I think, 91 days that I’m standing in this House to speak, so I’d like to acknowledge my colleagues. I have missed you. I would also like to say to my select committee members from across the House that it’s lovely to actually see you in person, even though it’s across the room, because in select committee for the last three months, we’ve just been doing it via Zoom. So it’s nice to actually see you.

It is a pleasure to rise, together with my colleagues on this side of the House, to oppose this bill. I’d just like to say that my colleague Barbara Kuriger has actually done all the heavy lifting on this particular bill, and we on this side of the House oppose the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

We actually supported the intent of this bill at first reading so that we could go to select committee and hear the submissions, and I was in my office listening to the Minister when she talked about the 23 oral submissions. She said, you know, “This bill is this, and this is the reason.”, but what I took out of the speech that the Minister made was that it is incredible how this Government made a decision to stop oil and gas exploration and kill thousands of jobs in Taranaki, and this also means that it’s an overreaction to one incident that happened. This bill applies retrospectively and will impact on existing permits and licence holders, altering the rights and duties, and that is a huge impact on business.

If I could quote the chairperson of Energy Resources Aotearoa, Chief Executive John Carnegie, he said that this bill is “regulatory overkill”—and I’m quoting—“with different requirements piling on costs, far more than needed to protect taxpayers.” He also went on to say, “Much of the Bill is retrospective, which is like moving [a goalpost] after the ball has been kicked.” Who does that? You don’t do that in rugby. You certainly should not be doing that in business, either. When you make a commitment, you expect people to live up to their responsibilities, and when people are given licences, they should be doing what they are supposed to do.

Sometimes some businesses fail. They go bankrupt and you have to deal with those circumstances individually, not make rules that go right across industry and other industries and that could actually impact on them, and that actually means that consumers, potentially, will be paying higher prices for our energy. But do they actually care? This Government apparently cares a lot, and yet I don’t think they actually do.

When you actually look at the responsibility of the Government, you would think that they should care about what happens in the industry. I think, when I was listening to a speaker earlier—you know, nobody actually wants to increase carbon emissions in our country. We all want to do our fair share to reduce our emissions to make sure that we progress on to a time and place where New Zealand is responsible and will be carbon-neutral. I think that’s the goal. We actually want to get there, but the problem is that when Governments make regulations and pass legislation when we’re not ready to do so, what happens is that we have situations like under this Government. Instead of actually using less coal for energy, we’re using more coal for energy, and not only are we using New Zealand coal; we’re actually importing from overseas to use the coal to power up our energy industry.

I think this is where we show the Government to be not as responsible as they claim to be, but irresponsible in their application and delivery of our legislation and our regulations. I think this is one area where natural gas is used by 270,000 residential users, 11,000 commercial users, 5,000 large commercial users—including our hospitals—and 300 large industries. They don’t need it to be retrospective. They don’t need this bill, and I certainly do not support this bill.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I rise with absolute pride in this bill and the actual difference it shows between the two sides of this House, because this bill is actually just common sense. It isn’t something to worry too much about when what a Government is doing is taking mischief that it’s seeing, and that we can see through what was the Tui fields disaster, and making sure that taxpayers don’t end up paying for that—in fact, sheeting that cost back to who it belongs to: those who have made the profits.

So this is a situation where Tamarind, a company that came in and bought the Tui oilfields, said it would do a job, didn’t do a job, collapsed, and do you know how much the New Zealand taxpayers are paying for that: $394 million.

My colleagues have talked about some of the things that that could pay for, but I’d also like the New Zealand public to think about what it could have paid for in business. Is it actually an appropriate support of business to spend all that money cleaning up and shoring up and making safe something for companies that have made huge profits, when in fact that money could be used for wage subsidies, it could be used for our small businesses? That would be a good use of the money. It could nurture new things like new forms of fuel. It doesn’t have to go to big multinationals. Only bunnies do that. That is a naive thing to do.

Now, we have heard people in this Opposition have seen this as a block, but I say this is not a block. This is a support of businesses in New Zealand, and I’m proud to support and commend it to the House.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to rise in response to that last speech and talk about the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill; it’s a Government bill in the name of Dr Megan Woods. The difficulty New Zealand faces at the moment is the large degree to which this Government has transferred away from renewable energy into use of a carbon-based energy source through using coal as its mechanism to deliver heating to New Zealand and to keep the lights on, even if they did go off at a certain stage. The approach that the Government has taken from day one has been a very strict approach around energy. They’ve taken the approach that there will be no oil and gas exploration, that the country will deliver its energy needs without those key sources of energy, which actually are part of the transfer to renewable energy. Gas, for example, is widely used around the world and seen as a more renewable form of energy than, for example, coal would be—or a more environmentally friendly form of energy. So the ideology, and the blind ideology, of this Government has led to a position where New Zealand has an energy system that is now compromised.

When we come to this bill here today, this is a bill that has been in response to the Tui oilfield decommissioning, where taxpayers had to fund $350 million in the clean-up. The bill amends the Crown Minerals Act, and it does a number of things in that, and one of them is to require permit holders to submit plans, it allows the Minister to create regulations, and requires the permit holders to submit notices in certain cases. Now, all those factors, you may think, are fine and that is OK, but it flows from an approach that this Government has taken to energy that simply has not worked. And what we have seen is that the knee-jerk reactions of this Government around energy have compromised the ability of New Zealand to have the strong infrastructure that we actually would want as a renewable country going forward.

We just have to look at another bill that’s going through this House at the moment, the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill, which is similarly an approach by this Government around fuel. It’s more commonly known as the “Ute Tax Bill”, but it is a bill which this Government uses and says, “Well, this is an example where we can dictate energy policy.”

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Come back to this bill.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes, Madam Speaker. So, in the way that they dictate energy policy there, we also see it here today as well. This is another aspect of retrospective legislation that we see from a Government that, when we were in Government, would always stand up and say we can’t have retrospective legislation, and yet they are doing it time and time again.

It also has the unusual effect of making the former owner liable for meeting the costs of decommissioning energy infrastructure if the new owner fails to do so, so it doesn’t follow general commercial practice in that regard. And as Business New Zealand has said, that could create a perpetual liability on energy businesses that strongly should be opposed. Like other legislation we’ve seen from this Government, they don’t have a commercial reality of what that actually would mean. They actually think that it’s fine to be able to put such restrictions on business, that it’s fine for this Parliament to legislate that somebody is liable. They don’t actually understand what it actually means to the consumer, because that liability has to be transferred to the consumer in some form as they have to meet the costs so that that company can actually be able to progress and survive, knowing that it has that liability.

So we see these downstream effects from the energy policies of this Government which doesn’t understand the practical realities of what they do, just like they banned oil and gas exploration, just like they put taxes on utes, just like they are here putting a liability on other energy providers. And it is all for a grand plan that just won’t work, because they haven’t invested in the things that we actually need like renewable energy. Where’s the grand plan of building the renewable energy that we need? Where’s the grand plan so that we can have those electric vehicles and we can actually charge them from renewable electricity? Are we going to be moving to a new fleet that’s going to be charged with coal-powered energy? That’s what’s happening in this country. It’s the case that we just don’t understand where we actually need to go. We’ve been blessed as a country to have a huge renewable base, and they’ve lost that. They are now making it even harder for future Governments to get that renewable target achieved. It’s going to be even more difficult when you place on top of that a lot of requirements about using electricity instead of other types of energy.

So what we have here is a very short-term Government when it comes to energy. They only look at their goals at the moment and progressing some grand ideals that they can promote on an election pamphlet. They don’t actually look at the reality of what energy requirements are for this country, what the needs are for our electricity supply, and how we could actually meet those in the future.

So when we see bills like this that are around energy, and specifically in regard to the petroleum sector and gas, that has had a vicious attack on them from this Government over the period of time that they’ve been in Parliament and has really compromised our ability to be self-sufficient in energy, this legislation just adds to that list a tax on our energy sector, which has been misaligned with our actual energy needs going forward. So that is what New Zealanders need to be aware of, that by taking the approach that this Government has done, we all suffer in the end in not being able to meet our renewable energy targets. As a country, that is not good for us when we sell ourselves on the world market as a clean, green country. But it actually means our consumers will have to pay more, because, in the end, we’re going to be paying—either through climate change, we’re going to be either paying through some form of cost on consumers, and the continual beating up of our energy sector that is a local energy sector, in favour of having imported energy, will be to the detriment of New Zealand consumers and the New Zealand brand over time, and the climate, essentially.

Now, the last week or so we’ve heard a lot of great talk coming out of Scotland around banning coal and those sorts of things, and yet, when we characterise the New Zealand environment, we see us using more coal. It just doesn’t make sense that the Labour Party and the Green Party, effectively, as coalition partners, have banded together to actually create the opposite of where the world is wanting to go. At the same time this is a Labour Party that talks about climate change as the biggest thing of our generation, and yet they do the very opposite from what we see around the rest of the world. They’re contrary in their policy to what is being approached in the rest of the world.

So when we come to energy and legislation, this legislation may not be as big as some of the other legislation they’ve done in the energy field, but it all points back to their misunderstanding of economics, their misunderstanding of how business operates, and their desire to just beat up the energy sector, because they just think that they shouldn’t be there doing it, and that they can hide behind a shipload of coal coming in every so often rather than actually dealing with the issues and actually having a forward-thinking approach that’s really based on renewable energy that actually would deliver for New Zealand going forward. So it’s very disappointing to see that from a Labour-Greens Government, but that’s the reality of what we face at these times.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Well, that was a speech that you’d expect from a true National Party member: fundamentally conservative. “Do nothing” is essentially the approach of the National Party. Change nothing, leave the status quo. And do you know what? We saw that for a long time, and things got progressively worse. This bill says, “No, we’re going to take a long-term approach.”—not an approach which satisfies the clamouring of industry today but one which will make any industry sustainable in the long term. That’s our plan across all industry, and a fundamental principle of that plan is to say that people who use resources, who damage the environment, and who cause an impact will pay for it. And that’s fair—that is absolutely fair, and that is what this bill does.

You know, I don’t know how many people have ever drafted or litigated an energy contract in this House. We hear from the other side, many times, that we don’t know what we’re doing, we don’t know what we’re talking about, but you know what? I’ve actually done a bit of work in this area, and the fact of the matter is—[Multiple interjections] Yeah, I know, how about that! There they are over the other side of the House pretending they know all about business and none of them have even seen an energy contract. Well, bonds and indemnities—we heard all this pooh-poohing about bonds and indemnities; they are fundamental to these arrangements. These arrangements last 20, 30, and 50 years sometimes, and the idea of a chain of liability—because the main evil we’re trying to attack here is the difficulty when people sell an asset to a less robust company, a company that doesn’t have the financial strength of the original licence holder. And that can happen down a chain across the life of a mine or of a well—it can happen many times: every five or 10 or 12 years. Now, what we don’t want to see is the weakest party being held holding the baby, a well with huge decommissioning costs, when all of a sudden, as we saw in the Tamarind situation, they go broke and they run for cover and the taxpayer bears the burden, whereas there’s people who have been extracting minerals for profit over a long period of time who get away with paying nothing. You know what? That’s not fair. We won’t have it.

So the committee’s done a really good job, and there’s nothing wrong with strict liability, either. Any economist will actually tell you that saying you pay regardless of fault means that an operator will absolutely take the appropriate level of precautions. [Multiple interjections] Go and do your research. I thought you’d like Richard Posner. He’s one of the neoliberal philosophers that I thought you’d be right into. Go and read what he says about strict liability. So go and do your research: strict liability is entirely appropriate, especially when you’re doing something which is inherently risky. The mere fact of drilling for oil and gas—it can be that no matter what precautions you take, devastation can happen. We can’t have someone going and doing something which is inherently dangerous and then say, “Oops, I did my best.” That’s not good enough. Reasonable precautions won’t do it. The committee’s done a great job tidying up some technical aspects of this bill. It’s a great piece of work. I look forward to seeing it going through this House and becoming law to protect our environment and create truly sustainable industries in this area. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

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

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

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The time has come for the dinner break. We will resume sitting at 7 p.m.

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

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2).

Bills

Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2)

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Madam Chair, thank you very much. I don’t want to take a long time on this. The Government has the numbers. They’re going to pass this bill. National opposes it, and that sort of is that. We’ve put out our reasons why that is the case. It is like so many bad laws that this Government passes. Kris Faafoi seems to be chief among Ministers at passing bad laws at the moment, but we’ll get to three strikes, I hope, later today.

But on this pill-testing one, my questions for the Minister really relate to this: I could be wrong, so I ask the Minister—he can point out the error in what I’m saying; I’m all ears, but I feel like the Government went to the election with a ban on pill testing at music festivals, right? That’s what they were going to do. That’s how this started. That’s the bill we got. But then what happened is: somewhere along the line, they just decided we’d have pill testing everywhere, right? It is now, under this law that we’re going through the committee of the whole House on, the case that pill testing can be done anywhere. I didn’t see any official change come; it just came through the law, fundamentally—although, once they’d been elected.

So, given that, I want to understand the underlying rationale of that. Why have we gone from music festivals—I don’t like it, personally, I think it will encourage use. There’s no safe use of the likes of MDMA, but, in any event, I do understand the rationale of it for music festivals—the “Rhythms and Vines” and so on that these guys on the other side are giving a lot of money to because they love a big music festival. We know that about Angie Warren-Clark, we’ve discussed this in the House before. So why the change? When the change? I think, in all seriousness, I’m probably being a bit flippant but I do think, actually, it’s an important issue, the move from testing, simply, at music festival to, technically under this law, anywhere. What is going to go on here?

I presume we’re talking K Road, as it was called. Now it’s Karangahape Road—it was K Road when I was a kid, and we used to get our thrills driving up and down it to see the night life; as a 15-year-old, it was very exciting. I remember, actually, one time—no we won’t go there, actually, no we won’t go there. Anyway, OK, K Road, outside the night clubs—those clubs Shanan Halbert probably went to until the day he became a member of Parliament and he decided you shouldn’t be out past midnight. Nothing good comes after midnight, Shanan Halbert, OK? So is it going to be outside those?

But, more than that, actually, is there going to be—and I’m not being facetious; I just want to understand—rule-making, regulatory powers here? Will it be outside the local playground? There’s no legal impediment to that that I can see in the bill. Will it be outside schools? Under the guise of public harm reduction education, we’ll let the 15- and 16-year-olds know that they can test their pills here because that’s cool and that’s the way the Ministry of Health and those public health officials roll these days, right? It’s all harm reduction, and we’re cool with this outside of schools and outside of playgrounds. I just want to get a sense of the parameters and the legal restrictions. Will there be rule-making powers? I think there should be. I think that’s really important.

And because I’m not playing cat and mouse here and I don’t want to take six calls and string this out and ask the Minister lots of other things, I also want to underline another thing that we never heard about in the election campaign—I don’t think we saw anything about it until the Minister’s office stuck a press release out, and a friendly journalist at stuff.co.nz asked me for some comment on it—and that is the fact that now not only have we gone from pill testing just at festivals being legalised, to everywhere but that taxpayers are going to pay for it. So my question, simply, again, on that is: when did they make that decision? Is it a new thing? Why have they decided that the taxpayer should pay for it?

I just say on that, on the “Why?”, I’m very curious about that. Call me old-fashioned. Call me a stick in the mud. I just work on this basis—and I know they’re a bunch of woke-sters now in ACT these days, so they don’t go along with this; they’ve given blatant disregard for taxpayers’ money these days, and they’re happy for taxpayers to pick up on this down-with-it, cool, hip thing called “pill testing” everywhere. Why isn’t it user–pays? Why aren’t users paying to test their own illicit, illegal drugs? Why do I have to pay? I don’t want to pay for Kris Faafoi to get down with it at Rhythm and Vines. I just don’t want to pay for that.

The final question, because I think I can do this in five minutes: will it stay at 850 grand—I presume, per annum—or am I right to say that, actually, every year this is going to go up as there’s bracket creep, and we see millions spent on subsidising other people to have pills that are so-called safe, even though they’re not? How much is this going to cost?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Sorry; just with apologies before I take the member—just to tell the committee that we are on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 12A and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member Simon Bridges who’s just resumed his seat. He started off by saying he’s not here for a long time. I thought he was going to say he’s here for a good time—but he didn’t even give us the benefit of that—which is what some people say when they’re going off to enjoy themselves on Karangahape Road and nightclubs and what have you. But anyway, let’s see if I can answer his questions seriatim.

He started by asking why this wasn’t promised in the election. Well, actually, it was. We said that we are committed to the continuation of the regime—to have a regime that allows for drug-checking.

The member asked why it has gone from music festivals to—it took him a while to explain to me to where it’s gone from musical festivals to—anywhere. The point is that there are potentially dangerous substances, let’s call them recreational substances, consumed in a whole bunch of different settings and environments; not just at music festivals. We, in last year’s short-term legislation, stuck with music festivals because we knew there was an immediate need, and we could test out, if you like, setting up a regime that allowed us to do that.

But the reality is there are people who are consuming substances the authenticity of which, the reality of which, they do not know. And they should have access to it as well, because in the end, this is about keeping people safe. It’s about keeping people safe from illicit substances that can be traded without any verification about what it is, and what we saw from the exercise last summer at music festivals is that a lot of people—young people, in that situation—were kept safe as a result. There was a strong public benefit as a result. And just as those who go to music festivals and want to try out substances and really wanted to know what they are, so it is for people all year round in a variety of different settings—people who live on the streets, people who might go a nightclub, people who are using substances that have the potential to cause harm, particularly if they are substances that the person doesn’t know have been mixed in with what they think it is and could cause a lot of serious trouble.

So the idea is that this will allow a regime to be put in place that would deal with music festivals, orientation weeks, and what have you, but also those who are year-round consuming substances that come their way and they don’t know the safety of it. I mean, it’s not so long ago—it’s in living memory of that member and myself—when we had the synthetic cannabis crisis because people were purchasing stuff and consuming stuff when they simply did not know what was in it. It was causing severe harm—actually causing deaths. This is the thing, the mischief if you like, that we’re trying to remedy. So it is intended to be broader than just music festivals and orientation weeks.

The member asked whether this could mean people could set up outside local playgrounds and schools. No, because that’s not where these transactions are taking place and it’s not where people who are using substances from a questionable background need to have them tested. So that won’t happen.

Then the member asked why the person who’s getting the testing done does not pay for it. Because there is a public health benefit as a consequence. This is about keeping people safe. In the greater scheme of things, it’s actually not an expensive safeguard to have for people who, at a time in life, might indulge in substances that would otherwise cause them harm.

The member asked whether the costs will rise. We will make sure, as we do with health initiatives and public health initiatives in particular, that there is a regime in place that means that people can get access—and it doesn’t require them to be wealthy to do so—to testing services so that they can keep safe. That’s, again, what this is about. It won’t be expensive because it’s not expensive and we’ll support those who meet the conditions to get a permit and get a permit to carry out the testing and support them to do that job, because that is what it takes to keep people safe.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Chair. I don’t think that that answer was very convincing around the schools and playgrounds, because the Minister’s explanation was it would be where drugs transactions take place, and I’m reliably informed that outside schools is exactly where a number of drugs transactions take place. I don’t see anything in the legislation that would prevent a mobile service pulling up outside a school and actually performing their service outside a school. So could he perhaps answer: what in the legislation is going to restrict that? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I’m happy to respond to that question, and this comes up in debate sometimes, particularly on what members of the Opposition like to regard as moral issues. It’s a thing that actually doesn’t have to be legislated for; it’s actually called real-world common sense. Real-world common sense tells you—[Interruption]—and I know members have big gasps of breath, sharp intakes of breath, because this is a foreign concept: the idea that, you know, people might actually behave in a way that is consistent with basics that are common sense. So the members of the Opposition who sat on the committee and, indeed, who sat through the second reading, don’t appear to have proposed any other measures that are needed. It is not needed, because that is not the way the community who would benefit from this measure operates. So I give that assurance to the member. If she could stipulate some evidence of where this might be a concern, then she’s free to relay herself that experience. But it is not needed, because that is not where the demand for this sort of service comes in.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take a call on this bill. I just want to reflect a little bit on what the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little, was just saying there. He said we want to ensure that we have these drug-checking services in the places where they purchase these substances. My colleague Penny Simmonds has mentioned the very real issue of drug dealers preying on our young people outside our high schools, and if the Minister in the chair was to go and talk to some high school principals and ask them about this issue, then he would get some real-world common sense from those principals. But I imagine he hasn’t actually done that with this piece of legislation.

The question here around this piece of legislation is whether this will protect people from illicit substances by testing those illicit substances. I’d like to ask the Minister where in this piece of legislation will it protect the young people who go along to a drug-checking service with some MDMA and the drug-checking service says, “Oh yes, you’ve got MDMA and there’s no adulterants in it, therefore it’s all good. Go—you know, have fun.”, because the real issue, and the evidence is clear that the real killer from MDMA is MDMA, not some adulterants which have been mixed in and which may be found out through this process.

The next question I’d like to ask the Minister in the chair is around the issue of inadmissibility of the evidence in the drug-checking service. The question I’ve got here is: for someone who deals drugs—I’m not talking about just a simple user; I’m talking about someone who deals drugs—and wants to take a couple of samples along to this drug-checking service, whether that be at a music festival, at K Road or at a university campus, or maybe outside a school, because that may be where the demand might lead these services and was to check their services, what is stopping that person from then using that information to say, “Yes, I’ve tested these services.”, and marketing those services to their sellers and then potentially demand a higher price for that substance?

I’d like to ask the Minister why that evidence is inadmissible in the courts and what the purpose of removing that admissibility is. And does it cover not only people who are using substances but does that inadmissibility also extend to people who are supplying substances to others as well? I think the Minister in the chair may want to reflect on that, because there is a real issue here in New Zealand with illicit substances. It’s not just the use but it’s the supply and it’s the peddling and it’s the misery which gets caused by the people who peddle these substances to our young people and who cause enormous misery throughout society.

So I’d like the Minister to spend some time reflecting on those questions and giving some clear answers which give confidence to New Zealanders that this is not going to provide an out of jail sort of way to get around it for drug dealers, but also to explicitly answer the question around whether this will provide any exclusionary zones around schools. Because I think parents up and down New Zealand will have very severe concerns about that part of this legislation if there were not exclusionary zones inputted into this legislation.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I think, to assist that member, first of all, this is a bill dealing with those who wish to consume substances and who wish to have the substances checked at the time they wish to consume them. I’m not quite sure how much consumption of illicit substances happens at the school gate, but that might be a reflection of the member’s own experiences.

I’m happy to further assist the member by reading the bill for him, because clearly he hasn’t.

Hon Member: Go on.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I will, because he only needs to look at clause 10, which inserts new section 35DDF, to know that it is a requirement—and the Health Committee put this in, actually—for a drug-checking service to give harm reduction advice to a person whose substances they have just checked. So it’s not enough just to kind of test it, say, “This is what it is.”, and hand it back. They are required to give harm reduction advice, and the harm reduction advice has to be in a manner and a form and a language that is accessible to the person with whom they are dealing. So that is there—that is all there. The member only had to look at the bill to know that that was the case.

In terms of the member’s concern that somehow a peddler of drugs will go and have some kind of a validation test that they can wield in their advertising, the advice that will be given to a person whose substances are tested is verbal advice; no more has to be given. So in the end, a person who has substances, whether they got it from a peddler or from a friend or picked it up or whatever, in the end, they are the ones who have the opportunity to get the assurance to know that what they are consuming is going to be safe. It does not allow a peddler to get a kind of a certificate of approval for the stuff that they are trying to sell.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for providing a bit of an overview in terms of this bill. I was actually a member of the select committee that went through this, and I do want to acknowledge the many parties that did provide a submission as part of that select committee process; in particular, St John Ambulance of which I am a volunteer member. I guess my experience related to this bill—and I’ve got a couple of questions for the Minister around in particular new section 35DDF, inserted by clause 10, which I’ve just slightly touched on there around the provision of appropriate harm reduction advice.

The other aspect I’m interested in is in new section 35DDI, which is the data provision or information and data that is provided to the Director-General of Health in regard to dangerous drugs. What I’d like the Minister to provide a little bit of context around is in regard to those dangerous drugs. What are some examples, in terms of that, where he would foresee that information that would be provided through to the director-general—and for what purpose would that information be used in order to, I guess, provide some public benefit?

In regard to the harm reduction elements, I’m interested to get into the practicalities around how hard or how overt that advice is going to be, and particularly also the provision of advice to individuals or minors. So there I’m referring to individuals that are under the age of 16 or potentially are when they’re seeking the advice under the influence of alcohol, so their competency in order to be able to understand information, particularly advice, their ability to comprehend the implications of taking that drug or not, and the follow-through around that—how that is assessed by the person providing that harm reduction advice. Because I think that is a pretty significant point in terms of whether the individual may or may not take the drug.

My experience having worked at SIX60 concert in a capacity as a St John volunteer ambulance officer for the last two concerts in Auckland—I’ve dealt with multiple patients; one was critical. We actually had to physically ventilate the patient, one that was having a seizure in the mosh pit as the result of drugs, and trying to extract them in darkness with torches and trying to manage that is significant. The reality is no testing would have avoided the situation in that regard, and I think the information for those individuals of the risks around drug taking—for most, they may say, “Look, there’s no risks.”, but I personally have seen the consequences of drug taking and the implications that it does have for individuals and their families. So I’d appreciate some feedback from the Minister on that.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I’m thankful to that member for the insight he’s shared with the experience that he has had at those concerts. I might say, too, when I was the custodian of a student union building and was on duty at some of the big concerts, I saw some pretty horrific consequences of overconsumption of alcohol that were distressing, including a person who after a night on the tequila had walked over the balcony completely out of it, landed on his back and put a bone through his hand, and all the rest of it, and I had to attend to him.

But the point that he makes, that actually even drug-checking services might make it inevitable that there will be people who can’t be prevented from consuming dangerously; I’m not sure that is necessarily the case. The availability of drug-checking services in a sense in an environment where there is no judgment made and it’s accessible, I think, can go a long way to changing behaviours, as I think the Victoria University research on last summer’s activity around drug-checking services showed. Two-thirds of those who used-drug checking services changed their behaviour, either declined to consume at all or reduced their level of consumption, or took away material that was about harm reduction.

So to answer the two specific questions the member asked—what L data would go to the director-general under new section 35DDI—I was checking to see whether the bill went up to section 35DDT, because that might deal with some of the problems we had, but no, it didn’t. But new section 35DDI—the purpose of providing that data to the director-general is again a public health approach: let’s build up a profile of the data that’s been gathered, the sort of drugs that are being consumed, the risks that are being taken, because that can then inform some broader public policy, public health initiatives to address dangerous or harmful drug consumption.

In terms of the second question, how I view that advice, I think the bill makes it very clear in new section 35DDF(2), “The advice must be about the following harms and how they may be reduced”. And then, if the test is a positive test, there’s a certain amount of advice that has to be given, and if the test is not positive, nevertheless, advice has to be given on harm reduction and the risks and dangers associated with the consumption of that particular substance or any substance of that sort of nature.

So I think that is covered off, and I’m thankful to the committee, who actually put that provision in. I think it’s a useful provision to have and it further sustains the objective of the exercise, which is harm reduction and actually being able to inform, particularly, young people for whom this is often an experimental kind of time, an experimental activity, just to let them know that there are hazards and dangers associated with drugs. Even if the drugs are what they say they are, there can still be hazards that go with it and every effort should be made to keep people informed about that. So I thank the member for those questions. I’m confident that they are covered off in what is in the bill. And again, it is about keeping people safe.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like the Minister to confirm whether section 14(4) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which provides for the Minister to be able to give approval to grant a licence to any person who has had a conviction under the Misuse of Drugs Act, Darius Fagan means that the Minister could approve, for example, a gang member who had previously had drug convictions to then, at some stage later, get a licence to do the drug testing?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I’m just trying to get the section the member Penny Simmonds referred to, which I think was in, clause—I’m not sure if she said clause 14(4), is that what the member wanted? I’m just looking for clause 14. There is no clause 14(4). I think there is, however, a clause 11 that has a section 37B that relates to “Regulations relating to drug and substance checking service providers”, and there’s conditions that have to be met in terms of that, and they are laid out there for all the world to see.

So regulations must prescribe various requirements that a drug-checking service must have, must also prescribe the form of licences, conditions of licences, and there’s a range of other things there as well. So subsection 2 of that section 37B, which is part of clause 11 of the bill, also says regulations may, without limitation, prescribe conditions that specify how the service provider must comply with the conditions imposed in the earlier subsection, and any other requirements.

So a lot will depend on, or turn on, what happens in those regulations, and, also, then schedule 2 of the bill lays out conditions for decisions on licence applications. So the first condition is: the Director-General of Health may issue a licence if satisfied that, firstly, the applicant is suitable; and secondly, the applicant’s proposed service model, and what have you. So the director-general has to be sure that the person is suitable. I know the National Party has an obsession about gangs and gang members. In the end, this is a piece of legislation about keeping people safe and about people with the right competencies and the right skills and the right profile to do this important task that will keep people safe.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): I don’t think the question has been answered yet. I understand that the Minister can give approval to grant a licence to a person who has been convicted under the Act. Can the Minister confirm whether that’s correct or not? Thank you.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): It would help in the committee stage for members to refer to the specific parts of the bill. In relation to that, the member refers to a generality. I’ve taken the member through the regulation-making exercise that is now available to the Governor-General by Order in Council on advice from Ministers, and, indeed, then when it comes to licences, requirements that must be met. So I’m not quite sure—if there is a specific part of the bill that the member wants to ask questions about, the member should refer to it rather than just sort of raising generalities, because all she can expect in return is generalities about the bill.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I refer to Part 1, and to clause 10, which inserts new section 35DDE, Minister, by my next question. So it relates in regards to the collection of information around the individual when they are going to participate or get some of their drugs tested. And what I’d like the Minister to articulate is in terms of subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b)—paragraph (a) refers to the fact that someone is not required to disclose personal or demographic information: age, sex, gender, or cultural background, but then following that there’s a paragraph to say that, actually, if a service provider does wish to collect that, then they can do so. So what I’m looking for from the Minister there is—and I know in the select committee process there was quite a lot of conversation around the collection of personal information and the pros and cons around that. I think St John’s in particular were one of the providers that noted the ability to collect some information may or may not provide some level of benefit for them.

And I appreciate that the Minister’s just seeking a little bit of advice and guidance, so I will just continue to elaborate on this point for a little bit longer just so that we’ve got a bit of time. But I think this is important because one of the aspects that was brought up in a lot of the submissions from young people in terms of this bill was the concerns around whether the provision of information would form a barrier or not in terms of them seeking advice. And I just want to get a little bit of comfort from the Minister on whether he feels like we’ve landed in the right place in regards to that or a little bit more context, if I may, Minister.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I’m going to ask the member to heckle loudly. He referred to a clause (2)(a). I’m just trying to understand which—is he talking about clause 10, and this is actually new section 35DDE, subsection (2), paragraph(a)?

Simon Watts: Yes.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That is that part, OK. Then, in that respect, that is the regime that requires accurate and appropriate harm reduction information to be given, as the member will see, and then lays out in that subsection (2), in those various bits and pieces there, how the approach is to be taken. So if the test indicates the likely identity, then the advice should be about that specific drug that the person has surrendered for testing. Now, if the test doesn’t indicate the likely identity of the drug or substance but the provider considers that they are able to form a view on its likely identity, then the drug checking service can provide information on that drug or substance that they think that it is and the harms associated with that particular drug or substance. And in any other case where the test doesn’t indicate the likely identity of the drug or substance, nevertheless the harms associated with taking a drug or substance of an unknown identity. So it covers all those off. This is about the person who takes their drugs in for checking getting some information either about the specific substance that they know that is tested positive or general information about the risks associated with drug taking generally.

And I might add, because I’ve now identified what it is that the member Penny Simmonds was asking about in Schedule 2 of the bill, and I refer her to clause 4 of Schedule 2 and subclause (2) “The Director-General of Health must not issue a licence without the Minister’s approval if any relevant person, or an entity of which any relevant person was a responsible person at the time of the conviction or revocation,—(a) has been convicted of an offence against this Act”—that’s the Misuse of Drugs Act—“or its regulations; or (b) has had a licence under this Act”—including, no doubt, a licence to do this—“revoked for failing to comply with [the conditions]”. So if the member is asking whether there are circumstances in which a Minister might give approval for that, I cannot imagine. This is about having the right people and appropriate people carrying out the service. It carries a level of responsibility and maturity, and those are the people who we would want permitted to carry out tasks under the bill.

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

Ayes 87

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

Noes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to other enactments

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 13 to 20: “Amendments to other enactments”.

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

Ayes 87

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

Noes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Part 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): We now come to Schedule 1. The question is that Schedule 1 stand part.

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

Ayes 87

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

Noes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Schedule 2 stand part.

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

Ayes 87

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

Noes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, which are the title and commencement.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Yeah, I’ll just take a brief call in regards to this. I guess there was an aspect that the Health Committee did discuss and consider, and that was particularly around the funding element of this bill. As we know, subsequent to this, the Government have come out and said that they’re actually going to be funding this legislation. I think that that comes as quite a surprise in terms of where the conversation was at the select committee, in particular.

I guess, in regards to the title of the bill, I just wanted to sort of float with the Minister a bit of a concept around the introduction of the “Publicly Funded Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2)”, because I think it is pretty significant that, in effect, this is about taxpayers’ money—hard-earned taxpayers’ money out of the pockets of hard-working Kiwis, people that are under considerable stress and pressure and anxiety and all of that in this country at the moment. I think about my colleagues across the country, and particularly in Auckland, and that their taxpayer money is going to be going into, in effect, you know, what’s referred to as party pill testing. I mean, surely this Government has higher priorities in terms of the allocation of scarce public resources than that. I think in regards to the title of this bill, I think it would only be reasonable that it actually articulates what it actually is.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I take it from the member’s submission just now that he thinks that the title of the bill should be amended to refer to the public funding aspect of it. The Government has announced it will fund up to $800,000 to support service providers. I just make this point to the member because he comes out of the health sector himself—former chief financial officer for a DHB—and I don’t know whether he’s a former or current volunteer for St John Ambulance, but he will know that the consumption of drugs, as with the consumption of other recreational substances, causes harm. And most often, the cost of that harm is borne in our health service. So people consume substances because they don’t know what’s in it, or sometimes they consume substances and they know exactly what’s in it; they just have a lot of it, and they fall over and hit themselves and have to go to hospital. But otherwise, people consume substances, the reality of which they do not know, and then have a reaction that they hadn’t predicted and didn’t know, and it causes them harm. They wind up on the health system as well.

We know that the cost of the health system responding to various substances runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars. If you add up the staff time, time taken for equipment to attend to them, the length of stay they might have in the hospital, the use of other countervailing drugs, you might say, and other substances that they have to take in order to clean their systems up and clean themselves out, there’s a cost to that. If we can do something that not only keeps people who consume these substances safe but prevents them from having to draw on the stretched resources of our public health system, then that is a good thing.

I say to the member, I’m prepared to wager that the economic benefit, the economic payback of this bill will be considerably greater than the $800,000 that it will cost to support drug-checking services to carry out these services. They will be dealing with literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people in the summer months and throughout the year. And if we, as a result of those drug-checking services, prevent any number of those people from having to draw upon the public health services, we will have saved money, or at least we will have meant that those resources are available for others who need them at a great time of need. In the middle of a pandemic, we need to know that as much of the health system as possible is available to help people who may be infected with the mighty coronavirus.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 stand part.

Ayes 87

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

Noes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Clause 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 stand part.

Ayes 87

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

Noes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Clause 2 agreed to.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2) and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees, Levies, and Costs) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction) on behalf of the Minister of Education: I present a legislative statement on the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees, Levies, and Costs) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I move, That the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees, Levies, and Costs) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

To ensure the safety of our children and young people and the quality of the teaching they receive, it’s essential that we have effective regulation of the teaching profession. The Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand is the professional body for teachers. The core functions of the council include the registration, certification, and discipline of teachers. The council also sets minimum standards for ensuring high-quality teaching and provides professional leadership activities.

A significant proportion of the council’s income comes from fees paid by teachers to be registered and hold a practising certificate. This bill rectifies a legislative anomaly relating to the council’s fee-setting powers and makes changes essential for the council’s financial sustainability.

Authority for the council to charge fees for the recovery of costs is provided under the Education and Training Act 2020. However, in a case taken earlier this year by the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA), the High Court found that the Act only allows for the council to fix fees in relation to some of its functions. There is a significant gap between what the council is required to do and what the Act allows it to charge for. The gap is unintentional and needs to be addressed. The policy is that the council should be able to recover the costs of its mandatory functions from teachers. The bill amends the Act to give effect to that policy.

Fees are the only cost recovery mechanism provided for in the Act. However, the costs related to some of the council’s functions are more appropriately recovered through levies because they relate to activities undertaken for the benefit of the profession, rather than as specific services for individual teachers. The bill addresses this issue by enabling the council to set fees and impose levies, as appropriate. This will improve the transparency of the council’s cost recovery process.

Two of the bill’s measures are aimed specifically at addressing concerns from many teachers who submitted on the bill about the potential for the council to set unreasonable or unaffordable fees. The first of these is a requirement for the council to ensure that fees and levies only cover the actual and reasonable costs of performing the council’s functions and exercising its powers. The second is a requirement for the council to consult with the teaching profession and to receive views presented to it with an open mind and to give due consideration to those views when making decisions about fees. While the requirement to consult is already a well-established principle of administrative law, making it explicit in the Act provides the profession with greater assurance that consultation on fees and levies will be genuine.

I want now to briefly touch on the retrospective validation provisions, which I outlined in greater detail during the bill’s second reading. I want to reiterate how important it is that the council be able to operate from a position of legal certainty. To that end, the bill retrospectively validates fees previously set and received by the council and its predecessor organisations, with one exception: it does not validate the annual fees made under the May 2020 order that also promulgated the change from three-yearly to annual certification.

The council’s decisions to change from three-yearly to annual certification and fees were overturned by the court in the PPTA case, and the previous arrangements were, effectively, reinstated. The bill does not change this position. It does, however, allow the council to retain the annual fees that have already been paid, credit these in part payment of the reinstated three-yearly fee that now applies, and require payment of the balance. This is more efficient than refunding the annual fees and invoicing those teachers, who have since had their annual certificate replaced by a three-year certificate, for the reinstated fee.

At the time of the bill’s second reading, I advised members that we were in conversations with the council about their professional leadership function and who should bear the cost of carrying out that function. These conversations were informed by submissions on the bill from teachers and their representatives. Many teachers support the Teaching Council carrying out its core regulatory functions and using registration and practice fees to fund these activities, but they strongly object to their fees being used to fund activities related to the council’s professional leadership functions.

During the committee of the whole House stage, the committee amended the bill to address this concern. There are three aspects to these amendments. First, the council’s functions are separated into mandatory and optional functions. The professional leadership functions are optional, and all other functions are mandatory. Second, the optional professional leadership functions can only be performed with the approval of the Minister of Education. Third, the council can only charge fees and levies to recover the costs of the mandatory functions.

It is important that the council’s mandatory functions focus on teachers. The optional functions approved by the Minister should continue to be funded by the Government because they are focused on the profession more broadly. This change will help to clearly distinguish support for growing and improving the capability of principals, which the Government has committed to, from the council’s role in ensuring safe and high-quality teaching.

I want to close by thanking all of those teachers and their representatives who made submissions on the bill during the level 4 lockdown. That input has resulted in amendments that should give teachers confidence that future fees and levies will only be used to recover costs that should be borne by teachers, and will be set in place through a process that is transparent and inclusive.

This legislation will support the financial sustainability of the council so that children, their whānau, and the broader public can have confidence that the professional regulator charged with ensuring safe, high-quality teaching will be able to operate effectively. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Look, we in the National Party won’t be supporting this legislation, as we haven’t throughout. The memorable moment for me in the select committee process, the very highly truncated select committee process that didn’t give the teaching profession much of a chance to have a say about this legislation, was one teacher who had—remember, what happened is this bill was introduced, went off to select committee for a very short period of time when we were all in lockdown. So we had a whole lot of very angry teachers who had been trying to teach through Zoom or some other temporary way during the lockdown, were harassed and slightly irritated, then having to find the time to make a submission, again by Zoom, on this legislation.

The memorable one was from one teacher who said, “Well, it appears that this bill is because the Teaching Council is short of money. Well, I’ve got a message for you and the committee: I’m short of money too and I don’t see why we should be rushing through this legislation to save them a few bob while I’m struggling here in lockdown and having a bad time.” I have to say, we had a fair bit of sympathy for him, because notwithstanding the real concerns that we have about the mathematical skills in the education system across the board, I think everybody could work out that paying $220 once every three years was not improved very much if you went to $157 every year—$157 × 3 is a little bit more than $220! So these teachers were, quite rightly, not very happy with the proposed hefty increase in fees, which was the stimulus for the court case, which is the stimulus for this legislation.

So what we were left with, given the pickle that the Teaching Council had got themselves into, was this Government’s rush to bring in this legislation to try and tidy up the mess that had been created by the Teaching Council. We have some sympathy for the need for them to collect their levies, and we absolutely support the mandated role that the council needs to perform. It’s about ensuring that teachers are properly registered, that they’re certified, and that the disciplinary side of things is dealt with. You know, there’s an argument that the National Party stood in the last election saying that there shouldn’t be fees, this should be something that’s covered by Government, and we campaigned on that. This Government hasn’t picked that up and that’s up to them, and there’s a perfectly plausible argument that the profession should pay for this independently in order to have a sense that this is something that they as a profession pay for, like many other professions do. So, OK, we’ll make that decision; that carries on and people support that. But where it got very messy was the extension of the Teaching Council into a whole raft of other things, and we’re all familiar with Unteach Racism and the professional development side of things.

Now, the Minister quite often pointed out that, well, yes, but a lot of that is funded separately and it’s not necessarily being paid for by the teachers. But what we saw was a huge gulf in understanding between the profession who were paying these levies and the soothing words coming from officialdom, which pointed towards the overarching lack of trust that seems to have developed. And so the issue that we face, of course, is, well, it’s not going to help that relationship of trust if when a problem arises, because of decisions made by the Teaching Council, there’s a court case, the Government rushes through legislation and doesn’t go through a proper process in order to sort it out and reassure the sector and the teachers themselves that what is being done is appropriate. Instead, during a lockdown, when everybody’s under pressure, they rush it through and tidy it up as quickly as they can without resolving the broader issues.

The broader issue that needs to be resolved and discussed properly is exactly how do we ensure that the Teaching Council doesn’t have a bad case of elephantiasis and is sort of getting into all sorts of other stuff? Because what we’ve seen—

Hon Member: You leave elephantiasis alone.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, that’s right. What we’ve seen is a steady and significant increase in the costs of the Teaching Council. Its estimates for its operating costs in 2021 were $18.3 million. How they broke that down—the problem is that their fees are only $4.9 million and therein lies the problem. They’ve increased their spending and staff very considerably. So it’s all a bit sort of murky. What’s all this about? Is it about the basic registration and certification and disciplinary side of things? Or are they getting into all sorts of other nice-to-haves, which, if the Government wants to, the Government can pay for if they think it’s a priority?

By the way, I don’t think their priorities in education spending are very good. They’re all over the place. If I was to say that there’s a priority, the priority should be making sure that the kids actually go to school. That’s a very good place to start. And you know, having only three out of five attending regularly is not a good place to start and it’s where we are. So that would be my priority. But this Government has all sorts of other priorities—telling people what they should think on various topics and getting side-tracked by strange curriculum reviews. That is why there is a little bit of disquiet, I suppose, across the board.

So here we get to the situation that we’re at, the third reading. Every other party in the House doesn’t agree with this piece of legislation, but this Government is ramming it through under urgency—well, under a truncated process. The problem with that, and where they sadly haven’t sort of learnt their lesson, is that we’re here because we’re trying to fix up a legislative kink and a mistake made by a bureaucracy. Isn’t there a very high chance, now that this Government has come and brought in legislation very quickly to fix it under a short select committee process—the Minister halfway through has come up with what’s called an SOP, a Supplementary Order Paper, and changes, has fiddled around with it because the bill that they introduced didn’t do the job. So they fiddled around and they’ve made a few other changes to try and tighten things up. And they’ve sort of put something in here and a little bit there, and they’ve tweaked it a bit.

I can almost guarantee—almost guarantee—that some time next year we’ll be back again, fixing up the mistake that the Government has made this time, because, once again, they’re rushing it through and not taking the time to get it right, all because of the problems created by the Teaching Council. So, look, we’re not all out to make life difficult for the Teaching Council—good people doing good work—but there is a sort of a sense that they’re being let off the hook rather easily with rushed legislation, poor consultation, and an atmosphere of distrust with the profession itself.

It created a slightly unusual dynamic, I’m bound to say. We found ourselves very much on the side of the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA), and I think that’s important in terms of a sense of bipartisanship across the board. Quite often people assume that there is not a meeting of minds between the National Party and the PPTA, but you’ll find quite often that indeed there are many things that we agree on. We certainly agree on the importance of getting children to school, for example, and that’s a topic that we’ve had many fruitful discussions on and there’s much work to be done.

And on this issue, we understood their overarching concerns about the sense that the profession is not being valued as much as it should be by this Government. They had high hopes when they came in. They had high hopes that that education and teaching would be a real focus. As it’s turned out, not much has happened, really. There’s been a lot of reviews—a lot of reviews—a lot of working groups, a lot of proposals, a lot of change started rolling, but not much in the way of completion. This piece of legislation, unfortunately, is all they’ve come up with and all they’re going to soon deliver on, and I’m not sure that it’s going to help a great deal. Thank you very much.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, delighted to take a call on this piece of legislation. The previous member mentioned bipartisanship, and I have to say that I generally work quite collegiately with Mr Paul Goldsmith. We have, I think, a very collaborative relationship and we get some things done, but we do have different memories, it seems, on how this particular piece of legislation went through the select committee.

We had more than a thousand written submissions—in fact, 1,030, if my memory serves me well—and about 112 came before the committee and gave us all evidence, so every single submitter that wanted to had that opportunity. What I do remember is yes, there was quite a lot of concern and there were questions about this legislation, but also what I do remember is the passion and the love that shone through from all of those submitters on the work that they do as teachers. Whether they were brand new teachers or long-serving ones—we had three teachers with 40-plus years under their belt, people like Denis Wright, Anna Heinz, and Moyeen McCoy, all really impressive submitters telling us their concerns.

But the most important thing is—and I want to, in my very short contribution, touch on that—that the main concerns that we heard through the submissions were, in fact, addressed. The way that we reported this bill back to the House made a couple of changes through the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that the Minister spoke about in the last debate. So that was the concern on the council potentially being able to set unreasonable fee increases and teachers’ fees being used to fund the council’s leadership functions. People didn’t agree with it, we heard it, the Minister agreed, the Minister made changes. While those changes sat slightly outside the scope of this original bill, the concerns were addressed by way of the SOP debated last week, and so the SOP made it very clear that the leadership functions cannot be paid for by teachers’ fees or levies.

While I mention the word “levies”, it would be remiss of me to not say thank you to the Regulations Review Committee for their input here. I remember Rachel Brooking in the committee of the whole House speaking about a delightful exercise they had in giving this committee their advice. So it was a truncated process that had to happen because, of course, otherwise there was a risk that the Teaching Council could potentially become insolvent, and that had to be avoided at all risk. I just want to finish here with a quote from my learned colleague, Duncan Webb—“Chopper”—“This is an important piece of legislation [here which basically is] to correct an error inherent in the National Party’s previous work.” So I commend it to the House.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m happy to take a call on the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees, Levies, and Costs) Amendment Bill. Can I just start by saying that, boy, we certainly do have different memories about what went on at the Education and Workforce Committee, because while those teachers may have passion and love for what they do, passion and love was not what they brought to the select committee. More anger and frustration, in a process that was less than ideal, that was truncated, that gave them hardly any time to submit—during lockdown, where they were trying to manage students online, students in class, and only had a very short time to get their thoughts together. They were very angry at the way that they had been treated by the Teaching Council. They were very angry at the way that they’d been treated by this Minister of Education through this process.

And there was really no need, and I’ll touch on that in my speech, but I just want to make the point back to the chair of our committee that there didn’t need to be a truncated process. We put this to the Minister at the committee of the whole House stage, where we said, “What was holding you back? What date was there that something awful was going to happen, that we needed to get this through so quickly? What was it that meant that you couldn’t keep the transitional funding in place for just an extra two weeks, to give these poor teachers, who were bearing the brunt of COVID-19, having to teach online”—and I feel sorry for them, because I hear them every day trying to teach my kid at the kitchen table; half of them with their microphones on, half the kids singing away with the fairies. These poor teachers had a week and a half, around about, to get their thoughts together, and there was no reason for that. The Minister could have, if he had wanted to, put that transitional funding in place for at least a couple more weeks, to give them time. So what the chair of the committee is saying just doesn’t stack up.

This bill will pass into law today, not because it’s a well-thought-out and carefully considered piece of legislation; not because the Minister is on top of his portfolio, with his finger on the pulse, and knows what’s going on with the Teaching Council and is in tune with the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA); and certainly not because we took, you know, a great deal of time to consider this bill—certainly not; not because we gave stakeholders all the time in the world to gather their thoughts in order to write down their written submissions and prepare oral submissions. Labour will use their majority tonight to pass this piece of legislation into law to fix up what is a very embarrassing problem for them, which happened under their watch. It did not happen under our watch. It did not happen under a National Government; it happened under this Minister’s watch, because he does not have his finger on the pulse. Under this—

Hon Member: 2015.

ERICA STANFORD: Yeah, here we go. Here’s the interjection—and this is the whole reason that the Minister has tried to back out of how this is not his problem. Oh, it was something that the National Party did back in 2015; they didn’t quite get the law right! Let me make it clear: this happened under his watch. Any good Minister with his finger on the pulse would have known what the Teaching Council were up to: building their empire; hiring more staff, increasing their staff costs from, what was it, $5 million in 2016 to over $8 million in 2020; not consulting properly with the sector; taking what was a triannual registration to a yearly registration, increasing teachers’ costs. Any Minister with his finger on the pulse, if he knew what was going on, would have headed this off at the pass. And I say to whoever that member was that said, “Oh, it was a 2015 problem.”: this happened under this Minister’s watch because he didn’t have his finger on the pulse.

This did not need to go to court. The PPTA did not have to take this to court, because you can’t tell me that the Minister hadn’t been told by the PPTA early on, “Hey, the Teaching Council are out of control. They’re empire-building, their costs are increasing, they’re going beyond their mandate, they’re doing things that teachers don’t want, they’re not properly consulting with the sector.” They can’t tell me that the Minister didn’t know that. And he did nothing. It clearly indicates that there is a Minister quite busy with another portfolio that he has, and ignoring what is going on right under his nose. These things happened under his watch. Those staff costs increased $3 million under his watch.

Let’s just talk about consultation for a moment, because in the court’s decision, they came down quite hard on the Teaching Council about their lack of consultation with the sector. They talked in detail about this unlawful tax and the fact that the teaching profession and the sector were not adequately consulted. And then, to add insult to injury, or rub salt in the wound, this Minister thinks it’s OK to acknowledge their concerns about the lack of consultation by having a truncated process in which there’s no proper consultation. I mean, it’s absolutely ridiculous.

The poor teachers, no wonder they feel the way they did in the select committee, where they were angry and upset and furious at the Minister and this Government, something that’s unheard of, usually, with the PPTA and the teaching profession. They were furious. They were not filled with love and passion at select committee; they were furious. They’d just been through a process where they felt like they weren’t listened to. They weren’t adequately consulted with. The PPTA said the same, the judge said the same, and here’s the Minister, rubbing salt into that fresh wound, saying, “Hey, by the way, teachers, you’ve got to have two weeks to get your thoughts together, during term time, during lockdown.”

How is that building any trust and confidence in a sector that already feels let down by the Teaching Council under this Minister’s watch? I challenge anyone on the other side of the House in our select committee to tell me why it is, how this ever even got to court. Why did the Minister not have his finger on the pulse? Why did he not know what was going on? Any Minister would have said to that Teaching Council, “Pull up your socks, tighten your belt, stop hiring more staff, get back to your core duties, and remember”—sorry, Madam Speaker—“remember that teachers don’t have deep pockets.” They are facing the same quite rapidly rising cost of living that everyone else is. Their petrol, their groceries, their electricity—everything’s going up. They do not have deep pockets to pay for whatever the Teaching Council decides is OK for them to charge.

And what has the Teaching Council learnt from all of this? Have they learnt that they need to consult properly? Oh, certainly not after the Minister’s behaviour and truncating the process. Have they learnt that they need to tighten their belts? Let’s see, if you look at the legislation that he brought to the House, we had to amend it to put in there that they had to consult properly, because the Minister didn’t even put that in the legislation. We had to do that. Furthermore, he had to bring a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to the House, when he should have well known that that’s what the sector was so upset about. They didn’t want the leadership functions in that. OK, he fixed it up at SOP stage, but that’s something that he should have brought forward in primary legislation, further showing that he doesn’t have his finger on the pulse.

I suppose the one thing that was the most disappointing, which has been pointed out by speakers in previous stages of this bill, and the one thing that was missing from this Minister was a mea culpa, was an “I’m really sorry” to the sector: “I’m really sorry that the Teaching Council have done this to you. I’m really sorry that you weren’t consulted with properly. I’m really sorry that there was an unlawful tax that was put upon you. I’m really sorry in the manner that you feel like you aren’t properly represented by the Teaching Council.” None of that.

In fact, what we get is a Minister that’s trying to sweep this under the rug like this dirty little problem didn’t happen under his watch, via this bill, in a truncated process during lockdown, and hoping that people wouldn’t notice. Well, the fact that so many submitters submitted to our select committee was despite the fact that there was a truncated process; we can only imagine how many more we would have had, how many more angry, frustrated teachers we would have had, had we had a proper process. This bill is fixing up a dirty little problem that happened under this Minister’s watch because he’s not on top of his job, and this Government is here tonight passing this into law despite all those things that I’ve said, and we will not be supporting this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I think it’s important, really, not to go through a lot of the history of this bill, which has been covered ad nauseam at some stages in all the previous readings. So what I will do is just go back to basics in addressing some of the concerns that the previous speaker, Erica Stanford, addressed in her speech.

So, first of all, this bill was introduced to address an urgent issue which clearly needed to be resolved and was directly linked to the Teaching Council’s ability to pay for their work. Now, their work is to register teachers in New Zealand. This is important work. It’s work that we need as a country, and it’s work that teachers need in order to have faith in their profession and in order to carry on with their important work. So it was absolutely important that they had the ability to raised funds, and this what this bill is about. It allows them to continue with their work to raise funds to regulate the teaching profession within New Zealand.

I also just wanted to make a few comments on the Minister of Education. He’s an incredibly hard-working Minister who is on top of his portfolio and knows every corner of the education sector. He’s been working in education for over 20 years. He’s incredibly passionate about the subject and is absolutely on top of every element of his portfolio, despite the huge workload that he has. So I absolutely refute any suggestions that he is not on top of his portfolio. In fact, what occurred in this particular instance was a decision made by an independent body, the Teaching Council, to raise fees on 1 February 2021. This legislation was introduced—introduced into the House—on 12 August. So we, obviously, know that there was a judicial review that happened in the meantime, but that doesn’t suggest a Minister who is ignoring the profession. It doesn’t suggest a Minister who is not on top of the issues. It suggests a Minister that cares about the fact that teachers are regulated within New Zealand, recognises that the Teaching Council has an important job to do in providing that work, and provides legislation to immediately be able to do that.

We had a very, very thorough process—although it was a truncated process, I don’t think that that necessarily means that it’s not a thorough or proper process—at select committee. As you’ve heard, we had over 1,000 submitters. They had a very high quality of submissions that they put forward to us.

So I think the important message, really, from this is that what we have in this situation is an issue that arose, the issue arose because of the fact that people are allowed to take judicial reviews, which is something that we should all celebrate in this country. Because it threw up an issue, the Minister then introduced legislation to the House in order to fix it, to allow a very important public body to continue their functions. So I commend this bill to the House.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s great to take a call on behalf of the Green Party on this really important piece of legislation. It was really great to hear that the National Party is supporting the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA), and I hope what that means is that when they come asking for better pay and conditions, that support will continue, and what I would also say to them is, when the New Zealand Education Institute come asking for support as well around pay parity and supporting early childhood education teachers, that that will also happen as well. So I look forward to their continued support of what our teachers and the teachers’ unions are calling for in terms of all their pay and conditions—good luck to that.

I’ve taken quite a bit of interest in this bill, and at the heart of it, it is about trust. It’s about trust between the teaching profession and the Teaching Council as well, but also the massive strain that that trust has come under. And so, not wanting to re-talk out the history of stuff like that, there was the judicial review, there was this legislation that—for me, at least—came rushed into the House as well. But I think it’s really important to remember that the context of all those particular events have happened within the pandemic; it’s happened within a pandemic. So we already have teachers that are already doing all that they can do to support our students, to support our children and what they’re doing, whether they’re zooming into their classrooms to support our teachers to do a very, very difficult job as well, and then we’ve also got this happening as well.

Not to mention that the vaccine mandates, I know, talking to some of my friends in the teaching profession—the sorts of pressures that that has put on them as well, the sorts of uncertainly. I mean, and I do know that it’s only a very small number of teachers that haven’t taken up that mandate as well. But if you’re organising from a practical level your new teachers, what you will do with the relieving pool—so, for example, maybe some of the people that you might need to rely on in that relieving pool, they’re actually at the retiring end of the spectrum, so they might not be able to step in and support those particular schools as well. So it is in that context that we have rushed this legislation through the House. It has been rushed through the House.

During the committee of the whole House, I thought we had a really good discussion with the Minister, and we were supportive of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that came to the House as well. So it was good that after what—I felt—came through the Zoom hui was a lot of frustration, particularly from the PPTA, particularly from those teachers affiliated with the PPTA, but also with the rank and file of other unions and also independent teachers as well, there was some acknowledgment that things weren’t well, that this legislation wasn’t drafted in the most timely and most constructive way possible, hence the arrival of the SOP. And so we were supportive of the SOP. However, as the great philosopher from South Auckland Ardijah says:

Time makes the wine

Like love it grows stronger

I think we needed to be a lot more timely with this particular bill because of that pressure, because of that pressure that we are placing upon teachers, on the teaching profession, within this context as well. And rushing things through makes it very, very difficult for them.

Because at the heart of it is that trust. We all want that trust in the institutions. We want trust in the Teaching Council—I hope we want trust in the Teaching Council, because it’s the same thing when we have trust in all of our institutions. The success of our response to the pandemic has been because of our trust in the health institutions, our trust within health experts, and our trust within our community leaders that are fronting the pandemic response as well. Well, it’s the same thing in education. It’s exactly the same thing in education; we build up trust in our institutions, within our schools, our school communities, our professional bodies, our teachers’ unions, and, of course, the Teaching Council as well. When you build that trust in, everything else flows a lot more easily.

I wanted this piece of legislation to build on that trust. I wanted this legislation to help to carve out a pathway so that the teachers—particularly those ones affiliated with the PPTA—could say, well, actually, this is a pathway which encourages trust. This is a pathway that encourages trust. But it’s hard to do that when they have those pressures.

I like the direction of the SOP, but there were a couple of things in there which were still uncertain for me. I understand that the leadership provisions will focus on the registration and the licensing of teachers. That’s really important. I think everybody around the House, even over there, here as well, really sort of emphasised the role of the Teaching Council in terms of the registration and the licensing and that sort of thing. So having exemplars about what that might mean makes sense for me from a leadership perspective as well.

And then there was also that talk about, well, if it’s other stuff which is not related to that, the Government will not support and fund those kinds of things as well. But there was a grey area for me, and so when I asked the Minister around those leadership provisions, out of three examples, and one of them was to provide leadership to teachers and directions for the education profession. So you could probably fit that within the registration bit, maybe, to enhance the status of teachers and education leaders. I don’t think that part fits in with the registration and licensing part, it probably falls into the second part, so I’m not sure how that might actually eventuate practically. And the third part is about—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Order! In the third reading speech, the member will reflect on the bill as it sits on the Order Paper and as it is presented to the House.

TEANAU TUIONO: OK. Thank you, Madam Speaker. And so, for me, those points weren’t clear. But I think if we took the time to walk with those teachers, given the pressures that they’re under, we would have got that clarity. And I did hear, at the second reading, over there, that people were saying, well, maybe it’s one week or two weeks or three weeks—it could be a lot longer than that. From our perspective, if it’s for a public good, if it supports accessible, free education, it is something that should be supported, and at the heart of that is that trust, in all of our institutions but in this case within the Teaching Council. I don’t think, with this piece of legislation, that we’re there yet. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees, Levies, and Costs) Amendment Bill, a bill which seeks to allow the Teaching Council to set fees to fund its operations. The bill is required due to a series of unfortunate decisions and circumstances. Teachers need a Teaching Council. It’s an important body required for regulating the teaching profession and the certification of its teachers, but they have moved outside the scope that the teachers had given them into professional development that the teachers really hadn’t asked for and, subsequently, that requires the increased fees.

After consulting with the teaching profession, the Teaching Council decided that annual registration was the way to go, and this is when things really started to go wrong. They didn’t listen to the consultation that they received from teachers who overwhelmingly didn’t want a change from the three-year registration to the annual registration. The registration process is a stressful time for everyone—teachers, administrators, and principals—and it just adds that extra layer of stress. As it turned out, as we know, it took the Post Primary Teachers’ Association case to the High Court to have it reversed. So it just wasn’t done properly. It’s this sort of behaviour that has led the teaching profession to really distrust, rightly or wrongly, the Teaching Council.

When I renewed my registration last year, it was a really hot topic at the time and at the time I and my teaching colleagues couldn’t believe that the Teaching Council believed it was quite justified in raising their fee from $220 every three years to $157 every year. Even those teachers who didn’t teach maths could work out that it was a pretty big increase from $220 to $471 every three years, and now they’re up with a wage freeze. I was in the Education and Workforce Committee and heard many of the submitters, and lots of issues were brought up, like the extra powers, the rushed process—was questions being mentioned a few times tonight—the concern that the Teaching Council weren’t the right people to provide the professional development, that the requirements keep changing and requiring teachers to receive professional development for these changes, and whether the Teaching Council, the body for discipline of the teachers, was the appropriate body to provide the professional development and leadership. Many mentioned the salaries of the Teaching Council staff—they weren’t happy with that. There’s a certain amount of annoyance that the Teaching Council had a budget, so they should work within it, like everyone else, and almost every submitter was concerned about the lack of consultation.

Unfortunately, the change in wording in section 479(2) that says “with the written approval of the Minister” doesn’t give any cause for reassurance. Teachers look at this whole fiasco with a huge degree of suspicion. There are big problems with our education system already, with truancy a major concern, literacy and numeracy standards spiralling downwards, teacher training and retention issues, dubious curriculum decisions being made with very little thought as to what happens next—how are they taught? Who’s going to teach them? And millions of dollars being poured into a restructure. When they hear the Ministry of Education say, “There’s a risk that those who paid the $157 dollars for an annual certificate could refuse to pay the remaining $63 owing for the 2023 year certificate with which they have now been issued. This does not meet the criterion of fairness.”, they’re quite rightly wondering where the Government’s priorities are.

So, in summary: consultation was asked for, albeit in a truncated process, and it was received loud and clear. Teachers want to know what the point of consultation is if it’s going to be ignored. The Teaching Council has an important role to play in the registration and discipline of teachers—40 percent of the Teaching Council’s budget is spent on disciplinary processes. Maybe it should be more. Do it well, be more efficient. It’s affecting people’s lives and reputations. Leave the professional development required by specialist subject areas, like science or music, to the experts who understand already what is required. One of the professional leadership aspects of the Teaching Council’s work is “to encompass matters such as promoting inclusion, discouraging racism, and affirming the need to have high aspirations for all students.” I would argue that all of these should be addressed in the recruitment process. If not, maybe that’s what the Teaching Council should be concentrating on.

The other responsibilities that have developed over the years need to be reassessed. The Teaching Council have a lot of work to do to gain back the confidence of the people it represents. They must have the trust and respect of teachers. ACT accepts this bill will pass and sincerely hopes that the Teaching Council works very hard to remedy the disconnect it has with teachers that is so evident. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and take a call on this piece of legislation. Before I begin my contribution this evening I would, though, like to acknowledge all the teachers and students around Aotearoa New Zealand, right from early childhood education to primary to secondary to tertiary, who have had one heck of a year. It’s been tough, and so I think it’s important to acknowledge them, the hard work and the challenging ways that they’ve had to teach and learn during this year.

We have heard that this piece of legislation has come about due to some issues that came about to make changes to the Education Act, to right some wrongs that we determined by a judiciary review. So what we had heard earlier from the previous speaker, Chris Baillie, was that the Teaching Council changed their fees from a triannual fee structure to an annual fee structure, with an increased amount per annum. As a person who’s come from the education sector I did find this quite an interesting piece of legislation to go through. We have heard we had over 1,000 submissions and a large number of people that wanted to submit to the select committee, and I acknowledge those teachers who did that through those trying times. Our teachers across New Zealand, they are passionate about education, they are passionate about the children, and they are passionate when they present to a select committee. So we heard a lot of passion from them.

What we have with this piece of legislation is that it retrospectively validates the receipt of fee payments that were made from 1 February 2021. Even though those fees have since been quashed, teachers that paid those fees at that time with this piece of legislation are still able to have those fees that they paid credited against the new fees that have been set. So the council doesn’t have to go through the process of reimbursing everyone and then people paying back the correct amount. So it’s just fixes up that as well.

One of the things that we did hear loud and clearly from the teachers was that they did feel that they hadn’t had much consultation at all from the Teaching Council. And so whilst that wasn’t quite part of the initial legislation as introduced, the select committee heard their concerns, the Minister heard those concerns, and therefore introduced a Supplementary Order Paper which addressed those concerns, which will ensure that the Teaching Council must consult in a fair way with the teaching sector before they look to make any adjustments to fees further.

So without any further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

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

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a short call to add further to my colleagues’ opposition to the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees, Levies, and Costs) Amendment Bill. Much has been made of the lack of consultation, and I think it’s symptomatic of this Government and its increasing propensity to rush legislation through this House, in spite of public discomfort, in spite of the public feeling it’s being ignored. To take, for example, just recently the introduction of three waters, there’s been the Māori wards, and now this is the latest and greatest from this Government, who is making a name for itself in its inability to listen to the users on the street. This is yet another piece of legislation that directly contradicts what the people that it will directly impact—that is, the teachers—actually want.

Jo Luxton: It doesn’t. It’s what they’ve asked for.

NICOLA GRIGG: I note the MP for Rangitata’s got a lot to say. I can assure her in this House that her constituents would like to hear from her every now and then too, so I suggest you get chatty back home instead of in here, Ms Luxton.

At the heart of the matter in this bill is that the High Court ruled that the Teaching Council acted unlawfully when it increased its fees for a practising certificate from this triennial system to an annual system—that is the heart of it. It was an unlawful tax. This bill will set fees and impose levies, but what a way to thank the teachers of New Zealand after all the work they have done in this past three months and, indeed, this past year. It’s not a huge amount of money, but that’s not what is at issue here. It is the principle: the principle of the majority of those 1,000 submitters who went before the select committee and opposed this piece of legislation.

We in this House are being asked to provide retrospective validation of a receipt of payments taken by the Teaching Council, despite that High Court ruling, but we do acknowledge the work of the Teaching Council that it does in regulating the profession, and that it does require revenue. But there should be a very, very high threshold and a very good reason to push through retrospective legislation, and the National Party does not believe this bar has been met here. The precedent it sets is terrible. It is no wonder that every party in this House except the Labour Party has opposed it.

The Minister mentioned the submissions and the submitter concerns in her opening address, but my read on it is they’re still not listening. These submissions were largely against it. Now, I didn’t even sit on the select committee, but I’ve taken it upon myself to reach out to teachers in my electorate and ask them exactly what they make of it. I know it is a foreign concept to this Government to engage with its stakeholders, but here is what a teacher at a high school in Christchurch wrote to me: “I received this unbelievable email from the New Zealand Teaching Council who have convinced Chris Hipkins to change the law, allowing them to change the fees that they want and potentially go to yearly registration. This was after the council lost in court, so now the Government seeks to change the legislation. The fees after the law change will also be backdated and additional money sought from teachers.”

Paul Goldsmith spoke earlier and made the point that there is a real sense from the profession that it is undervalued. And another constituent of mine has said, “I spoke on this subject at our teacher-only day to a staff who feel deeply unappreciated by our Government. Of course, this is similar to how farmers, doctors, nurses, midwives, police, and ACC staff already feel. I’m seeing growing discontentment from people, even amongst lifelong Labour supporters. Hopefully, people will remember this treatment at the next election.” This teacher raises a very valid point. This Government should be focused on lifting student achievement. Our kids are being left behind the rest of the world through no fault of their own. It should not be focused on ramming through legislation that goes against the grain of what their stakeholders want, in retrospect. It should be listening to their stakeholders, it should be focusing on its core duty of lifting kids’ achievement and giving them a decent future.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to take a call on the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees, Levies, and Costs) Amendment Bill. I speak not as a teacher, I speak not as a—well, I’m a student of life, but not a student of education; always learning, always growing. I actually stand as a spouse of a primary school teacher, and, in fact, this coming Friday evening, when many of you may be at home doing whatever you’re doing, I will be actually at his graduation event—he gets his registration; for two years, he retrained, as an adult, as a primary school teacher. So on Friday night, we get to celebrate his achievements of two years as an educator, of two years doing the mahi; the three years and more, beforehand, of his studies, but he will be registered.

What I find exciting about that, in the journey over the last few years with him working as a teacher in a school, is seeing the support that is needed, seeing the support that is desperately needed, for our teachers to ensure that they do the mahi, and, like what was just said from our previous speaker, Nicola Grigg, that our tamariki, our rangatahi, are educated well. So ensuring that the council is set up, ensuring that we change this piece of legislation, will make sure that my husband and the teachers around the country will have the supports in place that they need.

I just want to close by referring back to the Minister, Chris Hipkins, and thank him for this. He says this legislation really is around supporting our children, the whānau, and the broader public so they can have confidence in the professional regulator charged with ensuring safe, high-quality teaching, which they’ll be able to operate effectively. I thank Marja Lubeck from the Education and Workforce Committee, and all of those who heard the submissions, and I look forward to going to my husband’s graduation when he gets his registration on Friday night, and I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Congratulations to your husband, Glen Bennett.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too also want to add my congratulations to Jon and my friend Glen.

I rise in support of this Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees, Levies, and Costs) Amendment Bill. This bill is all about provisions in the Education and Training Act 2020, amending provisions in Education and Training Act 2020 to enable the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand to set fees that cover the costs of all of its functions and powers under the Act. It also clarifies that the council can charge fees in instalments and recover unpaid fees. These changes are consistent with the legislative framework for other professional regulatory bodies.

Now, we heard a lot about angry teachers. What we have seen is not anger. What we have seen is teachers speaking with passion. But, obviously, the different views that they hold are with the Teaching Council. They did that with the mutual respect. We heard what their concerns were. We listened to them, and because of that the Education and Workforce Committee reports it back, the bill, with three changes as a result of concerns that they raised. No one has—not the Minister and not the committee—actually ignored their concerns.

I want to mention one of those recommendations, that the Education and Workforce Committee required the council to consult with the teaching profession with an open mind and give due regard to the views expressed during the consultation when making decisions about fees. This is one of the things that consistently the teachers raised, and it was reflected back in the report that we sent back to the House. The Minister also has made amendments in his Supplementary Order Paper 68. I want to mention one of his recommendations that the council may only recover costs of its mandatory functions. So this is not the work of a Minister that doesn’t care. The Minister cares, and he’s taken his job seriously, and, hence, we have this legislation tonight in this House.

If all this passion and energy from our colleagues on the other side of the House was spent in bettering our education system, we wouldn’t even be here tonight discussing all these issues because we would be OK.

This bill is all about addressing matters that need an urgent response. It does not, in any way, attempt to resolve every possible legislative issue relating to the Teaching Council. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in opposition to the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees, Levies, and Costs) Amendment Bill. I first heard about this during the election campaign last year, and my colleague across the way Dr Liz Craig and I were at a teachers’ forum and this was brought up, and that was the first I had heard about it, but I’ve certainly heard plenty since then. I’m interested that the member who has just sat down, Ibrahim Omer, feels that the 1,033 submitters to this amendment have had everything they said heard and responded to, because that’s exactly not what I consider happened in this process.

So look, I’ve worked with teachers for the last two decades and more, and I want to acknowledge the tremendous passion that teachers have for what they do, and they have to have this passion because it’s a really challenging job that teachers do. I admire enormously, even in a normal situation, the work that teachers have to get through, and over the last two years, my goodness, they have had to change and adapt. I’m not going to use that dreadful “pivot” word, but they really have had to change the way that they engage with their students, and they have worked incredibly, incredibly hard.

That passion that our teachers have, the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) took to the High Court. Now, you don’t take a High Court matter without being really aggrieved with what has gone on. They took this to the High Court and they won on so many different levels. It must be incredibly disheartening for the PPTA now to find that having gone through that process, having done all that work, having made all these submissions in that very truncated time that they had, which was during school time, it was during the period where most teachers were teaching in lockdown conditions, that, essentially, they have been ignored. They came out in strength and they have, essentially, been ignored.

Now, the teachers had some very valid grievances. As my colleague from the ACT Party Chris Baillie said, it’s not an insubstantial amount to change from a three-yearly fee of $220 to an annual fee of $157, and to have to go through that registration process. Now, I used to sign off registrations for our early childhood education teachers at the Southern Institute of Technology, and it’s not just a five-minute job for those teachers having to go through that process. So to have to do that every year and then pay more money for the pleasure of doing that extra admin when they have not been consulted with, and then legislation is brought into this House and they are, again, not consulted with adequately, and their concerns have not been heard, is giving one almighty message from this Labour Government to our teachers, and that is: “We will do what we like to you. We will make the changes that we want to and you will suck it up and like it.”

So teachers will have taken this on board. They will have seen how this Government has reacted in this situation. They will have seen the rewards that they have been given for the extra work that they’ve put in over the last two years. They will see how this Government intends to treat them when they bring up reasonable grievances, and it is not well, the treatment they are receiving. It is very, very bad treatment of genuine grievances and they should have been treated more respectfully.

Now, look, the Teaching Council does some really important work. It regulates the profession. It deals with disciplinary matters. It deals with the certification and registration of teachers. So these things are really important. But the Teaching Council started to stray from the mandate that the teachers had given them. And we heard, through a number of the submissions, that the teachers wanted their professional development to be subject-specific, and they wanted it to be through the networks of their discipline areas across New Zealand. They did not see this as a role for the Teaching Council, and they asked that the Teaching Council take that from what they intended to do and adjust their budget accordingly, and actually live within their budget, like every other individual and business has to do. When your income is a certain amount, you make sure your expenditure meets that same amount, or else you very quickly get yourself in trouble.

But the Teaching Council weren’t prepared to take that message from the teachers. They weren’t prepared to trim their budget. They weren’t prepared to trim their activities. They instead went to the Minister who rolled over and said, “Don’t worry. I’ll just take a new amendment to the Act.” I’ve given up counting how many amendments this Education Act has had in the short time of a year that I’ve been here, but he has brought an amendment to the Act to thwart the teachers’ submissions and thwart the High Court finding.

Now, that’s an extraordinary thing for any Government to do, but it’s an extraordinary thing for a Labour Government to do to a group of teachers, professionals, who would have traditionally been seen as supporters of a Labour Government. These teachers know that they are going through a very difficult time. They know that they have got big issues to solve in the education sector at the moment. They know that truancy was a huge issue before COVID, and it is going to be a really difficult thing for them to pull back on over the next while. They know that they’ve got issues around standards of numeracy and literacy.

I’m sure our teaching profession wish that the Minister would engage in some of these really difficult things that teachers are dealing with: discipline of children in the classroom, class sizes, and resources in the classroom. I’m absolutely certain, and I see it in the schools that I visit, that they are the sort of substantial issues they want this Minister to be engaging with them over.

But as, I believe, the Green Party member Teanau Tuiono spoke about earlier, a lot of the trust between the teachers and the Teaching Council and the teachers and the Minister has been eroded through this process. So getting that trust back and enabling those big issues to be debated and ways forward found is going to be an enormous hurdle for those teachers to get over, because they will remember for a very, very long time that when they took their case to the High Court and they won hands down, the Minister stepped in with this legislation and overruled that. They are going to have to overcome that loss of trust when they really need to be looking at the very big-picture issues that our education sector and our young people are going to be suffering under as we try and recover.

We have heard nothing from this Government about what they intend to do next year to try and recover, because we cannot just have our young people out of the classroom for 10, 12, 14 weeks and there not be a consequence of it. So we would have expected that our Minister, instead of spending time on an amendment like this, would be spending time on looking at what measures will have to be taken next year to support our teachers, to support our young people to catch up on the learning that they have lost. We oppose this amendment.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): I rise to speak for the last time on this legislation. We’ve heard a lot tonight about a lack of trust. Some seem surprised on the other side of the House, and they talk about a lack of trust seeming to have developed. But, actually, Mr Baillie and I agree on one thing: we’re really clear about where the trust is broken and how long it’s been like that. The Teaching Council has struggled to build a strong and highly functioning relationship with the profession since 2015, when we had something called the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand hit the profession. So we have been struggling for more than a few weeks to try and remedy some of the problems caused at that time.

The profession did stand up, even though there was COVID and even though there was short notice, and they demonstrated with their significant engagement how important this council is to them and how important it is that we trust in it. Thanks to their engagement, there have been amendments and their concerns have been addressed. I just want to reflect on a couple of them.

The council has been found wanting in their understanding of what appropriate consultation looks like. This legislation will provide them with very clear guidance about what good, effective consultation does actually look like. Clause 5 of the amendment bill makes it clear that the council cannot set fees or levies higher than they need to to cover actual and reasonable costs. So the concerns—the very real concerns—that were brought to the select committee by all of those submitters have been addressed in that the fair and reasonable, actual and reasonable is very much a part of the process now. It makes it clear that the council must consult with the profession, and the consultation must be of good quality. Now, what happens is we’ve imposed an explicit requirement for the council to receive the views presented to it with an open mind and give those views due consideration when making a decision about fees and levies.

As the last speaker, I want to look forward with a bit of hope and what will be different as a result of this legislation. What next? We cannot legislate for trust. We cannot legislate for highly productive and functioning relationships with the profession. But I am looking forward to the council following through on its intentions to conduct consultation in the future in a different way. They said they intend to invite the peak bodies and unions to co-design a new consultation process; not just consult about how much those fees should be but actually what is fair and reasonable, determining and establishing a shared understanding of what those functions do actually look like.

This legislation has established a clear framework to clearly engage effectively with the profession, respectfully and successfully. And, ideally, we end up with a Teaching Council that the profession and the country trusts. That’s something our profession deserves, that’s something our students deserve, and thus I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees, Levies, and Costs) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 65

New Zealand Labour 65.

Noes 55

New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 11 November.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise to take a quick call on this. I want, first, to acknowledge that social workers have a very difficult job, and Oranga Tamariki social workers all the more difficult. They work with people and whānau in extremis. They work with them when they are angry, they are hurt, and they are not functioning. It is difficult work, but it is work where if you make a mistake or a misjudgment, the consequences are extreme, and, unfortunately, we have seen, again and again, that Oranga Tamariki have not been getting it right. This Government is determined to assist to make that system whole, and to create one that is fit for Aotearoa New Zealand into the 21st century.

In so doing, we need to address the fundamental question: quis custodiet ipsos custodes—who guards the guardians, of our children, in this case. As someone who has spent time with Oranga Tamariki, making complaints, taking complaints through that process, I can tell you it is, at present, incredibly fraught, incredibly difficult, to get sense out of Oranga Tamariki, because at present, it often feels like no one guards the guardians but themselves, and the people they are guarding are themselves and not our tamariki.

So I am delighted to see that we are now bringing in a system where there will be independent monitoring and evaluation from within the system, where there is no power of the Minister to stop the investigator going where they will, and bringing the information back; an independent complaints process strengthened by the greater role of the Ombudsman; and, finally, a strengthened role for the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, where there will not be just one person but a number to investigate the important roles that affect our children across society. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Well, now there’s going to be someone. I commend this bill to the House.

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

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I arise on behalf of the National Party to speak on the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill. National supports this bill to select committee. National is sensitive to the unfortunate reality that the stresses and pressures that have led to an uptick in family harm, violence, and abuse, and children are sadly more susceptible to ill treatment. National believes that no effort should be spared in protecting the welfare of children. But the focus needs to be very squarely on protecting children, and not expanding the powers of Government.

There are some key points that need to be worked through at select committee in terms of the independence of the Children’s Commissioner and in what guise that will continue, or not. It’s important that there is an independent body that is completely focused on the welfare of children and not one that is beholden to the politics of the day.

There are some good things in this bill, having a look through it. There are some cultural competencies that are being referred to. And I note that it’s referring also to article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and one of those is “Taking due account of the importance of the traditions and cultural values of each people for the protection and harmonious development of the child”, and I note some effort has been made, particularly in respect of Māori, with clause 92 stating that “At least half of the board members must have Māori knowledge; and have experience in, and knowledge of, tikanga Māori.” And the duties of the board, in clause 96 are to: “build and maintain relationships with iwi, Māori organisations, organisations representing children’s and young people’s issues, youth-led organisations, community organisations, departments, and other agencies by having a strong focus on the rights, interests, and well-being of Māori children and young people within the context of their whānau, hapū, and iwi” and also “promoting Māori participation and leadership, and te ao Māori approaches, in the performance of its functions, as appropriate.”

This bill does represent some progress towards a fully independent watchdog for Oranga Tamariki. Independent oversight is really crucial and it contributes to building transparency. Importantly, it contributes to building public trust and confidence in the system, which is necessary as Oranga Tamariki has certainly gone through something of a crisis of confidence in recent times. There is a need for public confidence to be rebuilt and certainly independent oversight would be valuable in helping build that confidence.

Where Government has strong statutory powers, such as the power to apply to the Family Court to remove children and young people from their families and to place them with caregivers or in care and protection residences, independent oversight is particularly important for people to feel that the appropriate processes are being followed, that there isn’t Government overreach—particularly reaching into families inappropriately. Certainly, I think all of us have at least been aware of, if not seen, some of the footage, which was quite concerning, previously on some uplifts regarding some families. Having an additional safeguard in terms of independent oversight to help ensure the wellbeing and safety of both the children and their whānau, families would certainly be a good thing.

The Ministry rightly recognises that many public facing organisations have independent monitoring organisations—the Education Review Office, the Health and Disability Commissioner, the Independent Police Conduct Authority and the Ombudsman. There’s certainly a lot of potential for things to go wrong in the fraught area of child protection, which involves a lot of very complex issues in many cases. And just like the police, there really does need to be some independent oversight and that would be a good thing.

Therefore, National does support this bill to select committee. We will seek to contribute constructive feedback and seek to help improve the bill to make sure it is one that can last the test of time and contribute to that public confidence and the important exercise of the Oranga Tamariki, which is, fundamentally, to ensure the wellbeing and safety of children in our country. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Madam Speaker, and it’s great to know that there’s some consensus around the House that this is a bill that needs to go to select committee and that we are all placing the interests of our most vulnerable children first and foremost.

I echo the words of my colleague Dr Emily Henderson when she noted that this is some of the most difficult work that our professionals with children can do, and that in some cases these are non-functioning families and there’s no perfect option, just least worst options. But, having said that it’s really important that there is a good system of accountability, and when things don’t work out as they should, that they can be examined and we can learn from them. So a good monitoring function to make sure that the work is being done, which is a cornerstone of this bill, is really important, but also that complaints system. And sometimes we see complaints in an entirely negative way, but complaints are also a way where we find out what needs to be fixed and to actually get on and fix it, and also recognising the really important position of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, which would be extended to recognise the role around young people, not just in representing but also positively advocating for young people. And we’ve seen that with the recently departed Children’s Commissioner who did a great job, Judge Becroft.

This is a really good bill. I’m hopeful that the select committee will work positively, constructively, and improve it. I commend it to the House.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I rise on behalf of National as their member of Parliament for North Shore on the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill, first reading. As we have heard from fellow speakers this evening, National support this bill. We support this bill through the select committee, which is an important process within this Parliament, for this bill to be considered in order to be able to improve this bill considerably through that process. We’ve heard here this evening there are some 5,000 children that are within the care of the system. These are young, vulnerable children. These are children that have significant challenges in their life and their upbringing, and the importance of the State providing that protection for those young individuals—the future of individuals that will make a significant contribution in this country is so very important.

So National absolutely support the importance of this bill. We support the fact that there will be independent oversight provided in regards to this. I guess this also is important in terms of, you know, sadly, what we’ve seen in recent news and elements around that is the reality of some of the challenges for these young children across our country. The implications that, for some of them, sadly, happen in terms of the vulnerable positions that they’re put in in terms of their support arrangements and, again, reinforces the importance of an appropriate wellbeing and safety net around our young children.

I don’t think there is too much more to say here in regards to this bill. The National Party support it through to select committee and we look forward to participating with other members of this House in a constructive manner around that table to make this legislation as good as it can be. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a very important piece of legislation. For a very long time, the State care system hasn’t been very caring, especially towards Māori children—in fact, Māori children have been abused in the system, and for that reason there is a severe lack of trust in our Oranga Tamariki system. But, actually, reforming the system is part of the reason that I want to stand here and give this contribution today, because Māori need to have faith in our child welfare system—because, as I said before, it hasn’t historically done very well.

What I would like to point out is that there has been a group of key Māori leaders providing the ongoing guidance, direction, and support of this work, known as Te Kāhui. They’ve been guided by the Office for Māori Crown Relations - Te Arawhiti. They’ve also been supported by Te Puni Kōkiri, as well as the many reviews and many opinions of people of Aotearoa who have put forward their thoughts about how we could better create this system.

One of the best parts of this is that we’re going to be able to separate out some of those key functions of what has previously been left to just Oranga Tamariki to be able to do. Previous speakers have talked about it—the monitoring functions, the complaints and investigations functions, and, obviously, the role of advocacy via the Children’s Commissioner too.

This is an important piece of legislation. I know that the select committee will hear lots of stories from people that are at the front line doing this work every single day. It’s hard work, it’s gruelling work, but if we get it right, then we have the future to look forward to, which hopefully is a better future than the way that our children in State care have been treated in the past. For that reason, I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill be now read a first 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 first time.

The result corrected after originally being announced Ayes 108, Noes 10 to include Te Paati Māori’s votes that were subsequently cast.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is, That the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill be considered by the Social Services and Community Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.

Bills

Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill

First Reading

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill.

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

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I move, That the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

Can I acknowledge members of the Labour Party here and also those candidates of election 2020 who went out and campaigned strongly on a number of issues, with one of them being some unfinished business that we had from the term of Government from 2017 to 2020. So I do want to acknowledge all the hard work of all my colleagues here in the House for winning a mandate on a strong election platform to make strong changes to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, but in amongst the promises that we made at the election were some, what I would call, business-as-usual commitments to New Zealanders. Within the justice part of our manifesto was a commitment at the 2020 election to get rid of the three-strikes legislation, as it was known, which was passed in 2010 by the previous National-ACT Government.

Now, there’s going to be some smack talk from the ACT Party tonight about what is going to happen as a result of this change in the legislation. What I want to make sure and very clear to everyone at home is that you can’t believe a word that the ACT Party is going to say about what was going to happen as a result of this legislation, because the judiciary doesn’t like this law, the lawyers don’t like this law, the public don’t like this law—and they gave us that message clearly in 2020—and we have arrived a little over a year into our Government, having made the commitment to change and repeal this piece of Draconian law. We are getting on with the job and doing it.

The smack talk that will come from the ACT Party, and possibly from the National Party as well, is that as a result of the changes, people will be resentenced and let out of prison early. Now, I can absolutely, 100 percent, categorically tell you that that is not the case, because that is not contained in this legislation.

I want to send a clear message to those at home saying that the Labour Party and this Labour Government acknowledge that offences were committed. Some of them, or many of them—or, in fact, all of them—are serious offences, and serious sentencing options are still available to the judiciary to deal with those serious offences. The removal of the judicial discretion that judges have when they’re dealing with these serious crimes—which is what this piece of legislation has done since 2010—has meant there have been some perverse outcomes, but we acknowledge that there are victims in this and there will be no revictimisation of those people during this process, because there is no retrospective aspect of this bill.

The principle of people being prosecuted and sentenced under the law as it stood at the time still holds true. That will not change, and under this legislation no one will have their sentences reconsidered. So let’s put that to bed before someone from that side of the House stands up and talks about it too.

This was an ugly piece of legislation from the outset. I should remind you of some of the history of it. A very good justice Minister in the previous National Government—Simon Power—introduced this bill relatively early in their term of Parliament. Then, lo and behold, Mr Power, who we on this side believe is a very principled man, perhaps had too many principles for the National Party, and all of a sudden, it became the responsibility of the Hon Judith Collins to pass this legislation. I understand there probably was a bit of debate in amongst the National caucus at the time, because they were dragged, kicking and screaming, to keep ACT happy and to make sure that this piece of legislation passed. It’s bad legislation, and we know that because it hasn’t worked.

Now, what was the promise of this piece of legislation at the time from the architect of this law, David Garrett? The ghost of David Garrett may still be walking these halls—an identity that no one wants to steal because of his past. But Mr Garrett said that by passing this legislation, we would make our communities safer and we would see the numbers of these serious offences drop. Well, that is not the case. It is not borne out in the evidence in the 10 years since this piece of legislation passed.

Now, I think there’s also going to be an interesting debate on that side of the House around mandatory minimum sentences as well, because I think I recall hearing a number of the members from the National Party discussing their distaste on mandatory minimums over there. I think I recall that during the debate, so that’s going to be an interesting internal debate—another interesting internal debate—for the National Party to deal with over time.

So the promise of this piece of legislation has never been delivered, and I think that deep down in their hearts, the National Party knew that at the time. I think Simon Power knew that at the time, which is why he didn’t see this legislation all the way through the legislative process. I don’t think I have heard of another instance where a Minister has introduced a bill and then, still in that portfolio, has had that piece of legislation yanked from him, or maybe he requested not to have it with him in that portfolio, and seen it offered up to be taken through the House by another person in another portfolio. It went from justice to corrections, so there must have been some very bizarre and interesting conversations around the Cabinet table when this piece of legislation was going through in 2010 and 2011.

There is a very serious side to this debate. As I have mentioned before, there are victims of serious crimes here, and I want to reiterate, before the ACT Party stands up and misinterprets or spreads disinformation about this piece of legislation, that there is no retrospectivity within this piece of legislation. So the press release that they put out before the announcement was made last Thursday again jumped the gun, and they were wrong.

The Labour Party and the Labour Government are very aware of the pain that the victims have been through, and I want to reiterate that this piece of legislation is in no way offering resentencing options for the offenders who have already been dealt with under a first, second, or third strike. So I want to make sure that that is made very clear.

We want the select committee to have a good look at this, and I acknowledge the chair of the select committee, Ginny Andersen, to my left. It is a select committee that has been extremely busy. We know there will be debate on both sides of the ledger about how we have constructed this, but we believe that we have got the balance right—we’ve got the balance right.

As I’ve said, I think the legislative statement and the speech that I’ve given today have pretty much summed up the position of the Government, and I look forward to not only the contributions from the ACT Party—and, again, I give a warning to those who might be watching to take that with a rather large dose of salt—and also, potentially, those from the National Party as well. This was a bad piece of legislation when it was introduced. I think the National Party and the National Government knew that at the time. That’s why it had an ugly passage through its process through this House. They were dragged, kicking and screaming, to pass this so that the ACT members could have something to wave as a part of their coalition arrangement.

I look forward to the submissions at the select committee, but I also look forward to making sure that this piece of legislation—which was bad legislation when it was introduced and it’s bad legislation now—is repealed, and we can get on with making sure that judges are the ones who have a discretion and we take a smarter approach to law and sentencing in this country. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): National opposes this repeal bill, the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill. And I want to say to the member opposite, the Hon Kris Faafoi: at a time of record violence, at a time of record gun crime under the Labour Party, at a time when gangs are creating record havoc and misery around this country—more victimisation than we’ve ever seen in this country—is it really the time to go soft on crime? I doubt it. Now’s not the time for Labour to go soft on crime, Kris Faafoi. You see, if everything was hunky-dory here and we had a situation where crime was going down, our prisons had empty rooms because the Government was doing such a good job in this area, well, that possibly would be an argument to say, “You know what, no we don’t actually need to have this sort of law to deter. There’s less violence, there’s less gun crime, there’s less gangs and so on.”, but that’s not the case. We’ve got certainly decade-high violent crime in this country, and now’s not the time for Labour to go soft on crime.

The second point I want to make is that that party over there, on COVID and everything else—although they haven’t actually followed it—tries to pretend they’re science-based, they’re evidence-based, they do everything according to what the so-called experts say, yet in this case, this law, the three-strikes law on the books, on the evidence, works. It makes the public safer and it deters violence and gun crime. And before I get into what the New Zealand evidence says, it’s right to ask that party to back up its position on this bill—that is the Labour Party in Government’s position on this bill. And to go soft on crime like they have, what reviews, what evaluations, what evidence did Labour collect or commission in the preparation of this bill? Can you hear the cicadas chirping? I can. They commissioned none. They collected none. They did not get a single report, a single piece of commissioned evidence from a university or anywhere else from New Zealand on the necessity for this law and how it was working. And by the way, while I’m mentioning that, how many members of the public, let alone victims of crime and organisations that work for victims did this Government ask or consult in putting this bill together? None.

You see, the only study, I think, was at the backend of the National Government, done by the Ministry of Justice. It shows quite clearly, yep, there was no change in offending levels from people before the bill through to first strikes, once the law was in place; there wasn’t a change in the level of offending. But when it came to second strikes at the time of the commission of this report—there weren’t any third strike offenders, I don’t think, at that time—actually, the strike offenders and their offences decreased—they decreased. And that’s because—it’s not rocket science—the more individuals are warned, the more they said to themselves, I would think, “This isn’t smart. I don’t want to keep offending.”, and they as individuals were deterred, resulting in their cases in fewer victims of crime. The bill, on the only report commissioned by any Government, the Ministry of Justice, deterred criminals. And more fundamentally than that, what we also know is that—and wait for it—there is an average of 74 previous convictions per strike offender. I just want the members of the public back home to hear that: 74 convictions is what the average three-strikes offender has, right? We’re not talking tiddlywinks here. We’re not talking theft of a Mars bar, as some on the other side may have you say. With that going on, when they’re in prison for a strike, second or third, the public is safer for longer, there are fewer victims in our communities throughout New Zealand. That legislation serves as both general and specific deterrence of criminals.

What’s the best that Labour can say about this law? Well, I think it’s in the regulatory impact statement. They say about the three-strikes law that it results in “excessive and disproportionate punishment by preventing sentencing judges from taking the circumstances of the offenders and offending into account.” And I want to go through that. Firstly, “excessive and disproportionate”, they say. Rubbish. They may want to, as they have in so many of the laws that have come through the justice department here in New Zealand, import US-style culture wars to this country, but it is a load of rubbish. There is not a single case that they can point to, that any academic can point to, that anyone in the judiciary can point to where someone’s been sentenced for theft of a piece of pizza for 50 years in jail or the like. It simply hasn’t happened in this country.

And the cases that they refer to and that are in the regulatory impact statement and the various other documents that the Labour Party refers to, I just urge any reasonable New Zealander who’s worried about this to go and check out—you’ll find it, I think, online—the summary of facts of those cases. They were serious offences by serious offenders with long histories. And, yes, the sentences under the three strikes regime were firm, but they were not excessive or disproportionate in my view, and, I say, actually, in reasonable New Zealanders’ views in the slightest.

The second bit—that “excessive and disproportionate punishment by preventing sentencing judges from taking the circumstances of the offenders and offending into account.”, is to me the real reason the Labour Party’s against this. You see, this is about the judiciary and a judiciary-pleasing Government that wants judges to decide, not this Parliament. This is actually a constitutional argument. I’m not going to deliver a treatise on that here, but there is a growing trend from our judiciary in New Zealand seeking to push back against Parliament and assert interpretations that aren’t conventional on parliamentary statutes and powers for themselves that they have never had. In relation to sentencing of criminal justice, courts increasingly want to assert that a complete judicial discretion belongs and exists for them. Well, they are wrong. There is no such principle. Parliament and its sovereignty determines sentencing policy, as well as a raft of other things, not the judiciary.

There’s other criticisms that the other side makes in the various documents on this bill. Three strikes, they say, disproportionately affects Māori. Well, that ignores that the victims of the three-strikes offending are also disproportionately Māori. And on this side of the House, we stand up for Māori victims of crime and victims of crime generally over offenders every single day of the week. And I say to the members on the other side who are Māori, “You know what, your brothers, your sisters, your whānau are victims, and this law would have done something about that.” This law that shouldn’t be repealed did something about that, not the soft-on-crime approach from the Labour Party.

The final thing they say is, “Well, this bill, it offends against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.”, as if the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is some sort of religion we have to follow with the Pope being “Saint Geoffrey Palmer II”. “It’s a religion. We have to follow it. We just can’t ever do anything. Parliament can never pass a law if there’s a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issue in it.” Here’s the problem with that: the Labour Party is exceptionally venal and acts exceptionally conveniently when it comes to that argument, because right now at the Justice Committee we’ve got a hate speech law, we’ve got a conversion practices law, we’ve got several other laws that Kris Faafoi’s come to this House on and spoken on that grossly offend the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It’s all too convenient to come down here and give us that sort of conversation.

Now’s not the time for Labour to go soft on crime. Three strikes has worked for individuals in generally deterring them and keeping New Zealanders safer. Unlike Labour, we back Parliament, not judicial activism that marches onwards from our courts. And here we don’t want more violence and more gun crime. We’re on the side of communities around New Zealand, not offenders. We oppose this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member’s time is up. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): The three-strikes law is an anomaly in New Zealand law and it’s for one main reason. It’s because it severely restricts judicial discretion. That’s number one. It provides fixed sentences that give no ability for a judge to take into account the seriousness of the offending or even the circumstances of the offender. Sometimes I do wonder whether the National Party would like to just do away with judges altogether and come up with a script and corresponding years to be served because that would work better.

The fact is that this kind of blanket mandated sentencing does disproportionately affect Māori. We know that for a fact, because we see that 81 percent—and we’ve even had comments in terms of that. The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court have found that sentences imposed under this regime contravene the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act with Māori having an 81 percent number for those who receive the three strikes.

But I would actually like to speak from inside. When I was working in Government, when this legislation came into force—and the reality was that it wasn’t a National Party idea and there was no preparation for this in any manifesto or policy, because it was an ACT promise that then had to be delivered upon in a hurry for quick political points. That was apparent when there was no computer system able to actually deal with the three-strikes system. And so what happened was, in a quick hurry, as a way of monitoring that, we had to develop a stamp. It had “Striker” on it. So what would happen when a file came before a court room in a short term was that the judge at sentencing had to read out a certain statement in order for one strike to be applied. Because there was no one computer system, I had the job of reading through three different databases, finding out when there was a striker, finding the court, ringing up the court, letting them know they had a striker in the cells and the fact that that had to be applied.

The trick was that that didn’t work over the whole of New Zealand. So there was a running tally that the Minister at the time, Judith Collins, was required to hear, of how many strikes had been missed in any given week. People had to draw straws—now much like I’m sure the National caucus does in giving other news about polls—on who was going to tell the Minister about how many strikes had been missed that week. And the reality was the system was not ready—it was not ready for being able to cope with this change and it has never been ready. That is in relation to the fact that it does not address the underlying causes of crime. That is still true now. So I’m quite happy at this moment to see this bill repealed, because it is bad legislation, as the Minister has already said.

I won’t speak too long, because I’d like to finish on what the advice was from the Ministry of Justice at the time this Act, the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act, came about. What the Ministry of Justice advised the Government of the time was that proposals will add substantial and direct costs to the justice system without creating any significant improved outcomes in terms of reducing the drivers of crime, improving social outcomes, or reducing reoffending and victimisation. That is exactly what has played out over time and that is exactly why this Government will be repealing this poor legislation. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to take a call on this, the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill. As my colleague and friend, the Hon Simon Bridges, said, we oppose this bill. And, I have to say, I would hope that one of the Government speakers will get up and actually use the full 10 minutes to outline clearly why they’re repealing this legislation. I listened very carefully to Ginny Andersen, the chair of the Justice Committee—and I acknowledge her past experience and role around policy and with the police—but she didn’t outline it for me. The only real reason I could hear that she gave for why this Government is repealing the legislation is that they don’t like the fact that our Parliament has legislated and has asked the judiciary to apply a much stronger sentence for recidivist offenders, serious recidivist offenders. That’s the only reason I can see put up tonight for repealing the legislation. That is not a reason; in fact, quite the opposite.

I just want to support the comments that Simon Bridges made. Right now in this country, we’ve probably got the worst situation that I have seen, certainly in my lifetime, of a proliferation of gang numbers, serious violent gang members that are well resourced and highly organised that now are regularly carrying high-powered firearms and using them. In the last three days in Auckland there’s been three serious firearm incidents. My greatest fear is we lost Matthew Hunt last year and, of course, we’re very lucky that Constable David Goldfinch wasn’t killed, as well, in broad daylight, on the streets of West Auckland with a gang banger that had a high-powered AK-47 type military-style firearm.

Simeon Brown has been doing an outstanding job in supporting the police and trying to hold the Government to account and make them understand just how serious the situation out there is, how much more at risk members of our community are and, actually, how much support our police need in trying to deal with a gang situation that has rapidly escalated and got out of control. But I can tell you now, in the last three or four years of trying to hold this Government to account, normally what we get is a whole lot of barracking from the other side, we get jokes, we get told that somehow being tough on crime and taking community safety seriously is something to be scoffed at and laughed at by the Government. But, actually, get your heads around this: we believe that communities deserve to be safe. We actually believe that law-abiding Kiwis should have the freedom to be able to move around in our country without the fear of being tied up in some type of gang violence, being intimidated, having their property stolen—we believe in that. That’s fundamentally a core part of our DNA. The reason why we supported the bill from the ACT Party is because it’s a good bill, and, actually, it was in response to some fairly horrific violent crime that occurred in our country. Christie Marceau—can anyone remember Christie Marceau? That was horrific. I just want to acknowledge her parents, and especially her mum, that went through a living hell.

Actually, as a country, we decided—and, actually, if you go back and have a look at the polling that was done, in terms of the support for the three-strikes legislation when it was brought into the House, National Party voters were 78 percent in support of this bill. You’d expect that, because, fundamentally, National Party voters and members take community safety extremely seriously. But then you look at Labour—you’d expect Labour to poll very low, wouldn’t you? When you hear the rhetoric on that side of the House, when you hear their position, you’d actually expect them to be polling very low; I’d say in the 20s, maybe down in the teens, even. Do you know what Labour Party supporters thought of this bill when it was brought to the House by the ACT Party? Sixty-three percent of Labour voters supported it—63 percent of Labour voters supported that bill. And this one will really blow you away, because I would have thought the Greens maybe scrape up, on a good day, 5 percent—maybe 5 or 6 percent support. Fortyeight percent of Green voters supported the three-strikes legislation to come into this House and be passed.

We’ve actually had this debate in the House before. I had this debate when I was justice spokesperson and Andrew Little was Minister of Justice, and he tried to get this repealed through the House. That was when they were in coalition Government with New Zealand First.

Hon Simon Bridges: Bit of common sense there.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah, there was a bit of common sense applied, and probably through Darroch Ball, who’s now one of the joint CEOs of the Sensible Sentencing Trust. He could see what was going on. He took a stand. Good on him, and actually New Zealand First said they would not support Labour, and, therefore, they didn’t have the votes, and, therefore, the bill was thrown out of the House. The right thing to do.

Hon Member: I mean, to be fair, you and I pressured them in to that.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: That’s true—that’s true. But now it’s back in the House, they have a majority, and they’re going to force it through. The worst thing about this is that they’re going get away with it, to a certain extent because we’re in COVID. Because of their poor response to that, the whole country is focused on COVID, right? So it’s like, look at the squirrel over there. It’s a complete distraction. Sadly, this is going to go through.

The other point that I just want to raise very quickly is—and Simon Bridges touched on this—that, unfortunately in this country, sadly, Māori are overrepresented inside our criminal justice system, right? We all recognise that as a problem and an issue that we have to be serious about and address. You cannot address it by trying to legislate your way out of it by removing laws. Because where are we going to go to next? We’ll repeal this law, then let’s get the Crimes Act out, and let’s start going through it. Let’s go and say, “OK, look, young Māori offenders, there’s lots of theft ex cars and serious assaults. Let’s just legislate that away.” Let’s just legislate it away. Because then you’re not going to have the offending. Then you’re not going to have them in front of the courts. It’s ridiculous—it’s ridiculous. You’re trying to legislate away a problem in this House that you cannot do.

You need to take a social investment approach to it. You need to get into people’s lives much earlier. I saw this working on the East Coast of New Zealand. I spent 10 years policing on the East Coast of New Zealand from Ruatōria down to Wairoa. If you want to have a front-row seat into the social issues that this country faces and continues to face, go and try and work on the East Coast of New Zealand; it’s tough. It’s a tough area. I realised very, very quickly as a young policeman—I didn’t know what social investment really meant then. But one day the light bulb came on when I’d been called to a job where a young guy had broken into a car. He was prospecting for the Mongrel Mob there, and I tracked him with the dog, we caught him, we took him back to the police station. I had him in the charge room, and we had a charge sheet there we had to fill out, I said, “What’s your occupation?”—he was only 17. I said, “What’s your occupation?” He said, “Unemployed.” I said, “But that’s not an occupation.” I said, “You know, what do you do for a job?”, and he said, “No, that’s my job: unemployed.” He said, “That’s what my dad does as well.” His dad was a patched up member of the Mongrel Mob. The light bulb went on right there and then, and I realised that this young guy who should’ve been full of aspiration and should’ve had the education and the support and the mentoring to allow him to take advantage of all the incredible opportunities that exist in this country was instead on a pathway into the criminal justice system, because that’s the environment that he’d been born into. If you want to change the system, if you want to stop young Māori coming into our criminal justice system, we have to be committed to a social investment model, where we invest in their lives much earlier—not come into this House with a piece of legislation, repeal it, and throw it out because you think that’s going to deal with the problem. It’s not going to deal with the problem. All it’s going to do is it’s going to put more serious offenders back out on the street and put the community and the public at risk.

When you say that this legislation didn’t work, get up and talk to the numbers. Someone on that side of the House, get up and talk to the numbers for me. Because I’m looking at them right here. The study that the Ministry of Justice went through in 2018 on the effectiveness of the three-strikes law showed that 10,433 offences went up for first strikes, so that’s about 10,000 first strikes, 338 second strikes. Do the maths in terms of the reduction. Let’s go to third strikes: six. So if someone on that side of the House stood up and said to me there were 10,433 first strikes and there were 10,400 third strikes, then I would agree with you, and I’d say that the legislation wasn’t working. But it’s not the case; it’s very clear this legislation is working.

It’s very clear what the agenda is on the other side of the House, and it is a shame. I’m sorry to my ACT colleagues because this was a very good piece of legislation that was campaigned on, and we were pleased to support, and we continue to support it. I think it’s a serious indictment on this Government that there’s not even a Government speaker that can stand up and actually speak to this bill.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Correction—Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to apologise to the House. I am asking permission to correct an earlier vote for Te Paati Māori. I misread the information that was given to me.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Is there any objection to Te Paati Māori casting their vote on the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill?

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): My apologies—yes, I seek leave to cast a party vote on behalf of Te Paati Māori on the first reading of the oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Is there any objection? There is no objection. Can I ask the Clerk to call for the party vote of Te Paati Māori on that bill.

CLERK: Te Paati Māori.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Two votes opposed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Ayes are 108, the Noes are 12. The Clerk will correct the vote.

Bills

Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call in relation to this bill. I think the Minister said it the best when he said that the three-strikes legislation is bad legislation that hasn’t worked. But it’s not the first time I’ve heard those words over the last week. We have been out speaking to people and I’ve been speaking to people on the front line of our justice service. Last week I spoke to a lawyer who works in the criminal court and what she said to me was that both prosecutors and defence lawyers are sighing with relief. They know this law has not worked. This is bad legislation that hasn’t worked.

The three-strikes law has bound the hands of judges and limited their ability to respond. We’ve heard comments from the judiciary about the impact of the law and some talk in some cases of having to exercise their decision-making authority in a way that was manifestly inconsistent with their own judgment and in a way that puts them also at odds with section 8, the principles, of the Sentencing Act. Principles matter. Constitutional principles matter. Our entrenched legislation matters—

Hon Simon Bridges: Parliamentary sovereignty.

VANUSHI WALTERS: —and I’m troubled by the fact that my colleagues so quickly dismisses those principles, but, Mr Bridges, you do you. It’d be easy to adopt the mechanical system that assumed all repeat offenders are exactly the same, and this three-strikes baseball analogy creates the illusion that complex issues can be addressed on a conveyor belt. Judges and practitioners know that’s simply not true. They know that three strikes creates a pipeline of bias and of discrimination. They know it doesn’t keep us safe in the short term when an individual on two strikes resists arrest. They know that it doesn’t keep us safe in the mid to long term where individuals receive inappropriately suited penalties that mean they’re essentially unseen. Lawyers, both defence and prosecution know it doesn’t work.

In addition to preventing judges from exercising their best judgment, it also adds cost to our justice system, as I’m told by the lawyers who’re working on the front line, because people who are guilty of offences are motivated to plead not guilty by virtue of fighting another strike on their record. Those who work on the front line of our justice system deserve to be able to respond not just to the issues in front of them but to the people in front of them. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence): We welcome—the Green Party—this long, long overdue repeal of the perverse and archaic and completely ineffective three-strikes law. We hope that it also signals a move to a more transformative system of justice and reform.

Now, I just want to start by making it very, very clear: every week, every week, it is my privilege and responsibility as Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence to be meeting with, engaging with, learning from, and listening to victims of crime and victim advocates of crime and NGOs and civil society groups who are advocates for a reform and transformation to a justice system that truly makes our communities safe. This was not what they were asking for—this three-strikes law was not what they knew was going to make them safe and healthy and well. So the repeal of this legislation is absolutely in line with the very conversations that I have every week, directly, with victims and survivors of some of the most heinous, heinous, harm and hurt that we can ever imagine in this House. So let me firstly make that very, very clear.

What I also want to make very clear is there is a difference between accountability and ineffective punitive approaches that do not even make the community safe. All our victims want and deserve accountability. All of our victims and survivors of serious crime know that a community-strengthening approach that addresses the drivers of offending is what will make our communities safer for everyone. What I did not hear, as I was traveling around the country and attending hui to pull together a strategy to eliminate violence, was a call for this type of ineffective, absolutely not-led-by-evidence approach to crime. So I am very pleased to finally—and it was also a very hard push for the Greens, especially in the last term, when it was blocked by New Zealand First—see this step towards a more robust and transformative justice system that will actually make our communities safer. And I’m pleased to have the deep insight of victims and survivors of crime to inform my stand here tonight in this House.

Now, I also want to pick up on the constitutional debate and the judicial debate that has also been happening here in the House. It was really interesting to hear the previous National Party speaker, the Hon Mark Mitchell, referring to numbers that indicated that not many third-strike convictions were actually happening. Do you want to know why? Because judges have had to weasel their way around this perverse, stupid piece of legislation to uphold proper sentencing approaches and principles. The Supreme Court has had to intervene on judicial approaches because of this idiotic legislation, which still doesn’t make victims and survivors and their communities safer. So this unnecessary, unsafe, ineffective legislation also has caused the judiciary to have to do all sorts of somersaults to try and respond to bad legislation.

So, yeah, we’ve had some numbers raised here in this House, numbers which continue to support why it’s absolutely essential to repeal this piece of law. Time and time again, the evidence has been absolutely solid that it has not—this legislation, the evidence is out the door, round the back, around the block quite a few times, and back into this House again. That’s how long the evidence is to point to the fact that it has not made our communities any safer at all.

So I cannot wait to hear the Opposition members, National and ACT members, stand up and celebrate when I announce, before the end of the year, a national strategy to eliminate family violence and sexual violence and a transformative approach to justice and to strengthening our communities. I can’t wait to see those members, who are feigning their concern on the floor of this House tonight, pretending to care about making communities safer—I can’t wait to see them putting out the press releases supporting this work, this work that has been led by victims and survivors and advocates of community safety. If they want to repeal this law in the name of safety, I cannot wait to see them supporting more transformative approaches to rehabilitation, to proper accountability and alternative forms of true and enduring justice, especially for victims and survivors of heinous violent crimes. I can’t wait to see them helping to advocate for mental health support, for wellbeing and housing and income supports to those on the lowest incomes, to those missing out the most, to engaging with people who use harm—which is also an absolute approach to the drivers of offences—instead of using political poll-driven data to drive their policies. Well, that hasn’t proven to be a good tactic, has it?

How about instead they refer to robust evidence on crime, robust evidence on safety? How about they listen to victims’ advocates, to victims and survivors groups, and actually understand what is really needed for truly strengthening communities? I am pleased to support this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10.02 p.m.