Wednesday, 17 November 2021

WEDNESDAY, 17 NOVEMBER 2021

WEDNESDAY, 17 NOVEMBER 2021

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

Hon JACQUI DEAN (Assistant Speaker): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.

Obituaries

Murray John Finlay Luxton

SPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 16 November 2021 of the Hon Murray John Finlay (John) Luxton CNMZ, QSO, who represented the electorates of Matamata and Karapiro between 1987 and 1999 and continued to serve as a list member until 2002. During his membership of this House, he held a number of ministerial positions, including Minister of Commerce, Minister of Māori Affairs, Minister of Police, and Minister of Industry. I desire, on behalf of this House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect to his memory.

Members stood as a mark of respect.

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

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

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

CLERK: Petition of Retirement Village Residents Association of New Zealand requesting that the House urgently review retirement villages legislation.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. In particular, I stand by our Government’s announcement that, from 15 December, people will be able to travel out of Auckland if they have either been fully vaccinated or have had a negative test 72 hours prior to departure. We know Auckland has done it tough over the past three months, but due to their hard work, getting vaccinated, and their sacrifice which has helped slow the spread of the virus, we know we will be in a position to allow them to reconnect with friends and whānau around the country over the summer break. There will be enforcement, and those who break the rules will face penalties, but our announcement today helps all New Zealanders plan for a safe transition.

Hon Judith Collins: When she announced the target of 90 percent full vaccination for every district health board, was it her intention, at the time, to abandon this target just a few weeks later?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: At the time we made that announcement we said two things as well—and I do note, to give this context, that by mid-December we are expecting the country to be at roughly 90 percent, but at the time we made that announcement we also, (a) said that we would be pragmatic about the decisions; (b) we set at that time an expectation that the rest of the country would likely move into orange. Today, we have said if we have areas that have lower vaccination rates, to ensure greater protections those areas would likely move into red. But, ultimately, what we’ve said today is that to provide greater protection for New Zealand, our view is that the COVID protection framework does a better job for this phase of our COVID pandemic management than the alert levels, which is why we’ve indicated that we will be moving shortly into that framework.

Hon Judith Collins: Why did she wait until day 92 of the lockdown to announce her new travel restriction plan; which part of the plan in particular was so complicated it had to wait until today to be announced?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member is suggesting that after day two of putting Auckland into restrictions we would then make announcements that in December the border that had been established would be removed, I don’t think anyone would suggest that that would have been feasible or sensible. We have maintained the boundary for this period of time because it has slowed the spread of COVID. It has enabled us to keep the rest of the country as safe as possible whilst vaccination rates have continued to increase. The fact that at the time when Delta arrived in New Zealand, full vaccination rates were sitting in the mid-20s and are now over 80 percent demonstrates the speed at which we have all moved. But now is the time to transition. Aucklanders do need to be able to move safely. This plan allows them to.

Hon Judith Collins: How many Auckland hospitality businesses will fail if they are forced to operate through the Christmas period under red traffic light restrictions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I reject the idea that that will be the case, because, of course, the member will be familiar with the new framework which, if you were giving a likeness in terms of the ability to operate, in terms of the number of people and the requirements—very similar to level 2 which the rest of the country has been using. The added layer of protection is the use of vaccine certificates. So that is the thing that gives an added layer of protection but of course allows hospitality to operate, obviously, more than they are able to now.

Hon Judith Collins: Under the new travel restrictions she’s just announced, how many cars will police be expected to stop and search on a daily basis?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I wouldn’t describe enforcement in that way. It’s simply those who are—

Hon Judith Collins: Oh, yes it is.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would not call it a search power. The—

Hon Judith Collins: It’s a stop and search.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I reject the member’s characterisation. We, of course, for months now have been running a system that does require people to demonstrate that they meet the requirements to travel. Now, all we’re asking Aucklanders to demonstrate is that they have either been vaccinated using, of course, their vaccine pass, or that they have had a negative test. We are allowing the enforcement decisions, obviously, to be made by police. It is operational, after all. We expect, though, in the North that they will work with the communities and iwi in the North. We do expect that we will have potentially lower vaccination rates in those areas, so we do want to make sure we act cautiously there.

Hon Judith Collins: So if it’s operational, then are police free not to bother with this stop and—what—check procedure?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m sure the member is familiar with the idea of stopping someone for speeding or stopping someone for drink-driving. This is no different. There is no sense with any of those that you have no enforcement. There will be enforcement. The decision on how that is operationalised and how that is safely operationalised is not a decision for members of Parliament, and it never has been. It will be operationalised by the police.

Hon Judith Collins: So will people be required to show photo ID whenever they show their vaccine certificate, and will that requirement extend to people who are, say, 12 years and six months old?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member can ridicule all that she likes. A 12-year-old who is able to be vaccinated also is able to have a vaccine pass, and, of course, it is not unreasonable that a parent may hold that. For the under-12s, we do not require them to have vaccine passes, because they cannot be vaccinated, nor will we require them to be tested. But the system has not just been devised for the boundary; it exists for hospitality and events. It is not unlike what has been operating in other countries. In fact, I’d say ours is an enhancement on what you see, for instance, in the federal system in Australia. They have no verifier QR code; ours does. It enables that extra step of verification. Also, it contains full name and date of birth so that you are able to check against other photo ID, should you choose to.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition’s question was clear that it related to people over the age of 12, and the Prime Minister addressed the question of people under the age of 12.

SPEAKER: She added extra information afterwards.

Hon Judith Collins: So can we take it from the Prime Minister’s answer, then, that anyone over the age of 12 years is going to have to have a photo ID as well as their vaccine certificate?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Hon Judith Collins: Well, then, what does she mean? Who is going to need a photo ID?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If you carry a vaccine pass, you can use a verifier app to verify that it is an actual vaccine pass that has been issued by the Government and has not been tampered with. It’ll be up to those who are policing or enforcing to determine how they verify whether or not the individual is who they say they are. But this is no different than any of the enforcement activity that occurs at a bar or that occurs by police when they are stopping people on the side of the road, and, actually, this is a further enhancement on what some countries have been operating for quite some time. So I’m not quite sure what the member is taking issue with.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. In particular, I stand by the Government’s announcement that the 3.4 million fully vaccinated New Zealanders can now get their My Vaccine Pass. My Vaccine Pass is an official record of a person’s COVID-19 vaccination status, and will provide access to places within New Zealand that require proof of vaccination under the COVID-19 Protection Framework. We don’t want anyone to miss out, so we’re strongly encouraging those who have been putting off getting a vaccine to take that step now as we prepare to transition into the new protection framework. Can I add that, while we have excellent and growing rates of vaccine nationally, we know not everyone who is eligible has been vaccinated. This new framework provides greater protection for those who aren’t vaccinated by minimising potential spread of COVID-19.

Rawiri Waititi: Does she agree with the repeated decision of the Ministry of Health to refuse to share relevant Māori vaccination data with Māori vaccination teams on the front line?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m not sure that I’d consider that a fair characterisation, because Māori providers, of course, have been able to access data. Of course, we have seen a higher profile discussion and the court’s involvement in the request by Whānau Ora for access to individual data for the entirety of the North Island. There’s been different views, including from Māori providers, around whether or not that should be released. I know that progress has been made, and Whānau Ora—the provider in question—has, for instance, reached an agreement where they’re now accessing data in parts of the country, and they continue to work with the ministry on that wider access. Can I come back to a principle though: we all want to accelerate vaccination rates and access to data will help with that. But, obviously, the Ministry of Health is playing a role here, making sure that where there is some difference of opinion in accessing peoples’ personal information they are working through that as quickly as they can.

Rawiri Waititi: Why is it that private enterprise Homecare Medical gets automatic access to data while Māori providers have to go through a laborious process including going to the courts?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the member is characterising the sharing of that information as if Māori providers have not been able to; that is not the case. What we have here, though, is one agency trying to seek information for all Māori across the entire North Island, and some providers—including Māori providers—haven’t always been happy with that request, so we’re working through, in different regions, to seek agreement on that.

Rawiri Waititi: Has Dr Bloomfield been misleading the country by claiming in the media over the last few weeks that iwi individual data had already been shared with Whānau Ora, when the lawyers of the Whānau Ora commissioning agency have confirmed it hadn’t been?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Look, no, I don’t believe it’s fair to characterise Dr Bloomfield in that way. And again, as I come back to the principle, we all want to accelerate vaccination rates; that is a goal we all have. And yes, access to data is a critical piece to ensure that we’re reaching individuals. But there are some who have taken different views. We’re all trying to work through and resolve them as quickly as possible. And, as I say, my recollection is that, for instance, there’s already been an agreement reached for access in the Waikato, and we’re working through agreements in different parts of the country as well.

Hon Kelvin Davis: Is she aware that Te Kahu o Taonui, the Māori collective up North, has said that the only people that should see iwi data are those iwi themselves?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That, yes, characterises some of the issues that the ministry has been working through. This has been complex. But I do believe that, ultimately, everyone has the same goal here. It’s all a matter of how and making sure that we take into consideration those differing views. I know we need to move quickly. If I could finish, though, on just acknowledging that it’s all about acceleration. You know, at the moment, we’re sitting on first doses for Māori at 78 percent. While that’s been growth, we want to see that number much, much higher. But I take great heart from the fact that for our over-65s, we’ve got 92 percent fully vaccinated. That demonstrates what is possible. We now just need to make sure we move as quickly as we can.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table solicitors’ letters that are not public that confirm that the Whānau Ora commissioning agency has not received individual iwi data.

SPEAKER: I want the member to confirm that either the addressee or the sender of the letter—it’s a matter for decision for the House whether they’re tabled or not, but we normally have an indication as to whether it has the approval either of the sender of the letter or the person who received the letter.

Rawiri Waititi: I can confirm.

SPEAKER: Which?

Rawiri Waititi: What you have asked for.

SPEAKER: The sender or the receiver?

Rawiri Waititi: Both.

SPEAKER: Thank you. Is there any objection to those letters being tabled? We just take care of privilege; that’s all. Right. Legal privilege. Further supplementaries?

Rawiri Waititi: What is being done to develop a Māori home isolation strategy, given that 2,600 whānau, a considerable number of which are Māori, are isolating at home without adequate Government planning, resources, and support?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, I would really push back on the latter half of the member’s question. Yes, it is obviously fair to say that we have a system in place, as has the rest of the world, where we are caring for people in their home. Where we are unique is that we are still also using managed isolation facilities to support people’s care if they have COVID-19 as well. For detail on some of the work that’s being undertaken with different community providers—including Māori and Pacific community providers, because that is constant and ongoing work—the member may like to either ask questions directly of Minister Little or seek a briefing of him. But what I can say is that we do see this as critical. Both clinical assessment and providing for the welfare needs of those who have COVID in our community need to be provided appropriately with those who best understand their community and the needs of whānau.

Rawiri Waititi: Why did she implement unilateral Government vaccine mandates without seeking the active consent of tangata whenua, despite her obligation to do so under Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: So there was consultation with sectors for the implementation of the mandates across our healthcare workforce and for worker representatives across the healthcare workforce. My understanding is that the member’s party, I believe, supports mandates for the healthcare workforce. Where we perhaps part ways is we have a strong view that mandates in our education sector, which we don’t take lightly, protect our tamariki. We’re very firm on this. This is a group of individuals who currently do not have the choice of a vaccination. We see them, therefore, as vulnerable and the largest group that cannot be vaccinated in New Zealand. So yes, that’s an area where we also consulted with workforce, but our view is that we had a duty of care to tamariki.

Hon Kelvin Davis: Can she confirm that the Government has provided close to a quarter of a billion dollars to Māori health providers to address COVID in the Māori population?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I can. In fact, the most recent instalment of that was, of course, the $120 million that was provided through the Māori Communities COVID-19 Fund. That’s split into two parts. Of course, preventative—we want to make sure that we are preventing illness by ensuring communities are vaccinated. So $60 million was put aside for that, and you can already see that very quick distribution across Māori providers who are able to both drive demand—they may not be the providers who are vaccinating, but they know their community and are able to drive demand and also provide vaccine, if appropriate, as well. The other $60 million is to support Māori providers for our care and community work, because, as the member has rightly suggested, it needs to be appropriate care. We need to be supporting whānau within the community if they happen to become infected with COVID-19, but all of our work is to try and prevent that.

Rawiri Waititi: Will her Government instruct Work and Income New Zealand to guarantee that there won’t be a stand-down period for those who have lost their jobs due to the vaccine mandate; if not, why not?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, if an individual loses their job because of a vaccine mandate, then they are treated as anyone else who loses their job in the welfare system. So that means, of course, from my recollection, that stand-down periods don’t apply in those cases.

SPEAKER: Just before I do that, I will remind members in the gallery that the rules—yes, no I wasn’t referring to the mask, Mr McKelvie, but you should keep it up. The rules as far as phones are concerned are the same for members on the floor. Please keep them on silent.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Reserve Bank released its November Financial Stability Report earlier this month. It found the resilience of the financial system remains high, although the current Delta outbreak is creating challenges, particularly for businesses in Auckland. It noted that households and businesses came into the Delta outbreak with generally strengthened financial positions compared to mid-2020 due to the recovering economy, robust labour market, and fiscal support. The report did warn that COVID-19 continues to present economic risks, and it noted the importance of fiscal support schemes such as the wage subsidy scheme and Resurgence Support Payment to sustain businesses through higher alert levels.

Helen White: What other reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: BDO’s third annual Māori Business Sector Report found that businesses in the Māori economy are confident about their future. It reported that 96 percent of Māori business owners are confident of success in the next 12 months despite the pandemic. The report confirmed the ongoing and uneven impact of COVID, but it showed that Māori businesses have also come through the year finding new ways to adapt and rise to the challenges they face in delivering gains for whānau and community. The reports show that they remain confident in assessing a changing environment and setting their sights on growth. Nevertheless, the environment in this business area remains challenging and the Government continues its Budget goal of lifting the incomes, skills, and opportunities for Māori and, indeed, all New Zealanders now and into the future.

Helen White: What recent reports has he seen on exports supporting the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealand dairy farmers are continuing to support the recovery. The global dairy trade price index increased 1.9 percent, with a key indicator of whole milk powder also rising by 1.9 percent to an average of $3,987 per kilo of milksolids. [Interjection from an Opposition member] I know the Opposition enjoy my updates on this matter! There were gains for other products, with a 2.2 percent increase for cheddar, 1.4 percent for skim-milk powder, and a 3.5 percent gain for butter. Economists have noted that higher prices reflect weak global production and, in the case of the forecast payment to Fonterra’s farmers, will be at the upper end of the $7.90 to $8.90 per kilo of milksolids range for the current season. I’d once again like to thank our primary sector for their confidence and their contribution to the economy.

Question No. 4—COVID-19 Response

4. Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Does he agree it is essential to prioritise equity in the next stage of responding to COVID-19; if so, how does he plan to achieve an equitable response?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Absolutely. The Government’s always placed equity at the forefront of our COVID-19 response, and the next stage is no different. Equity is a key consideration in our shift to the protection framework. It’s intended to give as much certainty and stability as possible for people and for businesses, including by removing the need for widespread alert level 3 and 4 lockdowns, which we acknowledge create additional equity issues. We recognise that vulnerable communities are some of the hardest hit by COVID-19 and that we all have a part to play in responding—the Government, including health and social services; local communities; iwi; hapū; whānau; businesses; and individuals. The framework provides us with tools to better protect vulnerable regions and communities and to put in place proportionate measures to do that.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Kia ora. Is he concerned that Māori and Pasifika make up a combined 70 percent of current hospitalised COVID-19 cases, and, if so, how does he plan to ensure these communities are protected from further spread of COVID-19?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I am concerned by that and I am concerned that COVID19 has found its way into a hard-to-reach part of our community, and it is a part of the community that has been marginalised from many of the arms of Government that we rely on in our contact tracing processes in order to try and ring-fence and remove the risk. And I know that those contact tracing teams have been working incredibly hard to try and reach in to those communities and provide their support in different ways in order to build trust within those communities so that they can do exactly that. So that has to continue to be the focus. I am concerned, as well, that the lower rate of vaccination amongst Māori has the potential to manifest itself in a higher rate of hospitalisation as we see more cases of COVID-19 in the community. And I think that one of the strongest things we can all do as members of Parliament is to get out there and encourage people to take up the opportunity to be vaccinated. One of the things I am very concerned about—and I’ve spoken openly about this today—is that our Māori communities have been the target of a very active and organised misinformation campaign, some of which is being fuelled by white supremacists.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Kia ora. What additional resourcing will be provided to healthcare, iwi, and community services in regional and rural areas in light of travel to these areas from Auckland?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As the Prime Minister has just outlined, we’ve put a significant additional amount of funding into getting our vaccination rates up amongst Māori and working with our hauora health providers to do that, and similarly to prepare for care in the community as we see more cases of COVID-19 in the community, and making sure we’re working with our Māori health providers, our Pasifika health providers, to make sure that they’re geared up and ready to do that. We’ll continue to focus on that. I’d note that one of the things that the protection framework does is it gives us that ability to protect people at a more individual level than the alert level framework does.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Kia ora. What plans does he have to protect the health and wellbeing of confirmed COVID-19 cases isolating at home in regional and rural areas, particularly those in large households?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think it’s important to note—and the Minister of Health has been doing a lot of work with health officials on the care in the community model—it’s not going to be an absolutely one-size-fits-all model, because different communities, different whānau, will have different needs. Some people will present with very mild symptoms and will be quite happy to go home, isolate at home, won’t need a lot of support with that, will get better, and then will be out and about in the community again. Other people will have a higher level of support because they’re showing more symptoms. Others will find isolating—particularly those in very large households—safely in a very large household can be more challenging. So there are going to need to be a variety of different models there. And working with our local health providers, all of them, to make sure that we’re providing appropriate support depending on the nature of the case and the nature of support required, that’s going to be really important.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Will he commit to ensuring iwi and hapū are able to establish roading checkpoints to protect people living in popular holiday destinations with low vaccination rates and a high proportion of people under 12, such as in the Tai Rāwhiti?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’d simply reiterate the message that the police are responsible for any roading checkpoints that exist around COVID-19. And I know that the police have worked in partnership with local iwi around how they have done that, and I’d encourage them to continue to do that. That, of course, is an operational matter for them. But I know that they’re very proud of the work that they’ve done with local iwi around that.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: And, finally, how will vaccine passes be provided to people without internet access or photo ID, including migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, the elderly, people with learning difficulties, and other disabilities?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The most immediate option that’s available right now is an 0800 number that they can call, and they will talk through the process for them to access a vaccination certificate. We’re also looking at some additional walk-up options, including through primary care, where people will be able to go and get hard-copy printouts from primary care and from pharmacies and so on. We’re not quite there yet with getting that up and running, but we’re very close to that, and I hope to have more information about that. But we know that, again, it’s not going to be one-size-fits-all; we’re going to need a variety of different options for people.

Question No. 5—Infrastructure

5. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister for Infrastructure: Does he stand by his statement from 24 June 2020 that an objective of the shovel-ready projects was for construction activity to be “underway within the next 12 months”; if so, how many shovel-ready projects, if any, have not yet begun construction?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Infrastructure): I stand by the full Cabinet paper from June last year, which this statement comes from, in its full context. That context includes, of course, the fact that the economic situation and construction market are very different now from what they were when that criteria was set in April 2020. As the member knows, in July 2020 Cabinet confirmed that it is a condition of Infrastructure Reference Group (IRG) funding that projects must start within 12 months of a funding contract being signed. This means that each IRG project has its own must-start date as a result of contracting at different times. In answer to the second part of the question, I’m advised that as at 30 September, the most recent numbers available, of the 234 IRG projects, 49 had not had construction start, but only nine of those are at risk of not meeting the 12-month deadline.

Andrew Bayly: What is his definition of a shovel-ready project if 40 percent of projects had not yet started construction after the 12-month period?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That’s not actually what I said in my answer. I said that there were 49 of 234, of which nine won’t meet the contract date of 12 months from there. As I said in my primary answer, the construction environment is very different, and I think most of the communities around New Zealand where these projects are happening are very, very pleased that there is a Government that supports them.

Andrew Bayly: If the point of the shovel-ready projects was to stimulate the economy as a result of COVID, what is the purpose of these projects now that we have labour shortages and an over-heated construction industry?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the member needs to make his mind up. Either we’re going too fast, as his earlier question said, or now we’re going too slow. What I do know, is these are projects that are incredibly important to the communities that they’re in. There is a very tight labour market and very tight construction market, as he points out. That has slowed some projects down. They remain valuable and important projects that, I might say, many of his colleagues are strong advocates for.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he proud of the fact that he’s now being criticised for doing too good a job of managing the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I will accept any form of criticism from the Opposition and any form of praise from the member.

Andrew Bayly: How many of the shovel-ready projects have been completed?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe, on the latest advice, around 30 have been completed. The remaining projects are under construction and, again, the member needs to decide which it is that he has a problem with. Are we going too fast or are we going too slow? Which is it, Mr Bayly?

SPEAKER: Order! I just make it clear to the Minister for Infrastructure that he answers not asks the questions.

Andrew Bayly: Has he asked the Deputy Prime Minister responsible for the implementation unit to help him deliver on these so-called shovel-ready projects?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I know that the member asked me that exact same question on 12 May and the answer is the same, that when the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure meet, it is a true meeting of minds.

Question No. 6—COVID-19 Response

6. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for COVID19 Response: What recent announcements has he made regarding COVID-19 vaccination passes?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): This morning I announced that from today, New Zealanders can get their official proof of vaccination, the My Vaccine Pass. A separate, international COVID-19 vaccination certificate, which provides a proof of vaccination certificate in order to enter overseas countries, can now also be requested. To obtain one, people will need to be fully vaccinated or be one of the very small number of Kiwis who has received a medical exemption. People can log into My COVID Record to make a request for the free pass or call 0800 222 478. As at midday today, I’m advised that 65,454 people had already requested their pass. I understand that’s now already over 100,000. We don’t want anyone to miss out, so we’re strongly encouraging those who have been putting off getting the vaccine to take that step now as we prepare to transition into the COVID-19 Protection Framework.

Tangi Utikere: How will vaccine certificates work and where will they be used?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: My Vaccine Pass has a QR code that can be scanned upon arrival at a venue. It can be downloaded into your personal phone and stored in your Apple or Google wallet, or it can be printed out and used in hardcopy. Under the COVID19 Protection Framework, the pass will mean people will be able to do the things that they love, including going to concerts and music festivals, a night out at bars and restaurants, going to the gym, and going to sporting events. There are certain things under the framework where denying entry on the basis of vaccination will be prohibited, however; and that includes life-preserving services such as supermarkets, pharmacies, and health and disability services. Proof of vaccination will also not be required in education settings—of the users of the education settings, at least, on public transport, other than on air travel, or in accessing housing and housing support services under State sector agencies. As we move towards the COVID-19 Protection Framework, it’s important that Kiwis understand now where these passes will apply and how important they’ll be for enjoying their freedoms once the new framework comes into force.

Tangi Utikere: When will the My Vaccine Pass come into use?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The My Vaccine Pass will come into widespread use once we shift to the COVID-19 Protection Framework. That pass is the ticket to enjoy the freedoms that will come with that framework. On 29 November, Cabinet will confirm the decision to move Auckland and the rest of New Zealand alongside it into the traffic light system. We expect this move to occur soon after Cabinet meets. In addition, from 15 December, people travelling out of Auckland who have either been fully vaccinated or who have had a negative test within the 72 hours prior to departure will be able to leave Auckland and visit other parts of the country. My Vaccine Pass will serve as proof of vaccination for that purpose. So my message to New Zealanders today is that the vaccine pass is your ticket to summer. It’s essential under the traffic light system, so get ready by downloading it today, and if you haven’t been vaccinated, go and do it.

Question No. 7—Education

7. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Education: How many schools in Auckland and the Waikato, if any, have decided not to return to onsite learning?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): All schools are required to be open for instruction for a minimum number of half-days each year. Being open for instruction does include both learning from home and learning on site. In opening up to all students, schools were given the flexibility to make decisions that best meet the needs of their learners and of their community. Schools must, however, be open on site where children need to attend in person because they don’t have an appropriate carer at home. I’m advised that there are five schools that have made the decision to remain closed for on-site learning at this stage, as the children did not need to attend in person, following consultation with their community. They’ll continue to support learning for all students while they remain at home. In addition, the Ministry of Education’s aware of a small number of schools that have asked for and that have needed an extra couple of days to prepare for on-site learning. That is consistent with the guidance that schools have been given.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Having said, “It is clear that the risk of reopening schools is outweighed by the benefits of kids re-engaging with their learning face-to-face in this context.”, why does he think it’s acceptable for five schools not to have reopened for on-site learning?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I did not make that judgment. What I said was that these schools are acting consistent with the guidance that has been issued, which is that they consult with their local communities about those decisions.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: With only three or four weeks left before the end of the year, why has he allowed a situation where so many Auckland schools have decided to wait till next week to restart on-site learning?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It’s important that schools do this in a manner that is robust, that they consult with their local communities about that, and that they generate the confidence of their local communities. We do want to see children and young people back at school so that they can continue their learning face to face; we acknowledge how important that is, but I do want to acknowledge that schools have done a remarkably good job of supporting young people to learn from home over the last couple of months when they haven’t been able to be on the school sites.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why didn’t he set the minimum expectation that schools should accept all children every day for at least half the day in order to give students a realistic chance to re-engage with education before the summer?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We’ve set out a framework that allows for the return of young people to school safely. We do have to acknowledge that for our primary school - age students, vaccination is not currently an option, and so we want to make sure that we are providing an opportunity for them to get back to face-to-face learning, but also providing additional layers of protection around them. It’s one of the reasons why we have a vaccine mandate in schools, because we want to avoid COVID-19 getting into schools. Where it does, we want to make sure that we’re minimising the potential for it to spread amongst a large number of young people. So we are taking a cautious approach here. We’re balancing the needs of the physical safety, the health safety, here, but we also want to make sure that we are balancing up, on the other side, the need to get young people back to face-to-face learning.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What does he say to parents who are worried about their children’s education, they’re wanting to get back to work, but find that their local school next week will allow their kids to go back maybe one or two days a week?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: To be very clear, as has been the case for some time now, where parents are unable to stay home and where there is not an alternative arrangement available to them, then those students can go to school. That has been the case not just this week but for some time now.

Question No. 8—Disability Issues

8. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Disability Issues: What announcements has the Government made on transformation of the disability system?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Disability Issues): The Minister of Heath, Andrew Little, and I recently announced a suite of changes as part of the disability system transformation, along with the steps we’re taking to make Aotearoa New Zealand more accessible. The changes include the establishment of a ministry for disabled people, national implementation of the Enabling Good Lives approach to disability support services, the introduction of new stand-alone accessibility legislation, and the establishment of a new accessibility governance board. I really want to acknowledge the disabled community, who have been at the heart of these changes. The changes are a reflection of decades of hard work and advocacy. However, this is not the destination; it is the journey.

Glen Bennett: What feedback has she seen?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’ve been really heartened by the feedback that I’ve both seen and received, from Disability Rights Commissioner, Paula Tesoriero, who said, “This announcement marks a new era for us.”, to Rachel Peterson, a disabled business owner and parent, who said, “I don’t think I’ve ever been more filled with joy or hope about an announcement to do with the disability sector in New Zealand as I am about this one.”

Glen Bennett: What are the next steps?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: An establishment unit for disability systems transformation has been set up. A work programme is under way in collaboration with the Ministry of Health. Work has been completed mapping out what will transfer from the Ministry of Health and what shared services the Ministry of Social Development will provide. The unit is continuing to work through the elements of what the new ministry will look like and the ongoing transformation of disability support services. Important next steps also include deciding on the name of the new ministry. Engagement is under way with the disabled community sector, whānau, Māori, iwi leaders, and our diverse communities. I aim to report back to Cabinet on progress early next year.

Question No. 9—Energy and Resources

9. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Why is the Government spending $100 million on a feasibility study for Lake Onslow pumped hydro and other energy storage options, and has she seen the report commissioned by Meridian Energy and Contact Energy that identifies a large South Island pumped storage facility as the highest-cost option to achieve a 100 percent renewable 2030 generation goal?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In answer to the first part of the question, the Government has allocated $30 million to the first stage of the NZ Battery Project, and $70 million is set aside in contingency for stage two. Lake Onslow, as recommended by the Interim Climate Change Committee for further investigation, is the base case for the NZ Battery Project, but against this, other pumped hydro options and comparator technologies are being investigated. It is critical that we consider solutions to the dry year problem as part of New Zealand’s transition to a zero carbon future. The alternative is that we continue to rely on expensive fossil fuels for dry year storage, as we did this year when hydro lakes had some of the lowest inflows on record. As the member knows, this reliance on fossil fuels resulted in very high wholesale electricity prices. The New Zealand Battery Project is focused on finding a solution that will allow us to unleash New Zealand’s abundant and affordable renewable energy sources. In answer to the second part of the question, yes.

Barbara Kuriger: Will she halt the Government’s $100 million Infrastructure Reference Group shovel-ready investment in the pumped hydro feasibility study now that a freely available report identifies pumped hydro as the most time-consuming and least efficient way to address dry year risk?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Let’s be very clear: the report that we are referring to is a report commissioned by Contact Energy and Meridian. I don’t think anyone would be surprised that existing market players are promoting and investigating views to support their commercial and strategic objectives, given that the outcome of the project could be a major disruptor to the status quo. But our job as a responsible Government is to ensure that the broad interests of New Zealand are fully investigated. And furthermore to the reason we won’t be abandoning a very important piece of work required for New Zealand’s future is that even the CEO of Meridian, as recently as this morning in a meeting with the Minister of Finance and myself, told us that he did not think it was Onslow or hydrogen; it could be both.

Barbara Kuriger: Will she halt the $100 million investment in the pumped hydro feasibility study in light of reports that both WEL Networks and Meridian Energy will invest in battery capacity on their own accord, without the Government having to spend a cent?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think the questions that the member is asking cut to the reason why when we came into Government there was absolutely no planning for how we would have renewable plans for dry year storage. The simple “Leave it to the market and it will serve New Zealand well” has not panned out. It has resulted in high wholesale prices when we do encounter a dry year. I would point that member to the comprehensive piece of work that the NZ Battery Project is, that it is not only looking at pumped hydro at Onslow, it is also looking at pumped hydro schemes around the country and other locations—but it is also looking at comparative technologies such as hydrogen, such as batteries. So we welcome this work that individual commercial entities are feeding into the project. It is high time that New Zealand did investigate this real issue. It’s just lucky our Government got on with it.

Barbara Kuriger: Will she seek guidance from the Minister of Finance to see whether pumped hydro is a higher fiscal priority than the $14 billion for Auckland light rail or $6 billion for Wellington rapid transit, so that she can be sure New Zealand can afford to fund her pumped hydro scheme before she spends $100 million investigating it?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I, almost on a daily basis, seek the guidance of the incredibly wise Minister of Finance. We all in our caucus do. I’d like to reassure the member—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think that might be going a bit far.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: It’s irony. Do you want me to withdraw and apologise?

SPEAKER: Well, I don’t think it’s absolutely irony, but it might, you know—one might say there’s a danger of misleading the House.

Question No. 10—Education (School Operations)

10. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): What progress, if any, has she seen on the allocation of the Government’s Auckland re-engagement package?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Associate Minister of Education (School Operations)): From today, all Auckland school students are able to head back to in-person classroom learning. A couple of weeks ago, the Government announced a $15 million package that will help schools to re-engage Auckland students in their education, following long periods of distance learning. I am pleased to report that funding is on the ground across Auckland now, and schools are equipped to encourage all their students safely back into the classroom. One part of this fund included $3 million for the Rapid Resurgence Fund. So far, almost all of that funding has been allocated to 405 Auckland schools that have been identified with the greatest needs. This funding will enable those schools and kura to respond to the immediate and urgent needs of learners to remain engaged in their learning.

Camilla Belich: What targeted funding has been allocated to students that are most at risk of disengaging?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Online learning has been effective at keeping our kids safe from COVID-19 while continuing their education, but it does have its limitations. We do know that inequities existed in education prior to COVID-19, and we know that they are likely to have been exacerbated. That is why we have allocated targeted funding to ensure support is reaching those who need it most. Part of the $15 million package included a $3 million fund to support Māori ākonga; a $3 million fund to support Pacific learners; and a $1 million fund to support students with high to moderate learning needs. This is in addition to almost $3.5 million of extra funding for proven and effective existing programmes to improve attendance and re-engagement in schools.

Camilla Belich: What mental health and wellbeing support has been allocated for students?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Part of the $15 million included $1.5 million for counselling through schools in Auckland. So far, the first round of allocation has resulted in 202 applications being approved, with a further round opened for applications today. The Government has invested $75.8 million in nationwide counselling in school services that has resulted in a further 24,000 young people now having access to counselling support at school. We know that learners who are happy and healthy learn better. That is why over the last few years this Government has undertaken a range of work to support the wellbeing of learners, in order to ensure that our kids get the best start possible.

Question No. 11—Prime Minister

11. 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. I especially stand by the Government’s recent changes to managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) with a phased easing of border restrictions that sees the time spent in an MIQ facility halved for most overseas arrivals. Over 190,000 New Zealanders have returned home through MIQ since border restrictions were put in place last year, stopping cases at the border and allowing us to live life free of restrictions for the better part of 18 months. With most people returning now fully vaccinated, the risk profile of international arrivals has changed, so it is time to start changing our MIQ settings. The easing of MIQ requirements is part of the broader plan to reopen New Zealand safely and reconnect with the world.

David Seymour: Why does it make sense to make fully vaccinated, negative-tested arrivals go through any amount of MIQ, when Nick Wilson and Michael Baker say such a person poses less danger to a fellow Aucklander than someone currently in Auckland at Countdown; or are those two wrong?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m not sure that Michael Baker would feel that the member has accurately reflected his position—

David Seymour: Which part—which part?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —because, of course, that was—

David Seymour: Which part?

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —because his position was based on there being a permanent hard border around Auckland, which obviously is not something that we support, and I would assume that it wouldn’t be something that the member would support either. And so that was the basis on which that comment was made.

David Seymour: If Michael Baker and Nick Wilson are correct that such a person poses less of a threat than people already shopping at Countdown in Auckland, then how can it possibly be safe to allow people to leave Auckland as soon as 15 December but not to allow people to come to New Zealand without going through MIQ; is the Prime Minister seeing the logic problem here?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What the member is not taking into account is the position that experts such as Tony Blakely have continually reinforced, as have other modellers. The issue with, of course, the wider management of any outbreak is the management of the ongoing seeding of additional cases. And when you look overseas, you’ll see that there are other countries who continue to use border controls and requirements at their border to reduce the seeding of additional cases into the community. What we have already said is that, yes, we will continue to change our settings at the border in line with our new strategy. So we are currently trialling self-isolation, because the next stage for us will be to remove what has been one of the constraints on the system, which is our ability to manage a person’s isolation period through MIQ, because it has a natural cap on the number of people that can do that. By moving to self-isolation, you open up wider opportunities to bring more New Zealanders home. But if the member is arguing to remove those requirements entirely, then the member is actually arguing that all of New Zealand should have to live with a higher level of domestic restrictions as a result, because if the member chooses to look at Austria, the Netherlands, Ireland—even the UK are discussing additional restrictions—if you continue to seed cases, then you will continue to have to have additional restrictions domestically.

Hon Judith Collins: Will police powers to stop and request vaccine passports be restricted to people travelling in vehicles or will people be able to be stopped in the street once they reach their holiday destination?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course it makes sense to do it at the departure points, because that is the point at which you will be sure that it’s an Aucklander travelling. This is not about general checks in the community where someone could have come from anywhere. It makes sense to police it at the point of departure. What I would throw back to the member is that if she is suggesting that we should have nothing and that we should simply remove everything and have no requirement, then that is up to the National Party. But I seriously believe that most members from outside of Auckland will come from constituencies where there will be concerns that there should be checks in place in the areas where we, till now, have had a hard boundary.

Hon Judith Collins: So is the Prime Minister seriously saying, after this announcement, that she’s still going to have people being stopped at a border between Auckland and Waikato and having their papers checked—is that what she’s really saying—for Christmas?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. On the previous supplementary, I waited for the second one from the Leader of the Opposition, but I was very interested in the question of will the police powers allow police to stop people walking around in their destination. Now, the Prime Minister said that she thought it would be more prudent or efficient to use them at the point of departure, but that is a very important question—what will these police powers allow—and I don’t believe that was addressed.

SPEAKER: Yes, and if the member had taken a point of order at the right point, which was immediately, I would have allowed it. He, of course, has supplementaries himself which he can choose to use.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement that details of the whole country moving to the traffic light system will be announced on 29 November, and if she does stand by it, what details other than the date of the shift and the traffic light colour for each region remain to be announced?

Hon Chris Hipkins: That’s pretty much it.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Some of the additional information that regions will be interested in are, for instance, the kind of criteria that we’ll be considering in the future for movement up or down that system. Now, it will be different than what we’ve done for the alert level system in the past, because you will be able to project into the future, based on what you’re seeing with cases, potential pressure on our hospital systems—and so making sure that we have that extra detail provided to those local communities. But ultimately, of course, the most important information people will be seeking is “At what point will we be coming in?” That’s, by and large, going to be determined by vaccination level. We need to use the most up-to-date data, and we’ll be doing that on 29 November.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement heckled by her Minister for COVID-19 Response about a minute ago, in response to my question of is there anything to announce other than the date of the shift and the colour of the traffic light in each region, “That’s about it.”, and if she does agree with his statement, what exactly are we waiting for and why can’t she just say right now that on 1 December the country will move to the traffic light system and that the colour of the traffic light system in each region will depend on vaccination rates in that place?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I said in the press conference, actually, for most parts of the country, where they’ll be moving into the system is material, and that decision will be based on the most up-to-date vaccination information. If the member can see that in the space of three months, we can move from 20 percent to levels as high as over 80 percent in vaccination levels, then we should give the opportunity for regions—now that they know how material their level of vaccination is to their next steps in their settings, we should allow them to continue to vaccinate and make decisions based on that information in a couple of weeks’ time.

David Seymour: Will the police have the power to stop people walking around the streets and check their vaccination status, and perhaps send them home if they’re in the wrong place?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is not the intention. Of course, the order is around the departure from Auckland to other parts of the country. If the member is suggesting that the police would choose to enforce that by randomly walking the streets of other parts of the country, then that is simply quite bizarre.

Question No. 12—Transport

12. GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Transport: What announcement has he made about rail upgrades in Wellington?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Earlier this week, I was very pleased to announce that the first stage of our Wellington rail upgrade package has been completed. Double tracking of the 2.7 kilometre rail line between Trentham and Upper Hutt is finished, after two years’ work. Other upgrades completed include a freight loop at Upper Hutt, new platforms and shelters at both Trentham and Wallaceville stations, improved parking facilities, and level crossing safety upgrades.

Greg O’Connor: How will this benefit commuters from the Hutt?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: By having two tracks between Trentham and Upper Hutt, we’ve cleared a bottleneck where commuter services and freight trains sometimes got in each other’s way, making services more reliable. The new underpass at Trentham station also provides a safe way for commuters and locals to get across the rail corridor—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Can I say, there’s at least one member in the House who’s quite interested in this.

Hon Member: Chris Bishop?

SPEAKER: No, someone who regularly catches the train, all right?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, the new underpass at Trentham station also provides a safe way for commuters and locals to get across the rail corridor. Double tracking this section of line has been talked about since the 1950s. This Government has got on with the job and delivered it for the people of Upper Hutt.

Greg O’Connor: What other upgrades to Wellington’s regional rail network are under way?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Our Government is investing around $600 million in Wellington’s regional rail network, which is supporting the region’s economic recovery. It will make rail an even better option for Wellingtonians. Upgrades to the Wairarapa line, Plimmerton station, and the Capital Connection are all coming down the track. I want to specifically highlight the work on the Wairarapa line, which might have had to close without these investments. That was unacceptable to our Government. We’re contributing to revitalising rail after years of managed decline, and it’s very important because rail contributes over $2.1 billion of value to our economy every year.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, what a summer of chaos there is ahead for New Zealanders—not only Aucklanders, but New Zealanders. We’ve heard today from the Prime Minister that in two weeks’ time, Cabinet is going to make a decision, and she told us today what the decision was—that we’re going to move to some sort of traffic light system because she’s, basically, abandoned the 90 percent double-vaccination target that has lasted all of, I think, three weeks under this Government. We’ve had four plans in two months from this Government, and every one of them has ended in failure.

Today, we had the Prime Minister unsure as to whether or not 12-year-olds could be stopped and asked for their photo ID when they wanted to cross with their families through into, say, the Waikato, from Auckland to the Waikato or back again. We’re going to have police—no, apparently it’s not the intention that police will be able to stop people in their holiday destination on the street to check whether or not they’ve been double-vaccinated or they have their negative COVID test. What sort of country is this, when a Government fails so utterly miserably, when it comes to getting a vaccination roll-out where only 20 percent of New Zealanders were double-vaccinated when the first week of this lockdown started? And now it’s New Zealanders’ fault. Actually, it’s Aucklanders’ fault, under this Government.

The Prime Minister has been in Auckland once in three months for one day—two visits; two staged, managed visits. She’s never been to see the hospitality sector that’s on its knees. She’s never gone to tell them why her Government has failed and to apologise.

And while she’s talking about business, let’s talk about managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ). What an utter disgrace that a million New Zealanders are no longer part of our team. It shouldn’t just be the team of 5 million; it should be the team of 6 million Kiwis, the people who are the forgotten Kiwis that this Government can’t be bothered with.

For Christmas this year, around just about every table, there’ll be an empty seat, and that empty seat will be the Kiwi family member who can’t get home. They’re not allowed to come home. They’re not allowed to come home because they’re double-vaccinated, they don’t have COVID, and yet we have double-vaccinated gang members—not double-vaccinated gang members; actually, COVID-positive gang members in the community who are supposed to be self-isolating.

Today, I want to deal with a very, very serious issue, and that is about what’s happening in South Auckland hospice—Totara Hospice. I say this for this reason: they can’t survive now, when a Government has locked everyone down. They have to visit families in their homes to visit dying people with cancer, and sometimes with COVID and cancer. They’re getting nothing from this Government for that. And in that, they’re saying to me, self-isolating people, with 18 people in a three-bedroom home in a garage—that’s what self-isolation in South Auckland means, under this Government, where people don’t have anywhere suitable to self-isolate; that’s what MIQ should be used for.

Instead, we’ve got people going into homes like that and dealing with that situation. This Government—you know what they’ve given to the South Auckland hospice? Twenty-one thousand dollars—that’s it. That’s their resurge payment; that’s what they get. They could close because this Government can’t organise anything. It calls an announcement a plan. Its announcements are nothing more than PR spin, and today we heard an appalling situation where the Prime Minister couldn’t answer the most basic questions about what her new rules actually mean.

So Aucklanders are going to be—we’ve been concerned, obviously. Many New Zealanders have been concerned about, you know, different classes of citizen. There’s going to be two, all right; it’ll be Aucklanders and everyone else, and the Aucklanders are going to be the people who have to carry their pass. I’m not quite sure how it is that we’re going to have people saying, “I’m not really an Aucklander; I’m really from”—I don’t know—“Wellington.” I know that that might suit the Prime Minister, but there’s an awful lot of us who still actually care about our electorates. I think it’s really important that we understand there’s no plan from these people. We’ve got the plan. And the only message I would say to every New Zealander to keep absolutely clear in their mind: we need a new Government, and the only way to change the Government is National. Thank you very much.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): I quite enjoyed watching the death throes of the Leader of the Opposition. I look forward to seeing Simon Bridge’s contribution early next year, and I congratulate him in advance.

As I walked down from my office today, I was handed a newspaper article describing the Māori Party’s COVID plan. Now, let me just say that it’s full of contradictions, it’s full of double-speak, and it’s full of talking out both sides of their mouth. They say that they want to protect Māori and yet they do everything they can to undermine any initiative that’s put in place to encourage Māori to take up the vaccine. Everybody knows that there’s a global pandemic. Everybody knows that the right thing to do is to get vaccinated. We on this side of the House won’t give up on our people, but, obviously, the Māori Party have. Clearly, they lack the fortitude to be straight up with our people and say, “Get vaccinated.” It’s a lot easier for the Māori Party to say, “Don’t worry about getting vaccinated, because we’re here just to criticise and blame the Government on your behalf.”

So let me just look at some of the points that the Māori Party have raised in this article. First of all, they want to shut down New Zealand until Māori vaccination rates hit 95 percent. I say, fair enough—if that’s their goal, 95 percent, good on them, but then again, like I say, they’ve done all they can to undermine the initiatives that have been put in place to increase Māori vaccination uptake, such as the vaccine mandate. The vaccine mandate applies to about 40 percent of our workforce. If the Māori Party didn’t realise, actually Māori are part of our workforce and they also engage with Māori as they engage with the workers. But, of course, the Māori Party don’t want to adopt the vaccine mandate, except—and here’s one of the contradictions—for front-line hospitals and medical clinics.

I say to the Māori Party, what about prison officers? Corrections officers are over 97 percent vaccinated. The front-line corrections officers are 97 percent vaccinated. That’s so that we don’t have Māori in prison dying from COVID—because we know that COVID comes in, and it’s most likely to come in on unvaccinated workers. And here was Rawiri Waititi earlier this year riding into Waikeria on his kunekune saying, “Oh, this is terrible. The people in Waikeria Prison are being mistreated because they can’t change their linen every couple of days.” He’ll stand on his soapbox and worry about prisoners being able to change their linen every couple of days but he won’t stand up and say that vaccine mandates are appropriate in prisons so that we don’t have Māori dying in prison. That is a contradiction from the Māori Party.

Then we talked about the schools and teachers. Now, if any teacher—and I’m speaking as a former teacher, a former principal, and as the Minister for Children—believes that their rights override their obligations and responsibilities to keep children well and alive, then I say, “Haere rā, teachers. I don’t want you in our schools if you put your rights above your obligations and responsibilities to children. Haere rā.” Children do not have the option of getting vaccinated at this stage. The most important part of a teacher’s role and responsibility is to look after the wellbeing of our children. Teachers have to mitigate risks if they take the kids swimming, if they go on a school trip, if they walk their kids down the road to a sports day. They have to mitigate risks. They have to fill out a risk analysis matrix, but the Māori Party don’t think that teachers should have to get vaccinated to protect the children. I think of all those tamariki in the kura kaupapa, close to 100 percent Māori—and they don’t think that those Māori teachers have a responsibility to our Māori children. That is a disgrace on behalf of the Māori Party. They say that the Government has failed Māori. Well, I ask them to look at their own leadership and former leadership in the Māori Party, invoking rangatiratanga and mana motuhake to justify not getting vaccinated. Let me say that a rangatira was somebody who looked after the best interests of the whole hapū, and if you’re going to have individuals in the former leadership of the Māori Party standing up and saying they’re invoking rangatiratanga, just to look after themselves, I say again: that person is not a rangatira.

The Māori Party legitimises and are apologists for the anti-vaxxers; the Google doctors; the Facebook experts; the conspiracy theorists; the right-wing crazies who marched along with their Trump flags right next to the flag of rangatiratanga, the Māori flag, the flag of He Whakaputanga.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): It is very good to be back here, can I say. Three days in this House out of the last 14 weeks living the life in Auckland alongside every other Aucklander. Can I acknowledge everyone in this House that has held down the fort for those of us that haven’t been able to be here and undertake the duties that we usually would. On TV, just like the rest of New Zealand, we have watched our Ministers stand up and front the media and the public every day, and I meant to say how much I respect the job that they’ve done. I’m also acknowledging, even for those Ministers like myself who have been away, people like Jan Tinetti, who have covered, and covered so ably. Thank you to all of you and to all of our officials.

The one benefit of being in Auckland over the last 14 weeks and engaging with Parliament in question time is that when you’re at home you can put it on mute or you can turn it off. Listening to Judith Collins in the House today was one of those moments where I wished I was at home so I could put it on mute.

Another time where I felt that way this week was yesterday, when I was in the House listening to Chris Bishop “Wellisplain” the Aucklanders’ experience for the rest of us, criticising the Prime Minister, saying that she didn’t go and visit real Aucklanders when she was in Auckland—him referring to “real Aucklanders” as those that own businesses on Ponsonby Road and live in Takapuna. They are real people and real Aucklanders, but I don’t think that negates the fact that the West Aucklanders and the South Aucklanders, the health provider and the social services, the business in Avondale and the Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA) and the Mayor of Auckland also are Aucklanders, or there are businesses involved in the EMA that are Auckland businesses. So the criticism from “Wellisplaining” Chris Bishop yesterday was a little bit hard to bear, and I really do wish that I could have put him on mute at that time.

The reality is that as an Aucklander, and as Aucklanders, we all had very different experiences of the last 14 weeks. As a Labour Party MP and Minister, I saw closely, with my ministerial hat, the implications and the impacts on social services, health services, arts organisations, artists, disabled people, and disability organisations. But every day, when I’d go out and about on my walk, or I might pop into the supermarket or the dairy, or I might even talk to friends, I’d get a taste and an insight into the other Aucklanders’ experiences. So it is important to note that, although we are Aucklanders, we all had different experiences of the lockdown. One thing I think we share is that it hasn’t been easy: 14 weeks without that freedom to move that we are so used to having is tough. The other thing that we share is that we all want to know that we, our families, and our communities are safe. And, at the same time, we are all thirsting for some semblance of normality that we have been denied over the last 14 weeks, not because of the Government but because of this pandemic that we have had to endure.

So I’m relieved—I’m sure alongside a number of Aucklanders—that recent announcements show that we are moving back toward some semblance of normality. I look forward to the fact that tomorrow my eight-year-old can go to school, because, quite frankly, 14 weeks at home with him has not been easy. I look forward to the fact that after 29 November, not long after, we will be moving towards that traffic-light system. That is a major step forward. And I look forward to the fact, like many other Aucklanders, that on 15 December, we will have the option of being able to reconnect with our whānau and friends that we have been cut off from for 14 weeks.

Lots of people have done it hard over this time, much harder than me, they have lost loved ones, they have not been able to be at the bedside of loved ones who have been sick; there has been a lot that has happened for Aucklanders during this time. The message that I want to leave in this House today is that all of New Zealand should be grateful to Aucklanders for what they have done for the rest of New Zealand over the last 14 weeks, and I certainly am.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I wish to commence my comments today by noting and acknowledging this discovery today at the Pike River mine of video evidence of bodies in the mine. I am sure that the thoughts and prayers of all members of this House go to the families who continue to deal with this tragedy 11 years after the explosion first occurred.

But today I primarily want to pay a tribute to the people and the communities of Auckland, who have displayed incredible resilience and have come together in an extraordinary way over the last 14 weeks to combat COVID-19, to keep fellow Aucklanders safe, and to try and move forward together in the most trying of circumstances. I think of the community event in my electorate of Mt Roskill three weeks ago, where our Pacific community, across faith leaders, school leaders, and community leaders, came together to vaccinate nearly 300 people at our local Wesley community centre—people who may have been hard to reach, people who may have been subject to misinformation, people who needed help and support and advice to get in there and to be safe from COVID-19. Our community came together and did that.

I think of our leaders from our Christ the King Catholic church on Richardson Road in my electorate who worked with local business leaders to encourage the community to come in for a vaccination event last week, who provided support, who provided incentives, and who reached out in the very best traditions of the Christian faith to keep communities safe, as opposed to some of the misinformation and self-aggrandisement that we see from extreme fringes of the fundamentalist movements within the church communities.

I think of the businesses across Auckland, like the large transport operator who contacted me two weeks ago to say, “Can you help link me up to our health services, because we’ve got workers here that we know we can get vaccinated if we get an on-site vaccination service.” Our health workers came together with that business to make that happen.

I want to pay tribute to those health workers who have worked around the clock every single day in Auckland, who have given and given and given to keep their fellow citizens of Tāmaki-makau-rau safe during this public health crisis. Those people are heroes.

Most of all, I want to thank the 1.7 million members of my city who have just displayed extraordinary fortitude. It has been tough mentally, it has been tough emotionally, and tough spiritually, but the people of Auckland haven’t let the knockers, haven’t let the purveyors of misinformation, get to them. They’ve got on with the job, they’ve rolled up their sleeves, and over 90 percent of Aucklanders have now got their first vaccination, and we are on our way to that 90 percent double-dose target. People in Auckland, the businesses of Auckland, are getting ready to transition to the new framework. The workers of Auckland are getting ready for it as well.

Despite some of the noise we hear from the other side of the House and the conspiracy theorists, people back this Government’s tough decisions to make sure that we keep people in our health system and our education system safe by requiring vaccine where it’s needed to keep our vulnerable communities safe from COVID-19. Being in Government and providing good leadership at a time of crisis is not about making the easy decisions that keep everyone happy all of the time. It is very often about making the tough decisions, about dealing with the difficult conflicts between individual and collective rights, about dealing with the needs of different sectors, about dealing with complex social and economic trade-offs. That is what this Government, under Jacinda Ardern, has been doing week in and week out for nearly two years now, and that has come to the fore at the time of COVID Delta.

The final comment I want to make is that alongside that extraordinary work from the people of Auckland, a very tiny but very vocal minority—with outsized coverage, might I add—have continued to spread misinformation and have continued to undermine the work of our team of 1.7 million and our team of 5 million. I think it was an extraordinary abrogation of leadership from the Leader of the Opposition two weeks ago to excuse and justify the illegal gatherings—the illegal gatherings—brought together by Brian Tāmaki, that false prophet, that were illegal and that were unsafe and that will likely result in people getting COVID-19. I thought it was extraordinary this week as well when, in the wake of that member’s former colleague Matt King continuing to spread disinformation about the vaccine, continuing to discourage social distancing and other public health measures, the comment of the Leader of the Opposition was that he is a “lovely guy”.

New Zealanders and the members of the city of Auckland can wake up every morning safe in the knowledge that we actually have a leader in Jacinda Ardern and a Government that will make the tough decisions to keep Kiwis safe, and that might be why the death rate from COVID-19 in New Zealand is less than 10 percent of that in Australia and amongst the lowest in the world.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to talk today about housing. Now, housing is an issue that I hear of no matter where ACT goes in New Zealand—I have to put an asterisk there and say “before this latest lockdown”, of course. But even today I have had people reach out to me on social media saying they cannot see a future for themselves in this country because house prices are increasing at such a large rate. And there is one person that comes to mind when I think of housing, and it was when I was down in the South Island. This is not somebody who is trying to get a million-dollar home in Auckland, this is somebody who lives in Ōāmaru, a 30-year-old man, a skilled tradesperson who says, “I cannot see a future for myself in this country and maybe I should go overseas.” That’s because house prices are rising so fast that people are having to put aside more money than they can even save each week.

There are nurses, builders, skilled tradespeople, who are all saying, “Maybe there is a better future for me somewhere else.” It is unmotivating. Somebody budgeting every single week has to ask the question “Why bother if it just feels so out of reach?” Why would you even strive and ask for a promotion if you know that it’s just going to be a drop in the bucket? We need to get the rules right so that people have a future in New Zealand. National and Labour have failed on housing. It’s fair to say both parties have failed on housing. Neither of them have credibility on this issue at all. Now, surprisingly, they both say that they have a solution that they’ve worked on together. It’s called a bipartisan bill. It’s cynical, and it’s so that they can stop attacking each other across this Chamber rather than actually putting in place rules that would help New Zealand. It’s safe for them, but it’s not good for New Zealanders.

The first issue I have with this is the secrecy of the process that it went through. Nobody was consulted before it was radically announced, but people who work in this area—the councils, the planning experts, the builders and developers, none of them were consulted. And now we’re going to see it rushed through before Christmas, when they don’t even have enough time to look in great detail about what this will mean for the future. There is no reason to change our planning rules and chuck them out overnight because National and Labour both want to kick this for touch.

So what is this actual bill? The Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill would allow for three-storey homes in any section in the largest five cities in New Zealand, with almost no exceptions. It creates a new zone called the medium density residential standard, or the MDRS. Now, the Government’s commissioned report said that because the Auckland Unitary Plan put in place a new zone and then we saw more houses being built, therefore, if they put in place this new radical zone, more homes will be built. It is more radical than what the Auckland Unitary Plan does, and ACT opposes that. We oppose the fact that there could be more homes built under an already existing zone: the mixed housing suburban zone. That’s something that’s already in place, everybody knows what it is, and it would allow for more houses. It would also stop the unnecessary divisiveness of this Government for what they want to achieve.

ACT is glad that the Government has acknowledged that this is a housing supply issue, but we’ve talked to councils and developers, and they say that it won’t work, it won’t deliver the more homes that this generation has been promised. And that’s a shame. There is a real lack of supply, but we’ve got to get the incentives right. The biggest barrier to growth is the cost of infrastructure. ACT has a solution to allow for more infrastructure. It’s our GST sharing scheme that would allow half of the GST to go to the local council that issues the consent for every new home that’s being built. That is the incentive. It is a positive solution for New Zealand, rather than dividing people and putting in place unnecessarily radical changes overnight in this country. The National and Labour Party working together won’t solve the housing shortage in New Zealand. We need to fund infrastructure.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Courts): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. I think it is an understatement of the year when we say that New Zealanders have been doing it tough. Yes, Auckland has been doing it tough, and I particularly want to acknowledge South Auckland, because that’s the battleground, the main border. But I also think it’s important for us to acknowledge that New Zealanders outside of Auckland have been doing it tough, especially those who have not yet experienced community transmission and have wondered why we are still in lockdown levels.

I think lockdown levels have served us really, really well. It’s taught us about social distancing, mask wearing, washing of hands. It’s taught us about COVID testing. We’ve even begun to use Zoom all over the place—TikTok dancing, the sharing of baking menus. We’ve seen all of this. Sadly, the other side of doing it tough: funerals, birthdays. Those celebrations are no longer the same. Even coming into this place is a bit weird after being away for several months. So the other side of it is mental health, stress, job insecurity, the uncertainty of the future, and certainly business closures. All of that means that we, as a team of 5 million, have been doing it tough. But I think we need to now draw a line and recognise that, when we compare our situation with the rest of the world, we’re pretty blessed. I’ve often wondered why we didn’t see more deaths in Auckland, but that was because our health system was able to cope, compared to if you look to Fiji, look to French Polynesia, or look to across the Ditch, in Australia—192,000 cumulative cases in Australia, 1,898 deaths. In Victoria alone, they had over 106,000 cases and 1,239 deaths. For us, we’re very blessed, we’re very lucky.

The announcement today—and I know everybody in Auckland, everybody, is wanting to get out of this lockdown, and I know, as I’ve been talking to our providers and our church leaders in our community, they’re looking forward to Christmas. So here’s the plan. For Christmas, it was always planned that we now need to lift our vaccination rates. I want to acknowledge the majority of New Zealanders. I’m really pleased. For Pacific peoples in the Hawke’s Bay, Bay of Plenty, and Nelson, they’ve achieved 90 percent - plus of fully vaccinated—a small population, and they’ve managed to also include the Recognised Seasonal Employer workers. I’m also pleased that for Pacific Peoples generally, while it’s been challenging, and particularly in smaller places outside of Auckland, we’re now at 88 percent first dose. So the momentum is going to carry us through.

On 29 November, I think Aucklanders are looking forward to moving into the new framework, the COVID-19 Protection Framework, red zone. That’s going to give us a lot of confidence as we head into the big family gatherings. I want to be able to be with my siblings, my older children, nieces and nephews, and our dad, who is bored at home and has found YouTube to be something that keeps his sanity. And so that’s the plan. On 29 November, we will all shift into this new framework. It’s important that we stay on course and quicken our pace to achieve high vaccination for everybody, and so I’m really pleased. But the one thing, as you look to Singapore, the UK, other places, is vaccines will reduce the potential for people to get sick, the potential to get hospitalised, but we’ve also got to maintain mask wearing. That’s what the clinicians are telling us. Social distancing, the washing of hands, regular testing—all of these things combined will hopefully ensure that we have pleasant and wonderful Christmas gatherings where we can celebrate with all of our families and have the confidence that we’re going to be OK.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is great to be back, having been locked up in Auckland for three months is no joy, I can actually tell you. But it seems coming back to Wellington is rather different, where the bureaucracy and the Ministers actually bicker over their double soy lattes at Lambton Quay and actually talk about getting their avocado on toast at lunchtime, while Auckland hospos—as in people who work in hospitality—and businesses are collapsing and they’re struggling and worrying how they’re going to pay their rent.

It seems the reason why we have these kinds of confusion is that even the Minister doesn’t know when we’re actually transitioning into the traffic light system. I absolutely love and adore Aupito William Sio, he is a great man, a kind man, and a gentle soul—and he’s a friend. But he is confused as well—or did he just contradict the Prime Minister by saying that we’re moving to the traffic light system on 29 November? As far as I know, the Prime Minister made the announcement today that they were going to make an announcement on the 29th about the announcement. So even the Ministers don’t know.

Another thing that the Ministers seem to be confused—not Aupito, but Hon Chris Hipkins, Hon Robertson, and the Prime Minister seem to disagree on whether or not we will actually transition out of Auckland. We’re going to get some slots—like a time-share holiday outside of Auckland, almost.

When the announcement is actually made—regarding when Aucklanders can actually open, in terms of hospitality businesses—they need more than a day. Because when Auckland—when the whole of New Zealand went into lockdown on 17 August, I was travelling through, doing a regional visit, and I was travelling back to Auckland. It was late in the afternoon when the announcement was made, but we went into lockdown that night. Not in a couple of days like we did last year when COVID first hit. It actually gave time, last year, for people to prepare for the actual lockdown.

But this time round, we didn’t get that kind of lead-in. There were many businesses, including an ethnic florist—a Chinese lady—who was devastated that she was stuck with $70,000 worth of flowers that were due to be shipped out the next morning. By the time the Government announcement was made, she could not make any kind of arrangements because all of the couriers that she could use were closed. She lost $70,000 worth of stock that she could not resell—flowers. Does the Government compensate her? No. It’s the damage that she’s going to have to wear, as a business person.

Same thing with hospitality business. They need lead-in time. So when the Government decided they’re going to make announcement on 29 November, it could potentially mean that we’re going to reopen on 1 December. Hospos need more time. They need to ring the suppliers, get the supplies in, they need to prep their menus or whatever, and they actually need at least a week—usually about two weeks—lead-in time for them to properly open, get their staff ready, and actually get going. It is that time that is required. Does the Government actually know that? When the Ministers actually talk about “Oh, Aucklanders should be grateful”, this is so how much they are out of touch with business people. They have never run a business so they have no idea how businesses actually suffer.

I’d like to also thank the communities in Auckland—the ethnic communities. You know, many of them, who actually have family overseas, they are duty-bound to attend their parents’ funerals. But because they can’t even get managed isolation and quarantine slots, they can’t come into New Zealand. Or reverse—when their parents actually pass away overseas, they can’t go or they could go but they don’t know when they’re going to return to New Zealand to their normal life. So they actually fail in their filial duties, and that is such a terrible state. I have talked to many constituents in the ethnic communities who are devastated, not only because of that, but because their businesses are collapsing around them. They have saved for their entire life to run a business.

I’d also like to thank the churches, the temples, the mosque, the ethnic communities that have supported their community throughout the lockdown, where they have actually supplied with food baskets, food parcels, and welfare checks. I’d like to thank all the communities who have actually stepped up when the Government did not.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before I move to the main substance of my speech, I’d like to just say that I’m bemused that the most recent speaker was advocating for an even later date for hospitality to reopen. Perhaps she could front up with that with her businesses. I’d also like to comment that, to my knowledge, I’ve never seen anyone other than David Seymour or Brooke van Velden give a general debate speech from the ACT Party. Do they not trust the other members of their team?

However, having said that, I would like to talk about what it has been like in Auckland and the work that Aucklanders have done. People have asked me, “What is it like up there?” And to me, there’s been just one word for it: it has been dreary. Dreary has been a good word. It’s been hard going. Now, for many people it’s been incredibly tough because of the need to support their families and themselves. But ordinarily, even in tough times, it is possible to see friends, it is possible to go out easily, perhaps you might have a treat of a meal out, perhaps it’s even just going to the beach with someone you haven’t seen for a while. But we haven’t been able to do even that, and hence the dreariness.

But in amongst that dreariness, Auckland has been doing the mahi, has been doing the work. People have been going out and getting vaccinated. I’m proud of the rates in my electorate of New Lynn: 94 percent first dose, 87 percent second dose. That’s a great effort from the area I come from. I’m proud of the work that I’ve been able to do with some of our other elected representatives, getting pop-up clinics into areas which are under-vaccinated. So about three weeks ago, four weeks ago, when I was crunching some of the data. We knew that vaccination rates were low in Waitakere village, low in Huia and in Pīhā, low in Glenavon. So with the help of Dr Anthony Jordan and Harshna Mistry from the district health boards (DHBs) and with fellow local representatives Greg Presland, Shane Henderson, Kay Thomas, Saffron Toms, and a local in Huia, Fleur Gray, we arranged to get pop-up clinics out so that we could try to get those vaccination rates up. It was a real example of working with people to get the vaccinations done. I’m very grateful to those people for their work.

The rates are actually still a bit low in Huia and Pīhā and Kerikeri, so I’ll be making a bit of a push there. But Glenavon, which has the lowest decile school in my electorate, 91 percent vaccinated. It’s been a great effort there; I’m really delighted to see it.

Across the three DHBs in Auckland: Counties Manukau, 91.2 percent vaccinated—first vax; Waitematā, 92.8 percent have received their first vaccination; Auckland DHB, 95.4 percent of people have received their first vaccination. It’s a huge effort, and my huge thanks to the teams that have made that happen—particularly up in my rauhī, the Waipareira Trust, which has done an amazing job.

I have been talking to people who don’t want to get vaccinated for all sorts of reasons, and often it is very hard to understand why. But all I can say to those people is to talk to their doctor—not to Dr Facebook, not to Dr TikTok, not to Dr YouTube, but to their medical doctor—to ask them to check their sources of information, to be really careful about where they’re getting their information from, and to look at the evidence. And the evidence is absolutely clear: it is far safer getting the vaccine—far, far safer—than getting COVID. COVID is disastrous.

For the rest of us who’ve been vaccinated already, I want people to get their booster shots when they come due and to get their vaccination certificates. For those of us who find it easy to navigate the digital world to help other people to get their vaccination certificates so that people are free to move this summer.

Auckland has been doing the mahi. The whole country has been doing the mahi, but now, as an Aucklander, I am asking the rest of the country to step up too and to get those vaccinations up. It’s happening well in the big cities, but we need more work going on in rural areas—and I know that our health people are working incredibly hard.

One other thing: I would like the other side to acknowledge that the solutions on this side of the House have been the right solutions. There have been very few deaths in this country, and the economy is thriving. We’re doing well.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today marks the first day that large parts of the Waikato have returned to alert level 2, and the border freedoms, in particular, are a welcome relief. It’s also my first opportunity to speak back in this House after the weeks of lockdown, and it’s important that I do, to share the story of what’s happened in the Waikato, because the Prime Minister has not bothered to come and visit our region. Ministers have not bothered to come and visit our region to understand how difficult it has been. The alert level 3 restrictions have been incredibly difficult for businesses in our region, for families in our region, and for our communities.

It should not have been like this. It should not have been this hard. The Government had 18 months to prepare, to come up with solutions, and they squandered it, and, unfortunately, Waikato residents have been let down by this Government’s lack of planning for the vaccination roll-out or for preparing for any range of different scenarios that might have happened, dealing with different alert levels across different regions—all those things hadn’t been prepared for. Waikato residents have been let down by this Government’s lack of understanding for the impact and the breadth of scenarios that could be presented, the complexities of everyday life and businesses.

Waikato residents have been let down by this Government’s lack of compassion. Every day, I have been on the phone and responding to emails of heartbreaking cases of business owners and family members desperate for some support and for some leniency from arbitrary rules, and yet there has been none. It is just cruel.

How much must be sacrificed? Of course we accept some. Kiwis are prepared to make a sacrifice for the greater good, but in return they expect a Government that will stand up and deliver when it’s needed. This Government has not done that for New Zealanders, and, for Waikato in particular, we have felt that pain over these many weeks now of lockdowns. Instead, the Government relied on the financial equity of businesses. They mined that. They relied on the community resilience, and they have weakened that. They relied on strong family support, and they have restricted that, as well.

Sadly for many, this is irrecoverable. Businesses have failed. Community groups have gone under. The impact will be long-lasting. But I know the Waikato is tough. If anyone can recover from some of these challenges, it will be us, and I have absolute faith in the residents of the Waikato.

To those in the Waikato, I would say that I’m sorry I haven’t been able to influence this Government more. I have heard your challenging stories. It has been incredibly difficult for you, and I wish I could have done more. But I am sorry also that this Government has let you down. Your businesses and your families should not have had to suffer like this. A bit more leniency, a bit more understanding, a bit more compassion—those are things that could easily have been managed, and it would have made such a difference for people all across the Waikato region.

To the Government: well, the damage is done. Reflect on that. Think about that. But the least you can do now is to actually give a little bit more certainty. Help out those businesses that are left. Those families, those community groups that remain—give them some certainty.

We still continue to hear rule changes every day. The Government are flip-flopping from one set of rules to another. It is simply not good enough. How can businesses plan for their future? How can they try to recover, to salvage something from this mess, if they still don’t know where the goalposts will be from one day to the next?

The Government must do better. Get rid of managed isolation and quarantine. Give residents in the Waikato the ability to control their future again. Give them the chance to salvage what they can, to try to recover as best they can, and to get on with life. How much more impact must there be from a Government that simply doesn’t understand and is not performing?

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Mr Speaker, tēnā koe. There’s an important social convention as old as time that’s unrecognised often in terms of its importance as part of our social contract. It’s the little nod to strangers as we pass them. It’s also how we ask our neighbours how they’re doing. It’s the acknowledgment of a person. It says, very simply, I see you. And in the unusual times we’ve been in, especially in Auckland, these small acknowledgments and the ability to see the broader community around us has taken on a much bigger meaning.

Our COVID response plan has always been to put people first, to make sure we have a health response where everyone’s acknowledged and seen, but to do that we also needed people. We needed New Zealanders to put people first, and they did. And that’s why we’ll soon be able to move to the new framework system. That’s why, in December, we will be able to open up a wee bit more so people can see their extended families.

I want to talk specifically about the experience of Auckland, like many of my colleagues, and Upper Harbour specifically. I’m really proud of the vaccination rates in Upper Harbour. Hobsonville Point has already reached the 90 percent fully vaccinated rate, putting it in the top 2 percent of suburbs in New Zealand. Greenhithe is also sitting above 90 percent for a first vax and in the high 90s for the second. In the recent data, Bayview West was only 92 doses away from being 90 percent fully vaxxed; Bayview East, 43 doses away from reaching 93 percent fully vaxxed; Bayview South, 45 doses away from reaching 90 percent fully vaxxed, and West Harbour, Clearwater Cove—117 doses away from reaching 90 percent fully vaccinated. We’re getting close. We can see that line, that 90 percent, coming up so closely.

Part of the reason we have such high vaccination rates has to go to those DHBs, those volunteers, but also those community organisations who’ve been doing so much out there to get our people vaccinated. And I have to mention here the extraordinary work of The Fono in West Auckland. Last week, the Prime Minister, Minister Sepuloni, and I visited The Fono on Westgate Drive. Tevita Funaki, Tapuai Fa’amalua Tipi, and The Fono team have demonstrated care but also agility in how they’ve responded to the challenge of vaccination. They have been providing a wraparound service, and in the 178 days between 11 May and 5 November, The Fono team administered 72,098 doses of the vaccine. Incredible.

It’s also the work of community organisations like Rachael Pates and the team at Bayview Community Centre, who contacted me to ask how they could help, what they could do. They hosted a vax bus at the Bayview Community Centre, which meant that people and their families could simply walk down and get vaccinated.

There’s no doubt that this has been an incredibly tough time for our Aucklanders, for Auckland whānau, but whenever I’ve spoken to Aucklanders, they share two things with me. Firstly, they talk about the fact that it feels different when there are community cases in your community, the risk feels closer, and especially when the vaccination rates have been low. They talk about concern for older members of the community, for kids going back to school, and for the immuno-compromised. What they describe to me has felt like a description of the proximity of the risk for them in Auckland—feeling quite, quite different.

There’s an understanding in Auckland among so many that while it’s hard, it’s worth it. And more than anything else, what I’ve felt, when I’ve been speaking to Aucklanders over these last several months, is there’s a deep sense of pride that we’re doing it for each other. Those little nods behind the masks, as we take our socially distanced walks, have such a significant and different meaning for us Aucklanders. Kia kaha.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. It’s me again. The struggle of power is the struggle of remembering against forgetting. And I was thinking about that phrase when, in the news again, the island of Banaba had appeared. The desalinisation machines that they have there to get their water sorted out had failed yet again, and I am hoping the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade will get in there and help them to get that up and running again. But it was also a reminder for me that climate change is the legacy of colonisation in the context of the Pacific. And I don’t mean that metaphorically and poetically, but you can be metaphorical and literal about it, I mean actually.

The great poet Teresia Teaiwa, who comes from the island of Banaba in Kiribati once said that “Agriculture is not in our blood but our blood is in agriculture.” From the perspective of indigenous peoples and, in particular, as I was remembering that piece of history and remembering the impacts of colonisation within the Pacific, like many indigenous peoples there are very close connections to the land. People reflect on that the blood and bones of their tūpuna are also embedded within the land as well.

Banaba was at one time a primary source for rock phosphate. Here’s a bit of a definition: rock phosphate is formed from bird droppings or animal droppings that have dried up and built up over a long period of time—talking millenniums here. And, of course, with the people there as well, the connections that they have with the environment informs their cultural practice. This, combined with sulphuric acid to make super-phosphate, was the main fertiliser used in New Zealand’s pastoral farms since the 1930s. From the early 1920s until the mid-1980s, phosphate was New Zealand’s main export from the Pacific.

It is connected with colonisation. And I’m reminded that it was the Pacific Phosphate Company which controlled the early phosphate trade in Nauru, Banaba, and also in the Makatea. And for me on a personal level, the issue is around the commodification of the environment. It is around how capitalism was the engine for colonisation, but it was also about the extraction of surplus labour of young Pacific Islanders who would go to mine that phosphate. And I know that on a personal level because my grandfather was sent to the Makatea Island—one of those islands—to mine phosphate at the age of 14. I’ve got a kid that’s 14 years old; that’s high school ages. So that’s just previously after World War One—the extraction of surplus labour from Pacific Islanders to mine phosphate to fuel the dairy boom here in Aotearoa New Zealand.

That ended in—and I have a few quotes here, sort of linked to the colonisation aspect of it. And this is from the words of the British civil servant and phosphate commissioner Arthur Grimble, who made this explicit in 1928 when presenting a mining agreement to the people of Buakonikai in Banaba: “If you do not sign the agreement, do you think your lands will not go? Do not be blind. Your lands will be compulsorily acquired [by] the Empire.” And this is backed up by the industrial agriculture New Zealand phosphate commissioner Albert Ellis when he said—and he clarified the process—that “there can be no civilisation without population, no population without food, and no food without phosphate.”

The legacy that we find ourselves in at the moment of climate change is that it was environmentally devastating for the people of Banaba and environmentally devastating for that island, as well. But what we have also seen here is the addiction to synthetics, the addiction of the agriculture sector to synthetics—I’m talking about synthetic fertiliser and the way that it exacerbates the intensification of dairy farming and all the run-off impacts of that in terms of climate change and impacts on the environment, as well. But the practice hasn’t finished, because phosphate mining ended in the Pacific in the 1980s, but it continued on in Western Sahara. So the same process which happened which used the labour of Pacific Islanders in the Pacific, devastated the island, has continued in the case of Western Sahara, and, actually, the indigenous peoples there have asked New Zealand to stop importing what they call “blood phosphate”. And that phosphate comes at a cost—comes at the cost of war and tension and conflict, as well.

We can look at more regenerative ways of doing things. We can look at organic and regenerative agricultural methods, because that is how we take up the challenge of colonisation and climate change in the Pacific.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s an honour to rise to take a call in this general debate, and like many of my other Auckland-based colleagues I will be speaking about Auckland / Tāmaki-makau-rau. It has been such a difficult time for so many in our biggest city. Much of the hard work of protecting New Zealanders has fallen to Aucklanders, and while this may not be like battles we have faced in the past, be in no doubt: it was a battle, and still is. We have stayed at home. We have cancelled so many plans. We have worn our masks. We have walked the same routes in our local areas again and again. But, most importantly, we have gotten vaccinated: over 90 percent first doses, and coming close to 90 percent second doses. This has been due to the hard, hard work of so many health and community workers, and they have my thanks.

We’ve been in lockdown before, of course, most notably in March last year. However, this time was longer and harder, and the weather was so much worse. Also, we had to come to terms with the difference that Delta has made and the move away from elimination, all while fighting the virus at our front doors. I want to acknowledge how hard that has been and that I, along with the MPs and the Ministers who are based in Auckland, have walked this road with Aucklanders. I also want to acknowledge that for those people who had additional struggles, who were already struggling within our community, who had to close businesses for prolonged periods of time—I acknowledge the huge difficulty for those people, and I offer my thanks for the huge sacrifice that they made to protect all New Zealanders.

But there is light and there is life on the horizon. Today, many primary, intermediate, and secondary school students return to school for the first time since mid-August—three long months ago. My eldest daughter is among them, those many thousands of students returning today—pink rainbow mask on, staggered pick-up and drop-off times, classroom doors open, and teachers vaccinated. Yes, school will look different, but many things will be the same. The care that the teachers have shown for their students will be the same. The work, and, indeed, the learning, has gone on despite the fact they haven’t been there in person. I worked it out and I estimated that my eldest child alone has had approximately 221 Zoom classes throughout lockdown. What an effort by her teachers. I would like to offer our collective thanks to all of those teachers for staying the course, for teaching in a different way, sometimes with childcare responsibilities of their own at the same time, and to thank all of those teachers who got vaccinated, because our children cannot be vaccinated yet. I offer my genuine thanks to those people. I’m so pleased that the Government has announced a $15 million package to help students re-engage in school after a significant lockdown. A significant part of that money has gone to the 405 schools who are in the greatest need in the Auckland area.

There is a proverb well known in English and te reo Māori: Mā ngā hua ka mōhio ai te rākau. [By its fruit, the tree is known.] The success of this Government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic can be seen in the results for New Zealanders. Unemployment has fallen to its lowest level on record, and there are a great many more people in work. There has also been a drop in the Māori and Pacific unemployment rates. Our work to support Māori and Pacific communities is working, and the finance Minister has achieved all of this by recognising the needs of business and workers. But I want to note before I end that the most important metric, of course, when we look at the success of our COVID19 response, has been that New Zealand has one of the lowest death rates and the lowest hospitalisation rates in the world. Of course, this is the most important thing when we look at our response.

So I, like other Aucklanders, am looking forward to the easing of restrictions announced today as our vaccination rate—not the virus—soars. I know the hardships that many have faced, but business can have confidence that they will be reopening in an environment of economic growth and serving customers that have jobs and more money in their pockets. These are the fruits of the Government’s action, driven by absolute dedication to protect New Zealanders.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Deputy Leader of the House): I move that the sitting of the House be extended into tomorrow morning for the consideration—

SPEAKER: The sitting of the House today. We’ll just get the wording right: the sitting of the House today.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes. I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the consideration in committee of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2), the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and the Commerce Amendment Bill; the first reading and referral to select committee of the Māori Purposes Bill; and the second readings of the Maritime Powers Bill and the Organic Products Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 16 November.

SPEAKER: I call Nicole—I’ve lost your surname.

Hon Members: McKee.

SPEAKER: Sorry—after knowing your husband for 50 years, I should know it better!

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Ha, ha! Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to rise on the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill. I’m going to begin by saying that I’m disappointed. I’m disappointed for the victims—for the victims of serious violent and sexual violence crime. I’m also disappointed in the way that the Minister introduced this bill to the House yesterday. The Minister of Justice, Kris Faafoi, began his speech by attacking the ACT Party. He got stuck into us for the way that we introduced this bill and got it through. He also attacked the National Party. He had no relevance whatsoever in his speech to three strikes. All he wanted to talk about was who wrote the bill, who moved the bill, who took over the bill, who put the bill through, and why they put it through. I was waiting to hear about victims—didn’t hear that. All I heard about was how it was unjust for certain criminals to have to go to jail and serve full time.

I was also disappointed in the way that the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence conducted her speech last night in the House, when she said that she had spoken to victims, that she had spoken to advocates—daily, I think she told us, she had done this—and she indicated that victims don’t want this law. She indicated that the victims knew that this law would not keep them safe. Yet the regulatory impact assessment (RIA) actually pointed out that no victims had been consulted at all, and what I’d like to make a statement about is that, when I left this House last night and got back to my office, I had a victim in contact with me who was in tears and said that she felt completely let down by the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence and said that she was actually hurt and felt ignored by the Minister. What was said to me was “How dare she say that we don’t want this? She is not speaking for me.” So that is disappointing, that the victims of the three strikes regime have not been talked to or consulted with in any way.

And why is this important? Well, it’s important because we need to bring, or should be bringing to the table, statistics on why we need to repeal this Act, and we’ve seen none. But what we can give is statistics for why we have to have this Act. One percent of all offenders in New Zealand are eligible under the three strikes regime, and that’s because there’s 40 qualifying offences which come under three strikes—not hundreds; 40. And those 40 relate to very serious violent crime or sexual violence crimes. It’s not a whole stack, but what we do have is 13,349 people sitting on a first strike. By the time they get to the second strike, we have 640 people. That’s quite a big difference. When we get to the third strike, we have 21 people currently sitting on their third strike. This is the worst of the worst of New Zealand’s criminals. These are not petty thieves. These are people who have found that rehabilitation, if they decide to take it, actually doesn’t work for them. And the stats show us exactly that.

Let me share some stories from some three strikes offenders. The first offender to be sentenced under three strikes carried out a vicious assault where he repeatedly punched, kicked, and struck a victim with a piece of wood. That’s strike one. After he was released from that sentence, he stalked and sexually assaulted a 17-year-old girl. That’s strike two. That’s someone’s daughter. That’s someone’s granddaughter. And, upon release, he stabbed someone in the leg. He would have received just two years and three months, but thanks to three strikes he got made to carry out the full sentence of seven years. And our streets were safer for it.

In another case, the first strike was a robbery. The offender approached a victim sitting in a carpark and demanded his car and his phone. When he refused, he forcibly dragged the victim out of the car and on to the road. Upon release, he carried out a similar offence, attacking a person after he refused to hand over money and their phone. And his third strike was again similar: when the victim refused to hand over money or their phone, they were thrown to the ground and had their head stamped on. That offender had 105 previous convictions. And thanks to three strikes, instead of getting 18 months, he got the maximum of five years, which many in New Zealand would say was well deserved. And, when we look at stats again, let’s look at the person with the highest conviction rate that is currently serving under three strikes—156 convictions, of which nine are for acts intended to cause injury. And the person with the fewest convictions—he has eight, but six of them are for sexual assault and related offences. I come back to this being the worst of the worst that we’re talking about, those that cannot be rehabilitated, and the Government has given them a very early Christmas present. And, in doing so, you’ve give victims a very early Christmas warning.

Victims have been ignored throughout this. There’s been no reports. There’s been no consultation. There’s been nothing in the RIA that says or points to the fact that three strikes doesn’t work. We will suggest, with the stats that I’ve just given, it does. And, further to that, rehabilitation is not the only way out of prison for people—doing their time under three strikes is one—and where rehabilitation can be afforded to those who want it, we want to help them with it. An ACT member, Toni Severin, has a bill in the ballot box that will address that. It’s about ensuring that those who are currently serving time undergo rehabilitation programmes, but those that don’t want to rehabilitate need to serve the time for their crime.

Where is this all going? This is going to a place where the Government is showing they’re soft on crime, soft on criminals. Legislation is more important to them than the victims of New Zealand society. There is no evidence to show that this regime needs to stop, and, in fact, we’ll go so far as to say it does work and it has worked, because there’s only 21, not 13,349, people that are currently serving full time.

This Government is not putting the victims at the centre of the justice system, and that’s very much what ACT intended to do when we put this bill through and it became an Act of law. And what we intend to carry on doing is making sure the victims, not the criminals, take centre stage within our justice system. I almost think Labour should change their name to the “Crim Cuddling Party”. We could abbreviate it to “CCP”, but I think they’re actually harder on crime than what the Labour Party are!

The worst of the worst in New Zealand society need to be held accountable for their crimes. If they don’t rehabilitate and they’re out there in society, they will create more victims. It is estimated that there will be 90 less people who were eligible for the three strikes regime in prison by 2025. That means there’s going to be more than 22 people each year, between now and 2025, that are on the streets committing serious violent or sexual violence crimes, and this Government is enabling that to happen. Victims deserve justice, and the ACT Party, along with the National Party, will want to ensure that justice is served for those who are at the other end of violent crime.

Three strikes is a success. Three strikes works. Three strikes keeps the worst of the worst where they should be: out of society and in another place, where they could learn, perhaps, to behave better. We oppose this bill.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise to take a call on this bill as an ex-prosecutor and as someone who’s spent most of my life advocating for victims within the criminal justice system and the family system. And I do actually see the appeal of this bill. It is easy, when faced with horrible things, to want to—

Hon Member: Lock people up.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: Lock people up. It is very, very easy to think, let’s throw away the key. It is very, very easy to think “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” It is very, very easy to think, “Let’s get vindictive, let’s do something knee-jerk, let’s do something hard because it makes us feel good.” Do you know how long it makes us feel good? About 30 seconds, because the problem is it doesn’t work. It would be fine, if this actually effected some change.

This is where I have real issue with the previous speaker, Nicole McKee, and also with the previous speakers last night. I do want to talk about this because I’m afraid there’s been a misreading of the data. The suggestion that this law makes a difference, were it true—for me—that would be the bottom line. If it actually effects change, let’s go with it. The problem is it doesn’t. Last night, Mr Mitchell was quoting from the evidence brief of 2018, which I have here with me, and I believe these are some of the figures that my colleague Ms McKee was also quoting. The nice thing about this is Mr Mitchell got as far as page 3, and at the top of page 3 he read out some stats about the different figures for who was at different levels of the stage one or stage two or stage three. And he said, “There it is. There’s the proof” I’m paraphrasing here, “There’s the proof. Explain to me how this isn’t working.”

If Mr Mitchell or my other colleagues across the House had read down another paragraph, they would have been able to spot this little gem: “Looking simply at changes in the rate of these three categories of offences since the New Zealand three strikes law came into effect we can see few changes that are easily attributable to the new law.” If they’d read on just a couple more paragraphs—I know there’s big words there, I know it’s difficult to deal with all this data, but if they’d read on just a few more paragraphs, they would have come to this little gem: “Convictions have proven to be”—wait for it—“stable.” Even increasing since the law was enacted, we’re talking since 2010—that was on you guys. Based on the data alone, there is no distinct indication that the three strikes legislation is deterring individuals from committing qualifying offences.

Now, let me break that down for my colleagues across the House. The translation out of academic speak is “meh”. Got that? Or, in other words, “It’s a waste of time.” It’s not just a waste of time, though; it’s actually causing problems. It is causing us money keeping prisoners in. It is preventing us putting them through rehabilitation, because until you’re eligible for parole, you can’t get rehabilitation. And it’s increasing court time because, as every good defence lawyer knows, if the sentence is high, the defendant is likely to contest it. At the same time, it is indiscriminate. It prevents judges from taking into account mental illness. It prevents them from correctly weighing simple things like where your strike three is; for example—and these are real examples—a pinch on the bum. Excuse my language, Madam Speaker, or possibly a kiss. These things do not merit the full weight of the sentence. Judges at the same time can still deal with the worst offenders just as they always have. I dislike knee-jerk reactions. I dislike simple, vindictive sugar hits. I came here to make a real difference, and for that reason, I commend this bill to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak on the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill. As the House will be aware, the National Party opposes this piece of legislation. “The policy implemented by the Bill is … [repealing] … the elements of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010 that collectively create what is [commonly] known as the three strikes law. … The Government’s objectives in repealing the law are to remove the mandatory sentencing requirements that result in”—what they say is—“excessive and disproportionate sentence outcomes by preventing Judges from taking the individual circumstances of the offender and the offending into account. … Repealing the three strikes law”—they say—“will revert the sentencing process for strike offences to standard sentencing practices by allowing the Judge to reach an appropriate outcome on a case-by-case basis.”, and that the “Bill expressly excludes any entitlement to compensation relating to the impacts of the three strikes law, and [there are] no transitional arrangements for those currently serving sentences of imprisonment for a strike offence”.

This bill, in a lot of ways, appears to be dealing with the contortions that the courts have been going through in trying to wrestle with three strikes, when the judges don’t entirely agree with the law as it has been written. I note that the recent Supreme Court case of Fitzgerald and the Queen wrestled with this exact issue. One of the judges was of the view that the language, scheme, and purpose of the three-strikes regime do not allow for the interpretation reached by the majority—i.e., that the law as written in section 86D(2) would not be subject to any exception. However, the majority of the Supreme Court were of the view that the appellant’s sentence of seven years’ imprisonment went well beyond excessive punishment and would shock the conscience of properly informed New Zealanders, and was therefore so disproportionately severe as to breach section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And therefore they held that section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act changed the interpretation of this section.

That’s interesting because the judges have made an interpretation of what they’re conscious of properly informed New Zealanders, but the National Party notes that the three-strikes law is popular amongst in New Zealanders, and in 2018, 68 percent of New Zealanders in a Sensible Sentencing Trust survey were in favour of the law. The National Party said that this demonstrates strong support for the law amongst the public. The same survey found that 78 percent of National voters were in favour of the law, 63 percent of Labour voters were in favour, and 48 percent of Green voters were in favour. Most recent data shows that second- and third-strike offenders only make up 1.35 percent of the total prison population, and that’s, obviously, a very small percentage of that population.

I can say, having worked both on the prosecution and the defence side of the bar, that there are some cases which are challenging. I’ve certainly seen some defendants come through who didn’t think about the consequences when they engaged in behaviours that engaged the three-strikes law. But equally, only last week, I was talking to a prison officer who gave me his experience and perspective of having worked in a prison, and he said that he’d seen, on many occasions, people who had their first or second strike not getting involved in a fight out in the prison yard because they were aware that if they did something that engaged the three-strikes law they would be in a heck of a lot of trouble, basically—they’d be spending a long time in prison. So that’s an example that this prison officer gave to me, saying that the three-strikes law can work and can make people actually reconsider their decisions, which is certainly what the intention of it was.

Certainly, judges do have a challenging role to play in sentencing, because they have to address deterrents—so offenders who are punished are less likely to offend, and that’s certainly the objective of it, and their punishment will also send a message to others who may think of offending in the same way and would deter them. There’s also the protection of the community. So the punishment would certainly, if someone’s in prison, make them rather difficult for them to reoffend unless it’s in the prison yard, but that prison officer has indicated that that would make at least some people reconsider their decisions. It also holds them to account for their behaviour. The other factor that judges must take into account is certainly rehabilitation. So if a crime occurs, the idea is to try to address the underlying causes of that, and that’s certainly something.

But this bill is one that is seeking to resolve a challenge and—

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

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): The three strikes law should be gone. It doesn’t work, it’s unfair, and we already have the systems in place to show fairness to victims. This law that we are proposing rectifies an aberration, a knee-jerk reaction from the National Party in 2010. It was an example of populist politics: pandering to the mainstream, looking for news headlines, locking people up and throwing away the key in a very simplistic way, and dividing the world up into criminals and victims.

It does not look at the causes of crime and the fairness, and whether this actually prevents crime from happening. I’m sorry, but I wouldn’t take the Sensible Sentencing Trust survey as evidence that this prevents crimes from happening. What this Act does do—the current Act that hasn’t yet been repealed—is it reinforces the biases that are already in the system. Who are most likely to get searched? Who are most likely to get arrested? It’s Māori. Who are more likely to have issues around access to justice? Māori. Who are more likely to end up in prison? Māori. So what this does, it reinforces the current biases in the system in a really simplistic way.

We already have ample systems in place to be able to sentence correctly, and that is for judges to do. There’s preventative detention, there’s public protection and extended supervision orders, minimum periods and maximum periods for imprisonment, and imposing maximum penalties. We’ve seen that with the RSA case. We’ve seen that with other cases. In summary, this law puts sentencing back to where it belongs: with judges, because sentencing is not for legislators. Judges should sentence. They do their important work with the context of the crime, the history of the offender, and impact reports. That is why we need three strikes out of this place and sentencing to go back to judges, where it belongs. I absolutely commend this bill to the House.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take what will only be a short call as we near the conclusion of this debate. It was interesting to listen, through the passionate speeches in the House last night, starting with that of the Minister of Justice, who I would like to commend for bringing this bill to the House. It is something that the Labour Party promised to do at the election and it is a pleasure to be standing here today to take the first steps in making that promise become a reality.

Why I want to stand this afternoon and add my short contribution is because what the evidence shows us is that, unfortunately, Māori, who are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system, are overrepresented in the statistics for this legislation, which you have heard wonderful speeches on this side of the House, talking about how it is so unfair, it is so unjust, it is so unnecessary; in fact, it is in contradiction to many of the principles of our justice system. The statistic that I wanted to highlight is that of the 23 offenders who have received a third strike, 81 percent were Māori. To me, that is completely unfair, unjust, unacceptable—not something I can stand in this House and support its continuation of.

I do not want to prolong this any longer. I want to commend this bill to the House. I want us to get rid of this unfair and unjust law. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This has to be the wokest on crime Government that we have ever seen in passing legislation like this, repealing a piece of legislation which puts victims at the heart of our criminal justice system and sending a very clear message that they will be putting criminals at the heart of our criminal justice system. This is a dangerous piece of legislation and will leave our communities less safe and New Zealanders less safe under this Government.

I am incredibly concerned by what this Government is doing. They’re repealing a piece of legislation which has a very clear principle: if you commit a serious, violent offence in New Zealand, you will suffer the consequences of that decision; if you do one of the crimes listed in this piece of legislation, you will do the time in prison. This bill goes against that principle, which sends a very clear message to criminals and those who commit serious crimes that this Government is on their side and not on the side of the people who are the victims. We’ve heard members talk about the crime rate and those who commit crimes and the disproportionate number of Māori in our prisons. But what about the disproportionate number of Māori who are victims of crime? I haven’t heard one member on the other side say anything about those victims in these situations.

I want to read out some of the list of offences which are qualifying offences under the three strikes legislation. This is not stealing a Mars bar from the dairy. These are incredibly serious crimes: sexual violation, attempted sexual violation, sexual connection with consent induced by threat, sexual connection with dependent family member under 18 years of age, sexual connection with a child, attempted sexual connection with a child, indecent act on a child, sexual connection with a young person, indecent assault, attempted exploitative sexual connection with a person with significant impairment, murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to murder, manslaughter, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, wounding with intent to injure, injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, using a firearm against law enforcement officer—using a firearm against our police officers and they’re going to stand on the side of the law which says we don’t think that should be covered by the three strikes legislation—aggravated robbery, kidnapping. They’re going to be standing on the side of kidnappers rather than on the side of victims. I find it absolutely abhorrent that this Government is repealing a piece of legislation which protects the victims of crime. And what about this one: infecting with disease? At a time of COVID-19, they’re saying, well, actually, we’re going to put that down a line. Also, commissioning of crime with firearm, aggravated injury, aggravated wounding, discharging firearm, or doing dangerous act with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

That is only some of this list of very serious violent offences which are covered by this piece of legislation. And as I said, the important principle is: if you commit a serious, violent offence in New Zealand you should suffer the consequences of that, and if you do it a second time, there’ll be more consequences, and if you do it a third time, you will have to serve the full sentence in prison. That is about public safety.

I want to read out something about one of these third strike offences. Shane Pierre Harrison: previous convictions, 80—80 previous convictions, including manslaughter, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, torture, multiple assaults and firearm offences, indecent assault against a police officer, murder, and reckless discharge of a firearm. Those are the offences committed by someone who was never going to be rehabilitated, and the evidence is very clear. If someone, and this is the evidence from Corrections, is on a second or third offence, there is an 85 percent chance of that person recommitting crime again in New Zealand—an 85 percent chance of another victim of an incredibly serious crime being committed. That’s why this important piece of legislation has a very simple principle: if you commit a serious, violent offence in New Zealand, you will suffer the consequences of that decision.

What I’d like to also touch on is the fact that this piece of legislation actually works. It’s been in place now for over 10 years. And the reality is, whilst there have been 13,349 first strike offences, there have only been 640 second strike offences, and, even fewer, there have only been 21 third strike offences. That evidence points to the fact that it works. It has a deterrent effect on those who commit these serious crimes, but it also, importantly, protects the public by locking them up behind bars and keeping New Zealanders safe so there are not more victims of crime being put through the injustice of the criminal acts that these people perpetrate.

The next point I’d like to talk about is the fact that this Government didn’t even talk to one single victim of crime before bringing this legislation to Parliament. They didn’t even talk to one single victim of crime. I find that absolutely abhorrent. The Minister of Justice couldn’t even get on the phone and talk to any victims association or victims organisation or a victim of crime before actually putting this legislation to Parliament. That is something which I think sends a very clear message about the priorities of this Government. It’s criminals first and it’s victims—well, they’re an afterthought. Maybe they can make a submission to the select committee; we might listen, but then we eventually ignore them through that process. That is an absolute shame.

The next point I want to make is that the Government has not ruled out this legislation being retrospective—yes, the letter of the law in front of us, it’s not retrospective. It means that the bill currently, as it stands—it means that some of these people who have had third strike offences can go and apply to have themselves resentenced. But the Minister of Justice has made it clear in his press conference last week, “I’m open to the submissions which come through the select committee.” They are leaving the door open to this potentially being retrospective, and that undermines the principle that if you commit a crime, you suffer the consequences of the law as it stands at the time you commit the crime. Well, they should be keeping that door firmly shut, rather than having it just a little bit open to allow the select committee to potentially make some changes and then bring something very different back to this House. I want the Minister of Justice to completely rule that part out.

The next point is judicial interference. The Government is saying the judges want this. Well, the judges should be putting in place that law as it stands. They shouldn’t be telling Parliament what the law should be when it comes to sentencing. Parliament sets the sentencing laws in New Zealand. Parliament sets the sentencing policy for the judiciary. The judiciary’s job is to apply that law, not to try and get around it. This is incredibly concerning. When I read the regulatory impact statement, I learnt that there are judges that are holding back on sentencing some people in expectation of this law coming into effect. I find it absolutely outrageous that there are judges who are holding back on sentencing because they’re waiting for this piece of legislation. This Government has sent a very clear message throughout the criminal justice system: we want to see the prison population drop. They’ve sent their message very clearly and it is being put into effect throughout the criminal justice system. I find that incredibly, incredibly worrying.

But I would like to make one point, one last point. The Government is not repealing one part of the three strikes legislation which was passed, and that was the part which said that a judge could impose a life sentence in a case where there was extreme circumstances—and that’s only ever been used once, and we know who that person is, the Christchurch killer, who has been put on a life sentence under that. They voted against that. They voted against that part of the legislation coming into Parliament, but they’re not repealing it. And I say “Good on you for not repealing it.”, because, actually, sometimes you need to have very tough penalties and sometimes, as we’ve seen, that has worked and that is important.

So, as I started, this Government is the wokest on crime Government I’ve ever seen. They’re soft on crime. And this piece of legislation puts victims of crime behind the criminals. The criminals are being put first and the victims last—they’re an afterthought. That’s unacceptable. We will oppose it and we will reinstate this legislation when we get back into Government.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Oh, thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d just like to calm things down a bit and stop quoting from dodgy surveys and reports which are inconclusive. I thought what I’d start with are some basic principles of sentencing, you know, and so I did a little bit of reading and I had a look at the Sentencing Act. You know, the first principle of the Sentencing Act is that the sentencing judge should “take into account the gravity of the offending in the particular case, including the degree of culpability of the offender”. That sounds like a pretty good idea to me. Sentencing isn’t some brightline question; it’s a question of balancing the rights of the victim with the culpability of the offender. Here you go. This is section 8 of the Sentencing Act: “must take into account any particular circumstances of the offender that mean a sentence or other means of dealing with the offender that would otherwise be appropriate would, in the particular instance, be disproportionately severe”. Should we throw that away? No, I don’t think so. I think that’s an important principle.

But what does the three strikes legislation do? Well, it removes entirely any ability of a judge, a sentencing judge, to take any of the circumstances into account, whether they be the victims’ circumstances or the offenders’ circumstances. It says, “if on [the] occasion, an offender is convicted of 1 or more stage-3”—that is, third strike offences—“… [then] the High Court must sentence the offender to the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for each offence.” Well, that is entirely disproportionate, in many cases, and entirely inappropriate.

Of course, then there’s section 27 of the Sentencing Act, which is actually something we do because of the partnership we have with Māori: allows an offender to seek a cultural report about whānau circumstances, community, and cultural background. Shall we take that into account when we sentence someone, or shall we throw that out of the window as well? I think not. I think that the three strikes regime, which ignores cultural background, is a travesty which would utterly trammel our Treaty obligations.

Then we’ve got section 9, which goes through aggravating and mitigating factors. Shall we look at aggravating and mitigating factors when we sentence an offender, or should we get rid of that as well? Shall we take the age of the offender into account? No? Shall we take, perhaps, whether or not the offender pleaded guilty? That’s an important one, because we know that serious offenders who plead guilty have that taken into account largely because it’s a much better outcome for victims. Victims are not put through the trauma of a trial, and we need to be able to encourage that, not to tell a third strike offender, “Don’t worry. Go through a full trial, put your victim through another trauma, because you get no discount for it.” Oh, and what about diminished intellectual capacity? Should we take that into account or not?

Here’s another little thing: the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, that everyone—

Hon Member: Oh!

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Oh yeah, I know, you scoff at it, but it’s actually quite a good thing. On this side of the House, we believe in human rights, and section 9 says that “Everyone has the right not to be subjected to torture … cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment”. And you know what? Here’s a few words you might find familiar: that the three strikes legislation will result in “disparities between offenders that are not rationally based” and it will result in “gross disproportionality in sentencing”, and “I consider it to be in contravention of the Bill of Rights Act.”—great Attorney-General Chris Finlayson’s words on this Act when it passed in the House.

Look, let me talk a little bit about an actual case, the case of Fitzgerald, that happened here in Wellington, where a man was described as having longstanding serious mental illnesses, and what did he do? He kissed a woman in Cuba Mall without consent. He grabbed her and he kissed her, and that is an indecent assault. I want to recognise—the law report records—it was traumatic for the victim. He was up for seven years inside because he had two—this mentally disabled person who had serious difficulties, was sometimes homeless, was up for seven years in prison because he kissed a woman in Cuba Mall. And you know what? The Court of Appeal, when it looked at it, said this: “Mr Fitzgerald should be receiving care and support in an appropriate facility, not serving a lengthy term of imprisonment. He has ended up in prison for a very long term, in circumstances where he should not be there at all.” That’s what the National Party would have us stick with. In that case, the Supreme Court has had to do linguistic somersaults to find a way for this mentally disabled person to avoid it.

So I very much support the repeal of this unjust legislation, which absolutely trammels not only on the rights of offenders to be dealt with in a way which isn’t cruel and degrading but also on the rights of victims to make sure that offenders are sentenced appropriately and fairly and in a way which takes into account all the circumstances. I’ll close on this: if we are dealing with the worst of the worst—terms I see used all of the time on the other side of the House—then let’s look at the principle in section 8(c) of the Sentencing Act, which says that the court “must”—not “may” but “must”—“impose the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence if the offending is within the most serious of cases”. So we’ve got it there already. We don’t need the three strikes. We’ve got a robust Sentencing Act, and it will be a damn sight better when we strip out these offensive provisions. I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Bills

Incorporated Societies Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 November.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The last time the House considered this bill, this interrupted reading, we came to the next call going to the Labour Party.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As MPs, we’re required to do quite a few things in our electorates, and one of the ones that comes up a lot is we attend AGMs. Now, I’m sure everyone here in the House will remember the last AGM they were at, perhaps. The next one I’m attending is the Ngaio Crofton Downs Residents Association AGM tonight—and all these meetings we’re at, they’re one of 24,000 incorporated societies around New Zealand that until now have been operating under a 1908 piece of legislation. Well, I think most of us here will agree that a piece of legislation that still talks about pounds and shillings in its sanctions regime probably does need a bit of updating, and that’s what this legislation is here to do. It incorporates organisations like political clubs, social clubs, and recreational and religious groups. It really does go across the spectrum, and at 24,000, there’s probably not many of us New Zealanders whose life is not in some way affected.

Now, currently, most of those societies are run pretty well, and I must say that other than perhaps the odd, strange bit of chairing, they do get through. But, really, what many of those members don’t realise is their vulnerabilities, because as we become more litigious as a society as there are more hurdles to be leapt, whether it be health and safety or whether it be various other pieces of legislation, it is important that members of those societies understand just how vulnerable they can be.

What this legislation does is it ensures that we outline some of the structures under which they need to be operating—even something as simple as ensuring that they have a dispute resolution provision—because, again, sitting through those AGMs of organisations that we’re part of, often that’s where personalities break down and there’s a breakdown in the relationships that can so often end up becoming the demise of that incorporated society, whether it be through fund-raising or other aspects. So it becomes very important that they actually have dispute resolution, and this legislation outlines something like that.

So I won’t go through the detail. Broadly, what I’ll do is recommend this to the House on the proviso that it is incredibly important that those who are part of these societies do now have a set of rules that they can refer to when they come to those disputes, so that they can know not only that their personal liability is protected but also the whole purpose of that organisation’s existence does continue. So I commend this to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I get confused these days about how often Greg O’Connor speaks before me and then myself. There seems to be some sort of plan here to have one O’Connor follow another. We’ll have to get Damien in to speak after this.

I want to acknowledge what Greg was saying—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member will refer to other members by their full names—Damien O’Connor.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Well, I could call him Greg O’Connor; that’s probably more accurate, but there we go.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Well, just, if Simon O’Connor would like to resume his speech.

SIMON O’CONNOR: He would, and he’ll speak in the first person.

Great to be speaking on the Incorporated Societies Bill. Greg O’Connor noted that he’s going to an AGM tonight. As an Auckland MP, I’d have to say it’s been over 95 days since I’ve been able to attend an AGM of an incorporated society. It’s just a small reflection on the dynamics which are happening.

Hon Member: I did AGMs on Zoom.

Hon Member: Not by Zoom.

SIMON O’CONNOR: And I hear someone say, “Oh, well, they could just do it on Zoom.”, but, of course, if you understand incorporated societies, which fortunately this side of the House does, it has to be in the rules. And often you have to have quorum. So the Minister’s right, if they’ve thought ahead and they’ve changed their rules to allow a Zoom AGM, but most of them haven’t been able to do that because they haven’t been able to form together in person to change the rules to make the requisite changes. However, this is a bill which National supports because, fundamentally, it’s bringing about the changes which are needed. And if I could riff, if you will, off that previous comment about, particularly in Auckland, AGMs that cannot happen, we are seeing now incorporated societies trying to update their rules to reflect a modern environment. And so it’s not a surprise, therefore, that the Parliament is looking to revise and update its rules.

As most speakers have noted in their contributions in the House, it was 1908 that this Act, the current Act that we’re looking to change, was passed. I’m not going to entertain the House with a list of historical facts of what happened in 1908. I would have handed that over to Winston Peters in New Zealand First in the past to do, but they’re not here at the moment. But what we’re seeing is a bill that’s long overdue. In fact, Greg O’Connor noted it quite correctly: when a piece of law is still referring to shillings, you know that the legislation needs updating.

Importantly, this was work, I believe, that was begun in 2015 by the then National Government which has been, fortunately, picked up by the current Government and has proceeded through here, of course, to its second reading. I’m not going to go through all the select committee work. It’s fair to say, for those tuning in, that this is quite a complicated piece of legislation, not because the issues of incorporated societies are complex, but if you look at the original piece of legislation, the intricacies required to update it have been many, and the select committee’s done, I think, a relatively good job of handling things there.

Look, some of the most key themes which come out of this are, first and foremost, recognising there are different sizes in incorporated societies. I believe New Zealand Rugby would be an example of an incorporated society—it’s huge; hundreds of millions of dollars—right through to very small incorporated societies, be it in Auckland or any other part of the country. This bill—this proposed piece of legislation—enables different tiers of responsibility. In other words, we’re not going to put in—I think that’s a really good step by the Government and certainly the recommendations of the select committee not to put onerous burdens on to the smaller incorporated societies. I mean that’s a logical thing to do. There’s always been a bit of debate of where you draw the line, and I think $50,000 has popped out as the line. So a lot of New Zealand’s incorporated societies are very small—well, small in terms of numbers, small in terms of their cash assets and work, but actually, importantly, a major and huge contribution as every member here would know.

Importantly, the legislation’s also here to impose new duties on those who run incorporated societies. It was something in the original 1908 Act that wasn’t overly articulated. And, again, for those listening at home, what it’s attempting to do, or what this piece of legislation is proposing to do, is pretty much mirror that of what company directors, board directors would have. So they’ve got important duties now to undertake. And I suspect, having been on incorporated societies, as pretty much, I’m sure, just about every member here will be in one way, shape, or form, it’s going to be quite important for those members of incorporated societies to understand what their new duties are, if and when this piece of legislation passes through the House.

There’s also penalties, as you would expect, that are going to come through for that. So not only are duties going to be given, and therefore responsibilities held by those leading incorporated societies, but there are requisite penalties. I mean, there’s basically no point in telling them to do something if there’s not a penalty in play. And not to be flippant, those penalties are well described and are now in much more modern nomenclature, along with the appropriate numismatic figures that one would expect.

Importantly too, as we say, the reporting requirements are changing. A lot of it’s around the various accounting standards that are required. I’m not going to go into that at length, because actually it was last year this House went through an enormous debate around two different types of accounting processes which had to be aligned. Fortunately that’s not going to be a major issue here with this Incorporated Societies Bill, but it is updating what is required there. But as I mentioned earlier, smaller societies $50,000 and under are going to have a different set of requirements to the large ones, as you would expect. As I said, to pick on New Zealand Rugby, conscious they’re actually going through a lot of discussions at the moment when you’re making over—well, not making, if you are an incorporated society worth hundreds of millions of dollars, you are definitely going to expect a different level of reporting requirement.

Importantly too, there’s a transition period that’s been incorporated into the bill. That’s just smart understandings. No incorporated society is going to be able to pivot that quickly, and doubly so—again, if I can use the Auckland example, which I picked up much, much earlier—it’s going to be hard for a number of incorporated societies, both with the COVID lockdown restrictions plus, I might add, as we head into the summer period, it’s going to be very, very hard for these incorporated societies to meet and make the changes necessary. So there is a transition period—I think it’s about 2½ years. Happy to be corrected on that, not through a privileges complaint but just send me a letter would be appropriate.

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

SIMON O’CONNOR: I always get worried when some of my colleagues laugh. It indicates there might be a letter coming. But look, long and short, there’s about a 2½ year transition, which I think will be appropriate time. It’s probably too late now. I mean we could look at a Supplementary Order Paper in the upcoming stages to see whether there’s some flexibility that could be added there if this lockdown continues, if the love of rules and regulations continues from the Government. Maybe we won’t be as free as we’d like to be in 2½ years, but that’s something that we can discuss at the committee of the whole House.

There are also some requirements around incorporated societies that are not listed as charities. Again, an important distinction. Some of these societies can be incorporated and charities, some are not. That’s going to be relatively important. This bill well handles that.

Importantly too, actually, there’s going to be a mechanism for incorporated societies to amalgamate or come together. It may seem a small matter, but actually with the tens of thousands of incorporated societies out there, a lot of them doing good work which replicates others, you do need a mechanism for them to form up, and in fact that’s going to be far more efficient, not only for them but often these societies are serving people in the community, so there’s a real benefit there.

They’re also suggesting that the number of members required moves from—again, anyone who’s been involved with an incorporated society knows you need to get 15 people—it’s one of those magic numbers—to actually be incorporated. And you run around busily collecting signatures. That’s going to be reduced by this bill to 10 people. And I think that’s, again, quite pragmatic. Again, it won’t surprise any members in the House here who are a part of incorporated societies or sports clubs, dare I say even political parties—not the larger ones, some of the smaller ones—actually getting a number of active members these days is quite difficult. So I think having it at 10 is quite appropriate.

So as I said at the start—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Sorry to interrupt the member. In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, I call on Government order of the day No. 27. I declare the House in committee for the special debate on current issues and priorities.

Special Debates

Current Issues and Priorities

In Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The House is in committee for consideration of current issues and priorities, in a special debate. There are four hours and 15 minutes for the debate. The following Ministers will be available to speak to their portfolios from 5 p.m.—the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Disabilities Issues, and ACC; from 7 p.m. the Minister of Transport; from 8 p.m. the Minister of Housing; from 9 p.m. the Minister for Children. Minister Sepuloni is in the chair on more than one portfolio from 5 p.m. So that the correct official is in the Chamber to support the Minister, we will focus first on matters relating to the social development and disability issues portfolios. When I call the chairperson of the Education and Workforce Committee, this will be the committee’s cue to move on to the issues in the labour market and ACC portfolios.

The question is that current issues and priorities be noted. If I can just note to whoever the Minister in the chair is, it would be helpful to everyone if you could be seated right here, to my right. Thank you so much, Minister.

Social Development and Employment, Disability Issues, and ACC

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on Ginny Ander—

Angie Warren-Clark: Angie Warren-Clark.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Angie Warren-Clark—my apologies.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee): That’s not an insult, Madam Chair. I’m delighted to stand as the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee, and lead off this debate on the Estimates for Vote Special Development 2021/22. This report was tabled in July 2021 and it has been a while since the Minister was able to address this Chamber, and we welcome her back here. I acknowledge the Ministers and ministries for their work during a difficult time under Delta COVID conditions.

Vote Social Development is the largest vote in the Budget, with $36.1 billion allocated, which is a 4.7 percent increase from the year 2020-21. Benefits or related expenses account for 85 percent or $30.8 billion of Vote Social Development, with New Zealand super at $17.7 billion being the largest spend per annum. Vote Social Development is the responsibility of eight ministerial portfolios. We heard that Budget 2021 proposes to increase main benefits on 1 July 2021 and 1 April 2022. In total we heard main rates would be increased by $32 to $55 per adult per week. We heard that families with children, individuals, couples, and students will receive rises. We heard that childcare assistance will increase for low to middle income families. The orphans benefit and the unsupported child benefit will also increase. We heard that thousands of children will be lifted out of poverty due to these increases.

We asked why benefits would be increased and were told by the Minister that this would have the twin outcomes of lifting the lowest incomes and increasing economic stimulus. We learnt that the Government had been advised that by early 2021, 490,000 people could have been receiving a benefit, an increase of 100,000 people. This predicted peak was not reached and we discussed actual numbers of people on benefits, including those who work part time, or cannot look for work, or are caring for someone with a condition or disability.

We asked about people on the job seeker benefit for longer than three years and which initiatives were most effective for moving them off benefit. We learnt that $1.24 billion is allocated to the multi-category appropriation, improved employment and social outcomes support. This is an increase. We heard that the Flexiwage eligibility was expanded. Estimates hearings also covered support for children with disabilities, payment cards for young parents, debt write-downs, changes to monitoring of Oranga Tamariki, helping people to access and retain housing, and emergency housing. We also heard about the reinstatement of the training incentive allowance for all courses up to level 7 and the doubling of the winter energy payment for beneficiaries, including superannuitants.

We discussed the disability sector and the Minister brought in sign language interpreters to make this hearing more accessible. We’ve continued this practice where we can. The appropriation promoting positive outcomes for disabled people is $8.6 million, including funding for the Office for Disability Issues, which monitors and implements the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by monitoring and promoting the implementation of the New Zealand Disability Strategy, 2016 to 2026, and the Disability Action Plan 2019 to 2023. We’ve heard that one in four New Zealanders are disabled. We heard that the Enabling Good Lives pilot under Vote Health will continue in three communities. This project encourages system transformation so that disabled people can determine how they use funding to best live their lives.

The Minister discussed her plans for the sector, the role of growing disability and accessible leadership, and the advice for disabled people in the governance context. Finally, we discussed helping disabled people who do paid work. As the chair of the select committee I sincerely thank the Minister, officials, the clerks, and the select committee members for a thorough and robust set of hearings. Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got a series of questions to the Minister, as you could probably expect. For those who have just started watching this debate, it might seem a bit strange to be debating the Estimates when we’ve actually gone well past that because of COVID lockdowns. This special debate does allow questioning of the Minister, but the reality is it’s after the fact.

So I want to start with questions to the Minister around long-term benefit data. What we’ve seen in the time since Labour has come to office is a significant increase in the number of people on benefits overall, but significantly on job seeker. And I do want to put on record this started well before COVID, so this is not COVID related. What we’re seeing is a large number of people who are on job seeker benefit and are staying there longer. So 53,000 are now on the job seeker benefit for more than a year. And while we accept the Government has made a decision to increase benefits, National is very clearly focused on supporting people into employment, and that’s why I want to start my questioning on job seeker numbers.

So I want to know: what is the answer, Minister, for why there are 53,000 more on the job seeker benefit—and have been for more than a year—under her watch? Do you want me to keep going? I thought the idea was that we do interactive questions, but if you want me to make a speech, then I’ll continue to do that. So what we have seen, just in terms of the scale of the problem, because while we accept the welfare system supports people in their time of need, there are a group of people who require support permanently. The much larger group are people who need support for a temporary period of time. Those are the ones that this side of the House is the most concerned about. That’s why we are asking questions about long-term benefit numbers.

I was interested in the chair of the select committee reflecting on a question that was put to the Minister in Estimates that, actually, we didn’t get an answer for at the time. So it’s why I am wanting an answer today. Looking at those who are on job seeker benefit for more than a year—where there is now 53,000 more who’ve been on for more than a year—what in this Budget that is different from any other Budget will provide support for those people to be in employment?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): OK, thanks, Madam Chair. I’ll try and address the questions in the two sets of questions that the member asked. Firstly, I just want to make the point that, actually, when COVID hit last year, the prospects with regards to the forecast numbers of people that were going to be on benefit were actually quite frightening. I think when we got the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update figures before the 2020 Budget, there were anticipated to be around 490,000 people, peaking in January 2021. Each time, there’s been a reset of those forecasts—so with the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update, with the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, that has been reduced. However, we haven’t reached any of the forecast peaks that were anticipated by Treasury’s forecasts, and I think that really is a testament to how well, despite the challenges, New Zealand has weathered this pandemic storm.

Currently, we have about 355,000 people that are on benefit. Prior to this 14-week lockdown, it was about 351,000 people. So despite even the anticipated impacts of this period of time where we anticipated a knock to economic activity, we still haven’t experienced the lows that were possible when we came into this particular lockdown. The member’s not wrong; since pre-COVID they have gone up. I think at the beginning of last year there were about 302,000 people on benefit. And of course, at the moment it is 355,000.

What we had done was, even going back to pre-pandemic, pre-COVID, we had invested a significant amount of money through Budget 2019 to bolster the front-line support for work focus, through the Ministry of Social Development. And what I saw when I became Minister was that, previously, under the former Government, there had been a steady decline in the work-focused case management and little to no—or even less—investment in that side of the operations for the Ministry of Social Development. Hardship had gone up, and the resource in case management had to pivot to respond to the hardship that was there. But then there was nothing put in place with respect to the actual case management for work focus. So we invested in 2019, we invested again last year, and we continue to invest in this—it’s been a priority for our Government.

One of our focuses—before I sit down, otherwise I’m going to go on far too much—has been on ensuring those who have lost jobs during COVID are supported immediately to get back into employment as soon as possible. We know that that’s important, not only for their own livelihoods and the livelihoods of their families, but because of the fact that research shows the longer that they are on benefit, the more difficult it will be to be able to get back into the employment market. It has been heartening to see, then, that for the majority of this year, the exits off benefit into employment have been higher than what we have seen since electronic records were kept for the Ministry of Social Development.

So there certainly have been some relief moments, I think, over the course of the last year and a half. Moving forward, we’ll continue that focus in investment, with the absolute priority being about families and ensuring that—where they are able to work—we are supporting them into employment.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. Unfortunately, the Minister didn’t really address the question I specifically asked, and while I’ll accept that none of the forecasts a year ago eventuated, that’s great news, what it also means though, on the flipside, is that we would have expected to actually see some progress in those who have been long-term job seekers when we haven’t; we’ve seen the opposite result.

In addition to that, the Minister talks about Budget 29 delivering more work focus—well, why is it, then, Minister, that there is now 53,000 more people who have been on job seeker for more than a year despite those two things?

And the third element, that comment around hardship was high when Labour came to power, well, it’s at record levels now. So Ministry of Social Development (MSD) staff are still dealing with significant levels of hardship.

So, of the programmes that are funded through MSD, what is the most successful for people who have been on the unemployment benefit for more than 12 months? Because the research says the longer somebody is on benefit—and three months is the best time; 12 months makes it incredibly difficult to reconnect someone to the labour force. Which of the funded employment programmes are actually delivering results? Because it’s not just about how much money you can spend; it’s about results. We want to see people in employment for themselves and their families. So which employment programmes that have been funded in Budget 2021 is delivering for those who are long-term unemployed?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Just quickly, if we look at Flexi-wage, and just acknowledging the fact that we as a Government have expanded that quite extensively, what we have already seen with Flexi-wage is around 9,000 people benefit from Flexi-wage. Of those, since expansion, 1,257 have taken up Flexi-wage. That’s 1,257 who have a two-plus year duration on benefit. That is almost double what had happened in the same period the year before. So that is one of many examples of where our investments are working.

I also want to acknowledge the reinstatement of the training incentive allowance. With regards to that, we actually will see those beneficiaries stay on benefit. However, whilst on benefit, of course, they will be supported financially to be able to take up study up to degree level, and that is important as well. It is about ensuring that people get access to the upskilling and training opportunities so that they can get into mahi that works for them and, hopefully, means that they’ve got better income to be able to support themselves and their families.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. So I’m interested in following up on the point in the Budget materials where the Treasury papers indicated that a $50 upfront increase in benefits would, and I’ll quote, “help significantly with objectives to improve income adequacy, improve child wellbeing, and reduce child poverty.” Yet the Government decided to split that increase across years, with just $20 coming in this year in the last Budget and up to $30 in the next Budget, at a time where costs are significantly increasing.

We know that a significant number of beneficiaries aren’t getting the full amount of the increase, and some, in fact, are worse off, I understand, because of multiple payments interacting in a complex system which Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG) was pushing for us to simplify. So I’m also noting that the number of hardship grants continues to grow, year on year, most of which are for emergency housing or food—keeping a roof over the head and food on the table for our kids.

So I’ve got five questions for the Minister, and in saving my precious time, I’ll lay them out now, and if the Minister could go through them. Does Ministry of Social Development have any projections on how much hardship grants will increase in the next year? How much do incomes need to increase so people do not need hardship grants to survive? How many of the WEAG recommendations will the Government fully meet through this Budget? Is the Government concerned about growing debt and, if so, what are they going to do about it? And considering that children with at least one parent—one member of the family—having a disability are most likely to be experiencing poverty, why has there not been an increase in the child disability allowance or the disability allowance? That’s my first list.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): That’s a lot covered off by the member from the Green Party, and I appreciate the questions, and I’ll do my best. If I don’t cover them off, then she might want to repeat the questions because that was a lot to take in.

With regards to our considerations with pre-Budget and what we were going to do with benefit increases, I do want to note that we did lift benefits last year, $25, that we did index them to wages, which will see them go up every year. And then we did commit to benefit increases that will be, through 2021 Budget, between $33 and $55 per week, that I think people will be better off when they’re fully implemented in April next year. In most situations that would be when they are implemented, on 1 April of the following year after a Budget is announced. We brought some of that forward because we recognised the hardship. We haven’t been able to bring all of it forward but we recognise that we needed to do that. The rest will come into effect next year.

In terms of child poverty, I think with the measures that we have already implemented as a Government, we’ve seen around 43,000 children lifted out of poverty, and I believe that’s with the after - housing cost measure. With the benefit increases, that will see up to 33,000 more children lifted out of poverty. And then, of course, recently we made announcements to change some of the settings around Working for Families, which will see another additional 6,000 children lifted out of poverty.

All of these things are incremental steps that assist us with the overhaul of the welfare system that we committed to when we had our confidence and supply agreement with the Green Party. We haven’t been able to get to everything. With the $50 increase that was proposed, that is always the case: you float options, and then there’s a negotiation process that goes on pre-Budget, which is where we landed.

I don’t want to understate that, because we do know that they are the most significant increases to benefit payments that we have seen over decades, and do help to restore the dignity, I think, to a certain extent that was lost with the 1991 cuts that were introduced under that National Government.

We haven’t had the opportunity to make changes to the disability allowance or child disability allowance at this point in time, and nor have we signalled that we will over the course of the next year. However, those are things on our work programme, with regards to our welfare overhaul, and our Cabinet paper sets out the order in which we will look at things, what is in our short-term programme, what is in our medium-term programme, and what is in our longer-term programme.

It’s not all about fiscals. Actually some of it—a lot of it—is about operational capacity. Making these changes actually takes up a lot of operational capacity. I am the Minister, I do get to see what I’m asking of the Government agency, and I do know what they’re capable of being able to deliver. They have been working incredibly hard. So I do want to recognise my Ministry of Social Development officials—and they’ve been working at pace, as well as trying to do business as usual also, addressing the COVID demands that have come our way during this time.

With respect to the actual Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommendations, can I just say that I think all too often it’s looked at over-simplistically. I think the member knows, as well, that many of those recommendations are not tick box exercises; they are ongoing. So even when we talk about benefit increases or addressing income adequacy, it is not one action that will effectively address that recommendation and we as a Government can say “Done”. Many of them require ongoing work, including things like increasing public housing and range of other things. And so I will leave it at that, because I feel like I’ve been talking far too long.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): My question is also around the numbers on job seeker. We’re seeing that we have 70,000 extra people on job seeker compared to when Labour came into power. Spending on job seeker has increased by $1.5 billion annually since 2017. I’m just trying to wrap my head around if we’ve got an extra 70,000 people on the benefit, and unemployment is falling by about 1.5 percent over that time—I’m just trying to work out how that’s possible where we’re spending an extra $1.5 billion a year annually and our unemployment’s dropping.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. My first question is: does the Minister accept that a sole person on the job seeker benefit would get three times as much working full time on the minimum wage? Second question is related to the Flexi-wage, and I want to know whether or not the Minister is on track to deliver the 40,000 people into work over two years, and, if not, why not—and to confirm the percentage of those that have been on the benefit for more than two years. My understanding is that it’s 14 percent. And then I want to come back, in a further question, to look specifically around Māori employment, because there are nearly 75,000 Māori on the job seeker benefit and, from my calculations, about a thousand job placements, employment programmes for Māori.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Chair. If I could ask some questions around disability services. If I could first ask the Minister to provide some background on why centres that provide day activities and education and development for people with disabilities are closing when they consider that there is such a gap between the funding and the cost of delivery—they are estimating it to be around a 15 percent gap. Why the Minister has allowed this to happen—and if I can give her the example that in Southland now, all those centres have closed and there is not one day centre for activities, education, and development for people with disabilities. If I could also ask her what amount of the Budget is being used for the development of the Ministry for Disabled People and accessibility law and what amount of the Budget is going to be used on consultants and whether the Minister has specifically allocated any of those consulting fees to be for disability services consultants—so getting information directly from those with disabilities.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): OK, it seems like a good idea to cluster them up, but then you cluster them up and then you’ve got 20 questions to answer in one go. I’ll give it a go. I’ll start with the most recent one.

Just with regards to funding for disability support services that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) does fund, I have to say that when we came into Government in 2017, for nine years just about all of the social sector services that were funded by MSD had not received any increase whatsoever. We then got in and then have, year on year, increased the funding to all of our social services, particularly, I will say, with a focus on family and sexual violence services in particular. But if we look at things like budgeting services, not only did they get a significant baseline increase but also COVID-related funding. Our disability services as well have received funding increases. Sad to hear that you’re saying that so many of the day programmes have closed down. I will say that we have attempted to inject funding year on year, but it’s been very hard to make up for the underfunding that was experienced under nine years of the previous Government.

With respect to the question that came from the ACT Party on the amount of money that is going to the job seeker benefit, I think, in particular, I think that the member is including job seeker health and disability as well as job seeker work-ready, which is how you get those numbers. I think I’ve already talked about what we’ve endured over the last year and a half and why that’s led to a certain increase. The amount of funding that has gone to benefits: yes, that has increased, but a big part of that has been the increase in funding that we have put towards benefits. As I said earlier, it’s not just about the $20 that came into effect this year; it’s also about the $25 that came into effect last year and indexation, which has already started. If we think about all of the changes together that we have made since 2017 and then look ahead to next year when the benefit increases come into effect on 1 April, actually, 109,000 people are going to be better off than what they were in 2017 by around about $175 per week. That is a significant increase.

With the member Louise Upston’s questions, I think there might’ve been a question around Māori and job seeker, and so what we’ve seen is a 12.1 percent decrease of Māori job seeker since October 2020. We continue to invest in programmes that are focused on those that will be most disadvantaged in the labour market, and those, of course, are Māori; young people; Pacific; what we have seen more recently with COVID last year, women as well—in particular, sole parents—and, of course, what has been overlooked all too often is also disabled people. With all of this talk about beneficiaries and who’s on benefit and how long they are on for, I do want to remind this committee that, as I’ve said so often, about 50 percent of those people who are on benefit actually have a health condition or disability or are caring for someone with a health condition or disability. Then you add to that the number of beneficiaries who are caring for children, and that’s been quite challenging during the last year and a half with childcare challenges due to COVID. I think that we can see how the challenges have led to some of these numbers.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I was very careful, at the start of my address, that I talked very deliberately about job seekers, Minister. So it would be helpful if you could be clear about what I’ve asked.

I want to move to emergency housing. Over a million dollars a day is going into motels, which are, clearly, no place to raise children—4,500 children are currently living in motels. We’ve seen the average stay in a motel now is 14.7 weeks. So I want to ask a series of questions, Minister.

The first is: given the length of time that individuals and families are now living in motels, why has there not been any effort to secure better rates for taxpayers, for the moteliers, when they would be empty anyway? And the Minister accepted this point the last time she was before the select committee. So that is my first question. What work is now under way, given that it hadn’t been previously, to secure better rates so that there is better value for money out of people who, unfortunately, are living in motels for longer?

The second is: what is the Minister’s plan and deadline for not putting children in motels?

And my third is: looking at examples from places like Rotorua, where people who live in the community and have done for years are now being driven out of their own houses because they do not feel safe in areas like Fenton Street—tourists and visitors will no longer go to Rotorua, because of the motels and the volume of activity. And, in other communities, complaints of gang violence, stabbings next to a motel that was used by the Ministry of Social Development, that is next door to an educational facility, when, on multiple occasions, concerns have been raised about the risks to the community who live next to these motels—when will the Minister wake up and take action to protect the community from what is occurring in these motels and protect the 4,500 children, when it is clearly no place to grow up?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I’m awake; it’s just a pity that, between 2008 and 2017, we had a Government who were asleep at the wheel. So with regards to the first comment made by that member, the Hon Louise Upston, about the job seeker benefit and her being specific, I was as well. That member might not know, but there is job seekers “work ready” and there is job seekers “health and disability”. So I think that’s an important thing to know about.

Also, with respect to emergency accommodation, no one wants to see people in emergency accommodation; no one wants to see children in emergency accommodation. We were landed with this when we became Government, this policy, because of the lack of housing and the lack of investment in housing across the country that had endured—under the previous Government, again. We have committed to a public housing programme, and that is the most important part of it—is actually building the houses that these families need. Unfortunately, we haven’t been able to build all of the ones that we need all at once; however, that programme is on track, and those houses continue to be built. And we have changed from selling off State housing to ensuring that we are increasing the stock for the families that need them here, as well as changing a number of other settings across housing to ensure that we can meet the demand from New Zealanders who need housing.

Rotorua was used as an example earlier with respect to emergency housing. It has been very constructive working with iwi, working with social services, working with other Government agencies, and with council, with regards to the plan that we came up with there. We have indicated that that is what we want to look to do, moving forward—initiatives like that, that are geographically place-based initiatives that work for the community in which they’re working for. And so, in that particular instance, obviously we worked together to look at ways in which we could contract motel accommodation in a way that could cohort particular groups, especially prioritising families with children. And so that certainly has been a focus.

We’ve also put case management in place around those that are in emergency accommodation, and measures and supports that didn’t exist when we inherited that policy by the previous Government. There were no supports. It was a bit of knee-jerk reaction because of the fact that publicly it had come out that there were so many New Zealand families, sadly, sleeping in cars, and so they had introduced a policy without the supports around to be actually able to get in there and provide the fulsome, holistic types of support that those families and children needed. And so we’re in a position where we’ve been able to do that. I think we’ll see more of that moving forward. As I’ve indicated, Rotorua was just first off the mark with regard to that place-based focus, but there’s more to do.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in terms of perspective, your department is overseeing $300 million a year—six times more than when you came into office—with nearly 30,000 on the social housing register and, I’d say, 4,500 children in motels. So it is unacceptable after four years to say—when this situation has clearly got worse, you have to accept some responsibility for the dire situation of those families who are stuck in motels and for the community who live around them.

So I ask, again, what has the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) done to secure better rates for the motels it is using for longer? I want to give you an example from a social service provider that I met with not so long ago, who now refuses, because it is so unsafe because of the threats and intimidation and the gang presence at these motels—and they’re a hardened social service provider. You know, they’re not new to this game. They will no longer deliver food parcels and services directly to the motel units because it is too unsafe for their staff.

So what is MSD doing to improve the security of those who are living in—unfortunately—these motels, who are providing services to some of the vulnerable people who live there, and the community, who have to put up with it? The situation is just getting worse.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Thank you, Madam Chair. I might just go back to a question from the ACT Party on the establishment of the Ministry for Disabled People. In Budget 2021, we did indicate I think it was $73 million towards systems transformation. There is also, of course, going to be that process of transitioning the disability support services out of the Ministry of Health and into the new ministry, and so with that will come the appropriation of funding that previously would have existed within Health. I think the initial numbers that I got for setting up and running a ministry for disabled people was $73 million over—no, I think it was $85 million over the forecast period. So we can check that and I’ll come back to you if that’s wrong.

With regard to emergency accommodation, going back to that question—OK. We can talk about the fact that, as I’ve said to the member Louise Upston a number of times, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) doesn’t actually have the legislative power to contract for emergency accommodation. It is when someone comes in and is homeless and needs urgent emergency housing, then they are eligible for a grant that will go to an accommodation provider who is willing to provide that emergency accommodation support.

In some parts of New Zealand, it isn’t as difficult to find emergency accommodation options. In some parts, it’s very hard because they don’t have the level of options that we need, and in some parts of New Zealand, we don’t actually have too much of an issue—I think Christchurch is a good example, and Canterbury—with respect to emergency housing. We haven’t seen the numbers inflated like we have in other parts of the country. With Canterbury, it’s really clear. There’s been a housing build under way post-earthquake, and so that means that they don’t experience that, and then we’ve got regions where it is an issue.

On top of MSD working to get people into emergency accommodation, they’re also—as I’ve said—working with providers, as is the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, to ensure that those people have the support that they need. We’ve put things in place such as housing products that didn’t exist when we came into Government and things like work brokers. Many of our whānau find it difficult to get into private rentals. It can be because of the number of children that they have, because of landlords not wanting to take on large families. It can be because of things like credit ratings, and perhaps they’re not the preferred person.

So there are a range of housing supports that are needed here that extend beyond emergency accommodation, and I feel very confident that our Government is taking a very holistic approach to what is needed. But, as I said earlier, the hardship and need that we inherited is something that we continue to address, but, unfortunately, there was just such a high level of neglect under the previous National Government for nine years that we’re still in a situation where we’re still having to clean up their mess.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve just got a quick question around annual departmental expenses. I’ve had a look and it looks like annual departmental expenses have increased by $1 billion since Labour came into power. It’s almost doubled, and I’m just wanting to know what’s behind these increases. What specific areas are you focusing on? Are you getting the outcomes that you wanted to achieve? And have we got another billion dollars’ worth of value to help our most vulnerable?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Just a reminder, please, before I take the Hon Louise Upston’s question: to the member Nicola Willis, you’re most welcome to get up and actually ask a question instead of just shouting over the top like that. Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. So on the topic of emergency housing and the use of motels, I think the Minister should just accept that actually on every one of those metrics, you have failed, and the result of that is children growing up in motels, trapped in motels, in places where social service providers are too scared to go because of the threatening behaviour, the violence, the gang intimidation, and the drug use. The fact that the Minister doesn’t have a deadline by when she will stop putting children in motels is a disgrace.

So I’m going to move on. I want to address the issue of wage subsidies. So most New Zealanders would say that the wage subsidy roll-out last year was incredible—very successful—and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has had an incredible amount of well-deserved praise for the work that it did. So my question around the wage subsidy specifically relates to Delta. What planning was under way for Delta and for the wage subsidy that would be rolled out? Why is it that despite more than doubling the numbers of staff looking after the wage subsidy, firms were waiting, on average, 17 days for round one? Why is it, when the feedback had been positive in getting the wage subsidy out the door quickly, a very cumbersome, confusing system of a two-week application process was introduced, and then when the first deadline appeared the system was not available, it shut off at midnight, and business people who are already incredibly stressed about running a business, paying staff, putting food on the table, and paying their rent, that MSD made it incredibly difficult to get the support to them?

And I want to know, as the final question: what additional increase for funding has MSD received for the wage subsidy, and what forecasts are there for the wage subsidy to be utilised under the traffic-light system, and at what traffic-light colours will the wage subsidy be payable, and what will the rules be?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Some of those questions would actually be under the purview of the Minister of Finance, and so I wouldn’t want to step into his terrain, otherwise I might get in trouble.

With regards to the wage subsidy, thank you to that member, it has been a lot of work from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) working with Inland Revenue, alongside the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and others, and it was a huge exercise. The vast majority of people that I talked to have received the money in their accounts very quickly.

I think with Delta, what we did see was that there were some issues with regards to information that was given at the time that people were applying for the wage subsidy. That did not help with regards to delays, and so that certainly was one of the reasons. Not ideal, but, of course, I think, on a number of occasions, MSD have said that they are working as quickly and as hard as possible. Many of them could be rectified and sorted out, and so in the end it did work out.

With that issue when it was shut down for applications early, the member said it was shut down at midnight. It was actually meant to be shut down at midnight. Unfortunately, someone pressed the wrong button at shut it down at 7 p.m., and that’s where there was confusion for anyone who might have gone on, because they thought that they still had that five-hour period to be able to apply. So that was human error. MSD fronted about that. We also put communications out to people to say that they wouldn’t be disadvantaged and that they could still apply and they could let MSD know if they had attempted to go on during that five-hour window and couldn’t because of the fact that the application process had already been stopped as part of that.

What we have learnt as we’ve gone, I think, as we’ve continued with the wage subsidy, there have been continued bolstering of the integrity checks, and I think that has been important, as well as just the kind of fluidity in which MSD has been able to work, except for, as the member rightly put out, where there were some delays because of information supplied and some technical issues between IRD and MSD. So it was verification of entitlement, validating information with IRD, and ensuring that the right employers were paid. So there were a range of issues that came up which caused those delays.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wonder if I could just get some clarification around some of these funding figures that the Minister in the chair, Carmel Sepuloni, has spoken about. The Minister said there was a $3 million transition funding for the setting up of the new ministry, but the Cabinet paper had $5 million in it. So is it $3 million or $5 million? Also, the Minister said an operating budget of $73 million but then $85 million, and I’m just wondering if you can clarify which that is. From the appropriation of the health funding, presumably that will cover the respite care funding, and has the Minister enabled sufficient funding to increase the respite care from the $75 per day that it currently is, which works out at about $3 an hour—which is, in fact, I would’ve thought, illegal—and whether the Minister is going to try and address that issue, which is causing so much grief for families who are struggling to be able to get respite care because, of course, nobody is prepared to provide 24 hours’ care for $75.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Sure. Just on the last issue, that would need to be directed at the Minister of Health. I don’t have any responsibility for the funding for respite care. It doesn’t come out of the Ministry of Social Development.

With the other issue, with regards to clarifying the funding for the disabilities transformation programme, in the 2021 Budget it’s $73 million that has been identified as the amount that is in place for Disability System Transformation. So when you look at the suite of measures that we announced on 29 October, really they are all connected.

With the accelerating accessibility, or the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill that we’re planning, that hasn’t yet been costed because the bill won’t be introduced to the House until July 2022. We’ll need to go through a select committee, and then once that is completed, then there will be able to be costings for that, but at this stage we don’t have that.

Madam Chair, I’m very mindful of the fact that I’m supposed to be talking about ACC, with that ministerial hat on, and we haven’t had an opportunity to do that yet. So I’m putting to the committee that perhaps we should switch to that portfolio and have 10 minutes on ACC.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Minister for that overlay and to talk about ACC. As we discussed back during the vote, Labour—

Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, and I apologise to the member but it is convention for the chair of the relevant select committee to commence the sections, and the chair is behind me.

MARJA LUBECK (Chairperson of the Education and Workforce Committee): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And yes, indeed, as the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee I’m happy to take a call on this debate.

I’m going to provide a quick outline of the process our select committee followed in considering the annual reviews on the Accident Compensation Corporation and WorkSafe New Zealand. This year, in line with the review of the Standing Orders 2020, we took a sector-wide approach to the annual review process. In this case, considering ACC and WorkSafe, we decided to report on the labour market as a whole rather than reporting on each entity separately. We invited the Minister, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, to speak on the broader themes and issues she’s working through in her portfolio. What this new process allowed us to do was to not only consider the findings of the individual agencies but how they relate to each other, and also what sector-wide outcomes are being achieved for New Zealand.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank the Hon Michael Wood, Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, for his contribution to the select committee at this process. Because what that provided us was to have a further sector-wide lens, a view on the issues.

But focusing on the ACC part of the overview, the Minister for ACC went into details on the big role that ACC has had to play since COVID-19 spread to New Zealand. She told us about the work her office is doing to look after pre-existing claimants and whānau in ensuring their safety, as well as proactively modifying the way that treatment and support were provided.

We had officials from various Government departments providing useful further information on how ACC are improving their service to claimants. They talked, in particular, on the introduction of a new case management model, which was completed in 2020. We heard that since the model was introduced, ACCs client satisfaction rates have significantly improved. The Minister said that the Government had made the decision in July 2020 to keep levy rates unchanged until 2022. We heard that this decision has helped ease the financial pressures of COVID-19, and also, at the same time, it provided more certainty for businesses.

Our committee was also pleased to hear about ACC’s work to improve outcomes for Māori. We heard about their strategy Whāia Te Tika and the three focus areas there. We heard about initiatives that are supporting this particular strategy, including introduction of a Māori customer advisory panel and the testing of a Whānau Ora model for the provision of home-based disability and support services.

The committee considered many more aspects of ACC, including its contribution to support New Zealand’s efforts to reduce net emissions to zero by 2050. The committee was pleased to learn that in a great display of timeliness, ACC had already taken steps to reduce their emissions, and in August 2020 had introduced a climate change framework.

We sought information on what investment ACC was making to prevent workplace injuries and, in particular, in the higher risk areas of industries like farming, construction, and forestry. We learnt about ACC’s views on the dealing with psychosocial harm in ACC cases as well. That has given us something to look forward to hearing about.

It was a robust review, and just like when I opened the Estimates debate earlier this year for the education sector, I wanted just to acknowledge the new format that we considered these entities within. I thank the Ministers for giving their time to the committee. It gave us an opportunity to have a very robust debate about the future of the labour sector in New Zealand, and at the same time that provided for increased parliamentary scrutiny. Thank you, Madam Chair.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I’ve got two areas of questioning for the Minister that we discussed through the select committee, and I acknowledge the select committee chair there. The first area is around the transformation programme, which includes the next-generation case management system. We were told in that select committee hearing that everything was fine. But I think subsequently to that we’ve found out that things are not fine, actually—widespread issues around staff workload and falling client satisfaction rates. So my question to the Minister is quite clear around that. Does the Minister stand by her statement at the time in regard to the transformation programme that it’s showing promising signs? And if so, how can she, and why can she, still be confident that is the case when it has become very clear, subsequent to those conversations, that the ACC system in regard to the transformation programme is failing its staff and failing Kiwis who are reliant on the ACC support system?

The second area of questioning that I would have for the Minister is in regard to trust in ACC, another area of topic that we discussed. Subsequently to that, there’s been widespread reporting of a culture of employees sharing private images of bodily parts and images and injuries on Snapchat, in a group called the ACC whores, including of an athlete representing New Zealand on the world stage, and these photos also included someone who attempted suicide. This has all been reported by media. This is completely abhorrent and completely unacceptable. I want to understand from the Minister, who holds the accountability for the performance of her department: what is specifically being done about protecting Kiwis’ privacy within the ACC corporation? And a second aspect is: is the Minister confident that the investment, significant investment, in privacy infrastructure and capability is sufficient, given these very real problems? Thank you, Minister.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for ACC): Madam Chair, I’ll try and speak really quickly, because I know that the member Jan Logie would like to say a few words. With regard to the case management model and the business transformation model and that case management model, the work was completed in 2020, September. However, they have said that they need time to embed. Clearly, there’s some room for improvement. It doesn’t mean that it’s all bad. However, there certainly is some room for improvement, and that’s certainly the discussion that I’ve had with the board chair, and I know that the acting CEO has been working hard on that.

The privacy issues—that’s completely unacceptable. It was appalling. I think we were all absolutely shocked by that. I think the ACC has done the right thing by commissioning an external review. They worked with Treasury with regard to the terms of reference on that. We will wait to see what the findings of that review are, and I am confident that ACC will take on board the findings and recommendations that come from that.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you. Specifically, is the Minister willing to consider a law change to lose the requirement for an assessment for sensitive claims to establish mental injury to put over $20 million and over tens of thousands of precious psychologists’ and psychiatrists’ time back into healing rather than causing harm?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for ACC): We will be having a law change very soon—or at least having legislation come to the House. It doesn’t cover what has been asked for by the member, Jan Logie, but I am excited about the fact that we are able to introduce legislation that will cover birth injuries and will reverse some of the harmful changes that were made under the previous National Government in this piece of legislation that will come to the House before the end of the year.

There’s more work to do. I’m always looking for ways as Minister to work with Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on policy developments that see us covering off some of the equity issues or gaps that currently exist with ACC. I do want to say that ACC is a world-class scheme. I feel that, as a country, we are very fortunate that those who came up with this idea 50 years ago did. It was 50 years ago, though, and so we do need to be mindful of the fact that 50 years later, the world has changed. How do we ensure that the scheme is fit for purpose for 2021 and moving forward? That’s certainly where my mind is at, but I can’t pre-empt to that member what any future legislative changes might be. All I can say is we certainly are already looking at that space.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Thank you, Minister. Members, the committee is suspended for the dinner break, and we will resume at 7 p.m.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Ā, kāti rā, tēnā rā tātou katoa. The committee has resumed. Members, before the dinner break, the committee was considering current issues and priorities in a special debate. That debate is now resumed. There are approximately three hours, 15 minutes remaining in the debate. The following Ministers will be available to speak to their portfolios: from 7 p.m. the Minister of Transport, from 8 p.m. the Minister of Housing, from 9 p.m. the Minister for Children. Minister Wood is in the chair now for the transport portfolio. The question is that current issues and priorities be noted.

Transport

GREG O’CONNOR (Chairperson of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee): Thank you, Mr Chair. It gives me great pleasure as the chairman of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to begin this debate. I want to acknowledge the current and former member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee across the aisle and, of course, fellow members on this side of the aisle as well. A very hard-working committee. [Coughs.] They do say you choke if you’re not telling the truth, but I’m sure there’s no truth in that at all. It’s just my dinner.

So anyway, the committee heard from the Minister through the appropriations, and I might say that the entities involved in the vote are the Ministry of Transport, Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, KiwiRail Holdings Limited, City Rail Link Limited, the Civil Aviation Authority, Maritime New Zealand, and the Transport Accident Investigation Commission. In 2021-22, $7.906 billion was sought for vote transport—this is about 3.8 percent less than the estimated actual spending of $8.22 billion under the vote in 2020-21.

Permanent appropriations for the National Land Transport Programme make up 50 percent of the vote at $3.97 billion. This includes funding for improvements and maintenance on State highways and local roads, infrastructure for public transport services, road safety, the rail network, walking and cycling improvements, the coastal shipping. This is administered by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, and the agency works with councils and other approved organisations on the projects in the plan.

Appropriations totalling about 22 percent of the vote are allocated to rail in 2021-22. This includes ferries and the Crown share investment in the Auckland City Rail Link. It’s interesting, since these appropriations, just how much has actually happened in this space, and you’ll see announcements recently around rail improvements in the Hutt Valley. A big part of what we heard was around the need to reduce the carbon emissions in transport. The Minister drew our attention to the challenges climate change presents to the transport system, which accounts for 47 percent of New Zealand’s carbon dioxide emissions and around 20 percent of the country’s net emissions. These emissions have risen by 90 percent since 1990.

In May, the ministry released a report that proposes policies and other actions which could lead to the transport sector with net zero emissions. Again, just an example of how things have moved, the committee is now hearing the submissions into the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill. So, again, what we heard back in July has certainly come to fruition. Part of that, of course, is to bring the carbon dioxide emissions of light vehicles entering New Zealand down by almost 40 percent, to an average of 105 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre by 2025. The current average is 171 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre.

We also went on to talk about heavy transport and the challenges that there will be in reducing the emissions from heavy transport. The question I’d like to put to the Minister, perhaps, is the focus on heavy transport and the work that is going to be done there to reduce emissions in that area.

This is a very topical part of the whole New Zealand scene, particularly around the climate change, and so the committee is looking forward to doing a considerable amount of work. And I’ll just leave one more question for the Minister, perhaps. The New Zealand Upgrade Programme and the infrastructure package there—some details on that. So with that, I’ll hand it over to the Minister.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I’m very pleased to make some opening remarks in this debate, and I’ll respond to Mr O’Connor’s questions as well in due course. Firstly, can I just thank Mr O’Connor, as the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and, indeed, all the other members of the committee who are here in the Chamber this evening, for their engagement in the Estimates process. I find this a very constructive committee to work with, and, actually, really enjoyed the Estimates hearing that we held, I think it was back in about June of this year. We had a good dialogue about a wide range of issues, and I do appreciate that interchange. I’ve read through the report of the committee as well, which I think is a very fair reflection on those discussions and, again, canvasses a wide array of some of the challenges and opportunities that we face across the transport sector.

In terms of the Estimates for the year ahead, I just want to focus on a few highlights that I think will be of interest to members of the committee and the public. The first one that I want to touch on is just to give people a sense of the scale of investment that is going into the transport sector, because it really is quite striking, the increased investment that we’re seeing. This is reflected very helpfully on page three of the committee’s report, where they identify that the increase in appropriation going into transport between years 2018-19 and 2019-20 was a 15.9 percent increase. But then the increase between years 2019-20 and 2020-21, the Estimates that we’re considering now, was a further 48.8 percent increase. So that’s an increase over two Budget cycles of an appropriation from $4.768 billion to $8.222 billion. So we are seeing that under this Government, there is a significant investment that is going into the transport sector.

Probably what’s most significant about it, from my point of view—and this is very much about the Government’s objectives, as set out in the Government policy statement on transport—is that it’s going in across the modes in transport. We’ve got to look after all the modes. So we see significant investment going in over this year and the next three years of the National Land Transport Programme inter-road maintenance. Record levels going in there to deal with a real challenge and a very important issue right across New Zealand, but particularly for our rural communities. I’m really pleased with the outcomes that we’re going to see there.

But we’re also seeing investment going into the other modes. As the chair of the select committee just said, a significant investment going into rail. We’re beginning to see some of the fruits of that, things like the Trentham station opening that we saw this week; the fact that over the last month it’s been confirmed that we now have daily services on the Napier to Wairoa line to bring logs from that part of the country to the port, taking many truck movements off the road. So that multi-modal investment is really beginning to bear some fruit.

Mode shift is an explicit part of our policy, and this is reflected in the appropriations this year. We do see significantly more investment going into public transport and also into walking and cycling. There is simply no way of New Zealand reaching our ambitions to reduce emissions if we don’t give people real transport choices and the opportunity to travel around New Zealand in a range of different ways: better public transport, good quality walking and cycling options, and, in our bigger cities, mass rapid transit as well.

But we do also recognise that a large number of New Zealanders now and in the future will continue to drive vehicles. And so that’s why in these appropriations, there are also important investments that are going into the critical area of how we improve our existing and future vehicle fleet. That’s why investments in Budget 2020 in the Clean Car Standard, the Clean Car Discount, and work to establish a new biofuels mandate are enormously important. These investments will palpably reduce the emissions that come out of our fleet. This is enormously important. As Mr O’Connor said before, transport is 47 percent of New Zealand’s carbon dioxide emissions. We don’t decarbonise New Zealand, we don’t get to net zero, and we don’t play our part in limiting catastrophic climate change unless we address it in transport. So these investments are important and they’ve got to start now, because if we don’t make them now, it’s only going to get harder into the future.

As the chair of the select committee said, important investments are going into a number of significant infrastructure projects, which are reflected in the appropriations this year as well. Auckland light rail and Let’s Get Wellington Moving are two that I’m sure will be of interest to members of the committee and that we’ll have a discussion about this evening. That investment in mass rapid transit is absolutely essential, from my point of view. This is the main kind of trunk line of how we give people the opportunities to move around our growing cities, to have frequent, reliable public transport that gives people opportunities to move around, to access work, to access housing, to access education, without always being car-dependent.

The investment in the New Zealand Upgrade Programme is also enormously important, and members of the committee will be aware that that programme was rebalanced this year. It is important to note that it wasn’t just rebalanced, but, actually, there was further significant investment that has gone in through Budget 2020. And the overall appropriation for that programme has increased from $6.8 billion for the whole programme to $8.7 billion, to enable us to deliver really critical projects. And it is now moving ahead. Six projects in that programme are completed, 10 are under construction, 14 are in detailed design and consent, and more than 900 New Zealanders up and down the country are employed in those New Zealand upgrade programmes as well. So it’s been an important part of the economic recovery as well.

The final comment I want to make is on some of the investment that’s going into some of the challenges we face in the New Zealand supply chain. International supply chains are under enormous pressure in every country around the world because of the impacts of COVID and imbalances in the supply, particularly of sea freight, around the world. New Zealand is not just not immune but is particularly exposed to that, as a small trading nation at distance from our markets. So it’s been really important that we step forward with a range of policies and support. I note that the Ministry of Transport—and I acknowledge the Secretary for Transport, Peter Mersi, who’s here tonight—have played a huge role here, but there’s also been a direct role for the Crown to come in and provide funding and support. The key policy here I’ll draw the attention of the committee to is the Maintaining International Air Connectivity scheme, which has been absolutely essential in enabling critical airfreight to continue that would not have been able to happen, given the collapse in the international passenger market for air traffic. So that’s been a hugely important investment and a key part of the appropriations this year.

So those are some opening comments and, I think, a few key things that might be of interest to members of the committee, and I’m very happy to take questions. And just for the benefit of members of the committee, I’ll probably just allow a couple of questions and contributions to come from members and then I’ll pop up and provide answers.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for the introduction. We’d prefer if the Minister would actually answer the questions directly, because we want to keep them tight.

So my first question is, the Minister said that across the modes of transport there’s been an increase. However, in written questions, the spend on State highway improvements and regional improvements activity class in 2016-17 was $1.3 billion and in 2020-21 is $240 million lower, at $1.1 billion. Would the Minister explain that, if there has been an increase across all modes?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): As I said, I’ll answer a couple of questions at a time, and I’ve got questions from Mr Greg O’Connor and then from Mr David Bennett here.

So Mr O’Connor asked a couple of questions, firstly, around that work that we’ll do in order to support our reduction in emissions in the heavy freight sector. This is a really important area of work as well; it’s something that’s been highlighted in the emissions reduction plan. The technology that we’ve got available to support emissions reduction in the heavy freight sector is not quite there in the same way that it is with the light vehicle sector, but there’s a lot of work that’s going on with the sector at the moment to explore, in particular, the potential not only around our battery electric technologies but also hydrogen technologies. A range of investments that have been made, not out of this appropriation but out of Minister Megan Woods’ appropriations in the low energy vehicle fund, which was increased at this Budget, that is providing a lot of support for emergent technologies there.

The member also asked about the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. I’ve provided a bit of commentary there in my opening remarks, and happy to follow up with any specific questions there.

In terms of Mr Bennett’s question, I’d ask Mr Bennett just to examine the way the appropriations as they occur across each three-year cycle of the National Land Transport Plan—that is, how we fund land transport in New Zealand. I think what he will see, if he examines that, is that we’ve seen a significant increase across those categories, particularly in the maintenance category in the 2021-2024 National Land Transport Plan that we have confirmed in recent months.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry, just before I call the Hon David Bennett, can I just say we’re operating under the new rules. So in fairness to Mr Bennett, under the new Standing Orders, we should have—and he’s had a short call before this one. If we can deal with that exchange first, and then I’ll go to another member.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. We’re talking about State highway improvements, not maintenance, Minister, so would you please answer the question as to why that is. And also, relative to the fact that the number in 2020 will indicate Labour policy in the last four years of having done a National Land Transport Plan, whereas prior to that those earlier years reflected some of the National transport plan.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I’d encourage the member to look a little more widely across the appropriations. I think what he is referring to is the specific activity class figures that are represented in the National Land Transport Plan, where there is significant investment across all of those classes this year. But, of course, that is not the only way that we fund improvements, including roading improvements. So the New Zealand Upgrade Programme is direct Crown funding which is going into a range of really important projects; for example, the Ōtaki to north of Levin project, a whole range of projects around the South Island, Tākitimu stage one, and a range of others. So the total amount of investment that we are putting in across that sector is a significant increase, but it’s spread across both the money that comes from the National Land Transport Fund and direct Crown funding.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Well, how does the Minister explain that even the year before that, when the New Zealand Upgrade Programme was not in existence, it was lower than what was spent in 2016-17?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Well, I believe we’re here to answer questions about the Estimates of appropriations for the 2020-21 year, so I have not come prepared nor is it the role of this committee to consider what happened two or three years ago.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): How much did the New Zealand Upgrade Programme give to State highway improvements in 2020-21, then?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): There’s a considerable investment across the New Zealand Upgrade Programme in a range of roading projects. The way in which the money is structured is a little bit lumpy, because when investment in one of those projects start there’s an initial phase, as the member will appreciate, that goes into the early engagement, the route protection, detailed design, and consenting. So it’s a little bit difficult to actually break it down year by year, but what I will say is that a significant portion of that $8.7 billion is going into a range of important roading projects.

But I would just encourage the member to recognise that there is also a shift in Government policy which is quite a deliberate shift, which is that we no longer see it as simply adequate to plough the lion’s share of transport funding solely into a small number of gold-plated roading projects. That’s what we’ve been doing in recent decades. It’s led us to the situation that we’re in, and we believe in a more balanced approach to investment across the transport sector. So that’s why the member will see, in addition to investment in State highway maintenance, which that side of the House let go on their watch, there is investment in improved roads, but there’s also significant investment in making sure that the rail network, which suffered years of managed decline under their watch, is improved, there’s investment in the coastal shipping activity class, because we believe that has an important part to play in building a resilient supply chain. So, yes, there is good investment in important roading projects, but there is more of a spread of investment across other modes.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): The Minister tried to say that the previous Government reduced State highway maintenance. The Minister has in written questions indicated that the first two years of this Government actually had lower State highway maintenance expenditure than the previous National Government. How does he explain that then?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): My recollection of the answers that were provided to the member to that particular question—and I think he’s referring, effectively, to the amounts that were applied to State highway maintenance in the 2018-21 National Land Transport Plan—is that there was an increase in year one, a small decrease in year two, albeit still to a higher figure than was there previously, and then a further increase in year three. And that over the course of the three years there was a good increase in the total amount that was funded.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): So when the Minister says that his preoccupation is now with a balanced transport spend with a movement away from roads, has he started any major roading projects under his Government other than the Manawatū Gorge upgrade?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): The short answer to that is yes. And I do just want to provide a little bit of context for this discussion by just going directly to the all-up National Land Transport Plan (NLTP) figure for road maintenance under the 2015-18 NLTP, which was the last one that that side of the House was responsible for. And the total figure across that three-year period was $4.8 billion. In the NLTP that we have just announced, the total figure is $7 billion. That’s an increase in 46 percent that this Government has delivered for road maintenance over and above the figure that that Government provided in the NLTP that they delivered at the last reasonable point.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s a joke statistic.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: It’s a significant investment—and Mr Brownlee, I’m sure you can do the maths. A 46 percent increase over a six-year period is a very significant increase in investment.

And I just say to the member, and I’d repeat it, that it is indeed our position that it is appropriate to be investing across a wider range of modes. When this Government came into power, we had a national rail network that was on its knees, with bridges over a hundred years old that couldn’t be run on at full speed—real safety concerns. So, yes, we do believe it’s important to spread the investment—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Who sold it off?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Oh, who sold it off were the ratbags who left our lot and set up the ACT Party.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): I’ll be going mode shift as well, myself. Just some context. Recently a campaign has been launched for free public transport for community services card holders, students, and anyone under 25. Reducing public transport fares is a quick way to encourage mode shift and reduce emissions. It also provides lower-income people with more affordable transport options. Does the Minister want to see public transport fares reduced to encourage mode shift and to give low-income New Zealanders better transport options?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, making sure that public transport is as accessible as possible to all New Zealanders is really important, both in terms of increasing patronage and in terms of our broader objectives around equity and fairness in our society.

There’s some really important things that we’ve done over the last year there. Over the course of COVID-19, the Government’s provided additional funding to support what’s called farebox recovery, which has meant that as patronage has dropped off because of the effects of COVID, we’ve provided additional support to make sure that services can continue without local councils having to increase fares.

But, really importantly, we’ve also started work in this year on how we can directly target reduced fares for people on the lowest incomes. I did announce a little earlier this year, and there’s funding in Budget 2020, for an initial pilot of what we’re calling the community connect card, which is programmed to commence next year, which will provide 50 percent lower fares for people with community services cards in Auckland. My hope and ambition is that we will be able to expand that out over time to give the benefit of lower cost public transport to more New Zealanders, and I’ve received the petition the member refers to. I will continue to look at that and we’ll make further considerations as a part of our response to the emissions reduction plan consultation.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Will the Government commit to advancing free fares for transport disadvantaged groups such as community services card holders, under-25s in Budget 2022?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): The Minister of Finance wouldn’t be too happy if I made a commitment on behalf of the Government prior to the Budget process making its way through. But I’ll certainly be continuing to make representations to ensure that we do have good funding. And as I’ve just said to the member, I was very pleased that the Minister of Finance did see fit to support the community connect pilot that we are planning on running next year. The other comment I’ll just make on this, of course, is we do have the emissions reduction plan consultation under way now, and we do think it’s important that we consider the feedback on that, look at the range of proposals and ideas in the round, and then make some good decisions as to how we support a better and more accessible public transport system.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Why are SuperGold card holders provided significant public transport fare subsidies nationwide, but not community services card holders and under-25s?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I think that the institution of the SuperGold card, which occurred under a previous Labour-led Government, was a really important advance, and it provides a particular benefit to seniors who, without easy access to transport options, can become very isolated and really have their options cut off. So I’m a strong supporter of the SuperGold card, and it’s something that I’m proud that it was this side of the House that instituted it some years ago and has made good efforts to retain it. So I think there are good reasons for retaining that.

But I do take on board the member’s point that there are other groups in our community who do have very fixed incomes. And that’s why in that initial piece of work, we’re focused on people on the community services card who, by definition, are people from households with low income who often do suffer from transport poverty, often really struggle with the running costs of a vehicle, but might also struggle with what others of us might see as relatively small public transport fares. So that’s why we’ve started the work there. And as I say, I’m keen that we expand that out as much as we can and subject to me getting the support I need through Budget processes.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. And thank you, Minister, the Hon Michael Wood, for coming here tonight to answer some questions about this really important portfolio. I’ve been a civil engineer, and I’ve worked in construction and project delivery for over 20 years. One of the reasons why I’ve come to Parliament is because I want to see things get built faster. I want to see infrastructure delivered with a more sustainable funding model. And, while the Minister and I might disagree on the particular mode where that investment is made or on a particular project, actually, it should not be for politicians to decide on the mode and to decide on the project. The ACT Party believes that we should take the political influence out of decisions around infrastructure and transportation spending.

One of the risks of having a political influence over decision making is that, while this Government has chosen to invest heavily in rail, the previous Government had established a direction of travel with major roading projects that had engaged designers, planning consultants, environmental specialists, and, of course, the physical works contractors themselves to build a sequence of roading projects, to use their resources in a sequential manner. And, unfortunately, under the 2017 Labour-led Government and this current Government, there’s been a loss of confidence because there is no certainty about which projects will get delivered. And we’ve seen that with the New Zealand Upgrade—initially $13 billion worth of projects scoped and announced and then a radical cut, with very little notice, to $6.5 billion. And we know that hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on scoping, on investigation, on planning, and, potentially, on consenting some of these projects, including the Auckland Harbour Bridge cycle path, the Northern Pathway—$51 million spent to date. The meter is still running on that terribly expensive project as the design continues for a project that will never be delivered, Minister.

But I want to come back to this aspect of this Government’s programme. The Auckland light rail project has been promoted as solving a problem, city centre to Māngere, to provide part of a transportation network and to open up land for housing development between the city centre to Māngere. So I would like the Minister to answer: when will the Minister approve the project to start? And when can Aucklanders expect shovels to be in the ground?

A further question, Minister, if you could consider these together: how will the Auckland light rail project be paid for? Will it be paid for out of the National Land Transport Fund or from other Government funding? Will it be paid for largely by fares? And over what time frame could it be paid for? What is sustainable in terms of recovering the costs for that project? Who will pay—will it be Auckland ratepayers? Will it be a targeted rate for those living along the corridor? Or would the Minister consider a public-private partnership or a special purpose vehicle to fund and deliver the project separate from Government and separate from Government interference? Because we’ve seen quite clearly that a project like City Rail Link, which is a Government project, initially costed at a billion dollars, has suffered from enormous scope creep at the hands of both Ministers and mayors and has now blown out to in excess of $5 billion.

So, in the ACT Party, we’re very concerned not with decisions that a group of professionals like the New Zealand Transport Agency or other project delivery specialists might make—whether they choose a particular mode or project—but that the governance is established and working and remote from political interference, and that the funding and financing is sustainable and that all of those costs are not lumped on current or, potentially, future generations or a group of people who don’t necessarily have the ability to pay, and also that all the benefits, if it’s an increase in land values around a transport corridor, don’t accrue simply to the people who own land there now, when the Government project starts, and they get to gather all of the benefits in terms of the uplift in land prices while the Government, the taxpayer, the ratepayer pays all the costs for the infrastructure.

So, Minister, look, I’ve sketched out ACT’s concerns with the current direction of travel of this Government, with the fact there’s an Auckland light rail project which has been announced—it was announced four years ago—and it has not been delivered.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Penny Simmonds.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Point of order, Mr Chair. Thank you. I would appreciate it just in terms of the Standing Orders that you described before, given that I have asked a series of questions that could have been asked one at a time, I think they’ve set the scene for a Minister who’s very well versed in his portfolio, always a master of the detail—if he could just respond to my question first, I would appreciate that. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yeah, that might be a reasonable expectation, but unless members stand to take a call, I can’t allocate it to them.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m very pleased that the Minister made mention of 100-year-old bridges and his concern for them. I wonder if he could tell us how many of the 80 old, at-risk bridges in the Southland District Council area, which can’t be maintained because of the constrained funding for that district council, have had to be closed in this financial year—closures which have increased the kilometres driven on a daily basis by rural people, who don’t have other modes of transport available to them?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Thanks, Mr Chair. Just picking up on a couple of points made by the previous speakers.

First around the Auckland light rail project, I’ll start at the end of Mr Court’s comments and just note that the report of the establishment unit has confirmed that value capture is something that we’ll be exploring. I note his enthusiasm for that. I do think it’s important that where there is significant public investment in these sorts of projects there is a consideration given to those who economically benefit from them also making a contribution.

I agree with the point the member makes, as well, about appropriate governance over significant projects like the ones that we’ve canvassed tonight. And I do note that no one is immune from the challenge of cost increases that we face. So in respect of the New Zealand upgrade projects that the member referenced, they were, in fact, projects that were being delivered and overseen by Waka Kotahi and KiwiRail. So they face the very same challenges in terms of increases to labour material costs and geotechnical costs as anyone else does. They’re not projects which are run out of the Minister’s office. There were decisions made to invest in them. But, ultimately, the delivery is with those agencies and the professionals within them.

In answer to Penny Simmonds’ question, I mean, this comes down to the question about adequate road maintenance. I would note that for the regional councils in the area that she references, there have been increases provided, both to State highway and local road maintenance under the National Land Transport Fund. The challenges of significant aged infrastructure haven’t just turned up on our doorstep overnight; they’ve built up over a number of years, and the increased funding that we’re providing will provide a pathway. But there are real challenges. There are many needs that we need to meet, and choices do need to be made. But we’ll continue to give good support to the regions.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Chair. Could the Minister advise if he has had an indication from the Southland District Council of how many of the 80 old, at-risk bridges will have to be cancelled over the next three years, given the projected funding, and what sort of increases to daily kilometres by rural people in services that might bring about?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I don’t have any specific information about bridges that’ll have to be closed, which I think is what the member is getting to, but if there’s a specific concern there I’m happy to take that up from the member and look into it.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): Thank you, Mr Speaker. And thank you Minister for being here with us this evening. I really appreciate you fronting like this.

Can you confirm that the actual cycling and walking bridge is actually dead, buried, and finished and not going to come back at us? And can you give an account of just how and why it actually broke down, and what happened in the 120 days from “It’s all go” to “It’s all been stopped.”? And if you did it all again, what would you do differently? This is, I guess, one cluster of thinking.

The second is that I’m very conscious there’s been $14 million spent on four houses to support that project, which is now no longer going ahead. And I can imagine it’s pretty disruptive for those families and stressful for those people involved. What actually happens now for those folk and for those people, is sort of the first bit of questioning.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): As the member will be aware, earlier this year, when the Government made decisions around rebalancing the New Zealand upgrade programme, we did make indicative decisions around how we wanted to improve walking and cycling access across the Waitematā. We said at that point that we would receive further business case work and advice from officials, and we received that. That information led us to the conclusion, in combination with the fact that it was not a project that received wide support, that it was better to invest the majority of that funding into other projects. Projects like the Eastern Busway, which the member is familiar with, the Glen Innes to Panmure cycling way, and an excellent project to give a rail freight hub to the community of Ashburton that’ll take a large number of roads off that very congested part of the State highway network. So we made a balanced decision there, but we’re going to continue working to make sure that we give Aucklanders better access as they want to walk and cycle around the city.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): I’m sort of thinking about a more comprehensive second harbour crossing. I know when we spoke last time you were saying there was—you know, working through a range of options as to what the alternatives actually are. What progress on a second harbour crossing has been made since those comments were made? Am I correct in that there’s sort of $60 million, I think, put aside for business case and property acquisition? And I guess the question is, given the importance of the project to sort of enable growth and development and housing and other transport in North and South Auckland, when I think about the speed of development—say, like on the Öresund Bridge between Denmark and Sweden and how fast that went from idea to execution to completion—what can we do to make it a bigger priority, and how much faster could we go, and how could we accelerate the development of that project?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): It is an important strategic project for Auckland. We’ve already taken steps to bring it forward, and the previous iteration of the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP)—but I think Minister Simon Bridges was responsible for it—was tagged as a project for the 2040s. We’ve indicated that needs to be brought forward to the 2030s and in this version of ATAP, as the member has identified, we’ve invested $60 million into that business case work and initial property acquisition. We’ve got further work going on at the moment to understand what the options are, and it’s something I am keen to see that we proceed with as soon as we reasonably can, recognising that it’s a complex project that needs to tie in to other important parts of the network.

One of the areas that the Auckland Light Rail Establishment Unit has explored is the importance of making sure that we develop a linked-up mass rapid transit network for Auckland, which involves a bit of planning as to how the city centre to Māngere line, a North Shore line, and a north-western line could potentially intersect to create a really great network for people. So we’ll be bringing that work together in the next phase of work around Auckland light rail and the business case work around the addition of a Waitematā Harbour crossing will continue into next year.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): The Minister mentioned the North Shore and north-western line. Why are they less of a priority than the Auckland rail link at this time?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Firstly, because it was a manifesto commitment that we campaigned on and received a mandate for at the last election. Secondly, because of the significant growth potential and congestion challenges along that corridor.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Well, if there are suggestions of a growth prospect on that corridor, the business case talks about 36,000 houses available with the potential of 66 if there is an investment in large, renewable urban centres along that route. Has the Government put any money forward to enable that investment?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): The Government’s already putting a lot of investment into the Auckland Housing Programme, and that’s one of the reasons why this route is important, because it goes through the Auckland Housing Programme areas in Mount Roskill, Ōranga, and Māngere, where there’s already significant urban growth occurring. In the next phase, as we move into detailed planning for the route, the establishment unit recognises and recommends that we bring together the transport planning and the urban development planning. That’s why we’ve had Kāinga Ora and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development involved in this project, and I expect further work to be done at the next stage.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): So the Minister said just before that the growth was a big part of the reason for our Auckland rail link, at 36,000 houses in that area. How many houses are expected to go into the north or the west of Auckland individually?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): The member would be better to address that to the Minister of Housing.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Would it be more than 36,000 when his business plan for Auckland light rail indicated 320,000 houses in total in Auckland? Wouldn’t he expect that the west and the north have a significant command of that increase when you look at what the Auckland Plan said, say three years ago, which would indicate that there were significantly more increases in housing in those areas than his route.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Well, I can help the member there. The establishment unit identifies that, with the investment of Auckland light rail, between 19 and 25 percent of Auckland’s urban growth could be catered for along that corridor, which will be more significant than any other.

But in reference to those other growth areas, we are making continued investments. We’ve turned around the singularly stupid decision of the previous Government not to enable bus lanes on the north-western busway, and construction is already under way to create that so that the people of the north-west have access to mass rapid transit. The northern corridor project, which our Government is funding, is extending the northern busway up towards Albany and creating better roading connections as we speak.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): So Minister, how can he say that it’s 19 or 20 percent when 35,000 or 36,000 houses, which is what the project business case says, out of the 320,000 houses, which is in its initial paragraphs, of the total number of households—that’s close to 10 percent. The 20 percent figure you’re using is only if there is that huge development along the route, which is not funded by this Government.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. I went to visit the Let’s Get Wellington Moving project consultation team a few weeks ago at the Basin Reserve. I’m interested in that project, Minister. Four options have been proposed by Let’s Get Wellington Moving. A couple of them involve putting a tunnel through Mount Victoria and relieving the congestion around the Basin Reserve. That’s a similar outcome to a project put forward by a previous Government and, unfortunately, shot down in 2015.

What I am concerned about, though, Minister, is the amount of time that the project management team believes it will take to start the project. They’re proposing, with additional rounds of consultation in between design and consenting, that they won’t put shovels in the ground till 2028.

So my question to you, Minister, is: what on earth could be done to get any mode, any project, of Let’s Get Wellington Moving’s four options up and running sooner than 2028? And has the Minister taken any actions to designate, protect any of those routes or to acquire the land that will be needed to build that project? Thank you, Minister.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): A few quick points there. The first is that I would have to point out that the proposals put forward in this round of consultation are significantly different to the 2015 proposals, which were roundly rejected by the people of Wellington, which would have had a fly-over structure that would have destroyed the ambiance of the Basin Reserve. This proposal focuses on a grade separated solution around the Basin Reserve, and it’s focused on mass rapid transit as compared to the previous proposals.

I take the member’s point on board about the need to advance solutions more quickly. It’s not a bad position for us to be in with this programme, where the main criticism is that people want us to do what’s proposed more quickly than is there. What I can indicate to the member is that across the partners—being Greater Wellington Regional Council, Wellington City Council, and the Crown—I’ve initiated discussions with the chair of Greater Wellington and the mayor, Andy Foster, about steps that we can take to bring that forward, and we’ll consider that further as a part of the consultation process. We obviously wouldn’t get into designation and acquiring land until we have made final decisions on the preferred option.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you. So it’s seven years since Let’s Get Wellington Moving was proposed as a grouping of council and the New Zealand Transport Agency and the regional council. It’s quite shocking that even though there are many options available, they all seem to follow the same route or series of routes and yet no work has been done to designate or protect the route or acquire land. I think the people of Wellington would like the Minister and the Government to at least make that commitment, even while all of the other planning and design matters are worked out, because, in the end, it doesn’t matter to the people of Wellington whether it’s a bus or a train or where the trees are planted along the route, they just want to get Wellington moving and to be on a bus or a train. So is there anything that the Minister or this Government could do to get Wellington moving?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): As I said to the member before, designation and land acquisition wouldn’t occur until parties have decided preferred options, and there are actually some quite important differences between the options that are chosen, including in terms of the route. The other point I’d just make to the member is that Let’s Get Wellington Moving, to a large extent, is publicly focused on the mass rapid transit options but, actually, other work is already under way. Improvements to pedestrian facilities are currently being carried out in the Wellington central city at the moment and quite good work in terms of advancing improvements to the “golden mile”, and Hutt Road and the quays is advancing, with expected delivery before the end of this term. So there is progress that we will see before we get into the really big piece around mass rapid transport.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. With the Government planning to invest billions of dollars in large motorway projects, and the Minister did touch on that, and with the New Zealand Upgrade Programme refresh in June, it did remove some of the worst proposed new motorways but still includes projects like the Ōtaki to Levin—why does why the New Zealand Upgrade Programme that has funding allocated to it in Budget 2021 include significant new motorway projects like a new four-lane highway from Ōtaki to Levin, and how is that consistent with no longer funding projects that induce more vehicle travel and increase our emissions?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): It is a real focus of our Government, particularly in light of the independent climate commission’s recommendations that we reduce our emissions and decarbonise the transport system. The rebalancing that we engaged in around the New Zealand Upgrade Programme earlier this year was significant in this regard, and the overall impact of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme now is actually to reduce emissions on the whole. So I’m really pleased with the progress that we’ve made there. But we know that we need to continue carefully considering the projects that we invest in.

In the case of Ōtaki to north of Levin, very strong representations were made, which I do accept, that there is a real and pressing need to make significant improvements to that road in terms of the safety and resilience. It is a road that has a very high rate of deaths and serious injuries, and I think on that basis that is an investment that’s justified.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Why is the Government building a four-lane highway from Ōtaki to Levin when there is a rail line right beside this route that could be upgraded and provide for low emissions travel? And will the Government support rapid regional rail across New Zealand?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): As per indications given, the rail network improvement plan, we are also considering improvements to passenger commuter rail along that route.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): The Minister, the Hon Michael Wood, in select committee last week, said that there were a number of electric vehicle ute alternatives that would be available in the next year. In fact, one of them, he said, was being trialled in New Zealand at the moment. Is that vehicle that’s being trialled going to be available next year?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): The member is referring to the Rivian, which is being road trialled in New Zealand. And, as I said to the member the other day, it will be up to the manufacturer and distributors when it comes on to the market. What I did say to the member is that the sector itself has said that they’re working hard to get supply into the New Zealand market in the next year. And the signs are very good. For example, just this week, we’ve seen that the Ford Ranger range is likely to include a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle that will be available on the international market by next year.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Yeah, but that’s on the international market. We’re dealing with the New Zealand market, which is a right-hand drive market. Is the Minister still going to stand by his statements even though car manufacturer after car manufacturer has come in front of the committee disputing his very facts?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Yes, I stand by my comments, and I note that, because New Zealand doesn’t manufacture cars, cars for the New Zealand domestic market come from the international market.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Yes, they come from a market that is based on the Australian manufacturing criteria, which isn’t the Ford Ranger and other vehicles that he’s talking about. Will he stand by those comments in the face of complete opposition from the sector, which says that there are no alternatives to a ute in the near future on the electric basis?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I’ve already responded.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): He won’t respond—OK. When the Minister makes decisions around projects, does he take an environmental impact assessment—or business case, effectively—on those projects when he evaluates the spend that he makes, especially on something like the Auckland rail?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): All of the investments that the Crown makes go through our normal processes: business case processes, regulatory impact assessments, and, more recently, climate impact assessments.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): So, when he makes bold statements around the environmental impact of a project, what basis does he have to use, and what reporting can he do? Because nothing in the business case would indicate that there is science around the environmental outcomes that he actually advocates for?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Well, I’ve just indicated that the Government uses climate impact assessments to make those decisions, all of which become available after Cabinet has made its decisions. I’m not sure which project the member is referring to?

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): So, if the member looked at the train from Hamilton to Auckland, for example, that’s a diesel train. How would that pass any climate impact statement?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Well, for the same reason that a diesel bus will generally be more climate friendly than all of the passengers who travel on that bus would be if they travelled by vehicle. It’s a more efficient mode of transport.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Is it a more efficient mode of transport when there’s limited patronage on that train—that, actually, a bus would cover anyway?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I’d encourage the member to carry on down that line. His constant bagging of that project is, I think, probably going to add another 2,000 votes to his opponent’s majority at the next election. It’s a very popular project in Hamilton, and I’m very pleased that we’ve made improvements to it that have been announced over the last couple of weeks that, I think, will increase patronage further.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): That popularity is showing through the patronage, isn’t it, Minister? So, Minister, when he talks about Transmission Gully—and last year he had to make an extra payment to the contractors because of the COVID lockdown—what is the stage of negotiations with contractors now under a new extra payment to reflect the last lockdown that we’ve had?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Well, as the member probably knows, the arrangements for delivery of Transmission Gully were established under the previous Government. There’s a very interesting report that was released several months ago that reveals how flawed that process was and how the desperate rush to set up a public-private partnership (PPP) meant that the project was under-costed, and that was why we had to come to the rescue and provide significant extra funding for it this year. The nature of the PPP, of course, is that there is a contract with Wellington Gateway Partnership. There are currently commercial negotiations with the partner around claims that they have around the effect of COVID restrictions, and I think members of the committee would appreciate that it would be inappropriate and unwise of me to comment on what might be happening in those commercial negotiations before they’ve concluded. But Waka Kotahi is working very hard to bring them to a conclusion and to make sure the project gets opened.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Mr Chair, I wasn’t going to, but I could not resist.

If Mr David Bennett wants to regain the Hamilton East electorate—as I’m sure he will in two years’ time—he’s going to need a damn sight more votes than the number of people who are travelling on the Te Huia train, because there’s only 30 a day on average. Thirty a day. And if this is the example of the sort of value-for-money proposition that Minister of Transport is trying to convince the committee he go through, then I worry that the state of the Government’s finances is even worse than I—as the finance spokesperson—thought.

Let’s look at those numbers. At 30 people a day, the service is losing $24,000 to $25,000 per day. Now, the Minister talks about that being an environmentally friendly option because it takes cars off the road. Well, we could actually put dozens of four-wheel drive diesel utes on the road, have each passenger drive one from Hamilton to Auckland and back, and still have fewer emissions than the Te Huia train, a diesel train, is emitting every single day it runs. So this party, the National Party, wants environmental impacts to be positive on the environment, and if trains make sense, that’s fine. But Minister of Transport has got to come up with a much better value-for-money proposition if he is going to solve climate change through his policies.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): The Minister in the chair, Michael Wood, said before that Auckland rail was a manifesto commitment. Does he think that that is how he should be running transport, or should he be making investments that are in the best interests of New Zealand and New Zealand commuters going forward?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I acknowledge it is a significant contrast for this Government to be committed to implementing its manifesto commitments, but that is something we feel quite strongly about on this side of the House. Auckland light rail was a project the Government very specifically campaigned upon, received a mandate for, and I’ve no doubt that, were we not to proceed with it, there’d be criticism from the member.

I do also need to respond briefly to Mr Woodhouse, who referenced figures around Te Huia patronage that were wrong by a quantum of 400 percent in terms of patronage per day on average. [Multiple members interject] It could be that the homeless man’s travelling on there as well, and that’ll add one on.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I can’t resist, again. Now, we could argue about the numbers, but even if the Minister is right—[Interruption] No, no, let’s just assume for a moment that the Minister is correct—I don’t believe he is, but let’s say that my numbers were out by a factor of four, it still means—

Hon Kris Faafoi: Don’t talk about numbers!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Oh, are we going to talk about numbers now. It’s a pity the Minister of Finance isn’t in the House, because with one—[Multiple members interject] Oh, here we go—here we go. Let’s talk about numbers. Let’s talk about 12: the number of Labour MPs that on the Colmar Brunton poll who won’t be here in two years’ time. And let me tell the Minister of Justice, because he’ll be one of them anyway—he’s probably going to go voluntarily—that that number will be a damn sight larger. So I’m very happy to talk about numbers. The Minister of Transport is wrong, but let’s assume just for a moment that he’s not, and that my estimates of average patronage were out by a factor of four, that makes the service 65 percent lower, nearly two-thirds lower than the business case that he says made it viable said it needed. It isn’t viable. There’s no amount of dancing on the head of that pin, Mr Wood, that is going to make Te Huia work. It’s not Te Huia; it’s a white elephant. What we would have—and the good people of Hamilton know that a service that leaves at the right time, that gets to Auckland in the right time, and isn’t slower than the cars they’re trying to get out of—would be supported. It’s not. It’s a bad idea, it needs a better Minister of Transport, and I think the next member for Hamilton East would make a very good candidate for that role.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): It’s the same arguments that that side of the House makes about every investment in rail. It’s the same arguments they made when they ran down the investment in the Napier to Wairoa line, which is now running every single day, taking log trucks off that road. It’s the same arguments that they made against the Capital Connection, which started off from a low base and is now an essential connection for the people of the lower North Island. And the final thing I can say to that member is that there’s one guaranteed way for any of us in this House, no matter what side, to avoid not being here after the next election, and that’s to actually win a seat. As I look over to that side, there’s only one man sitting there who was capable of doing that.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would just remind the Minister of Transport, who’s just sat down, that I also won my seat. The Minister announced a Clean Car Discount and tax system earlier in the year, commonly known as the ute tax. At the time, a number of figures were put out for how much various cars would be taxed under the system, but since then he has changed the design of the mechanism, including shifting the method of even measuring the emissions of cars. Will the Minister be releasing new information on how much various models will be taxed under his revised clean car tax? Or ute tax, as we like to call it out on the farm.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I’m not quite sure which changes the member is referring to. Changes that were made in the consultation period, for example, actually resulted in a lower charge being applied to the Clean Car Standard. We made changes to the Clean Car Discount in the policy design to allow a wider range of vehicles, including hybrids and some cleaner internal combustion engine vehicles, to also be eligible for that scheme. And, of course, the full schedule of both discounts and fees will be made available to the public before the scheme comes fully into effect.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): The Minister for Climate Change, James Shaw, has made commitments about New Zealand and 50 percent by 2030 recently in Glasgow. Will that affect and increase his desire to have more transport spend associated with public transport and walking and cycling, and will it increase his appetite to go even harder on the clean vehicles requirements to meet those new challenges and targets?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Of course, the original target of net zero by 2050 was actually signed up to by the Hon Paula Bennett when she travelled to Paris some years ago. If we actually want to achieve that, we’re actually going to have to start reducing emissions along the way. So if the member opposite is suggesting that we can’t have a target to reduce our emissions by around about half of that by 2035, he’s going to have to explain how we get to net zero by 2050, because I don’t see how that will happen.

The answer to the second part of the question is: of course. It’s the Labour Party’s policy, and one that we’re very proud of, to continue increasing investment in good-quality public transport for our growing cities and safe walking and cycling options. It is a contrast to the previous Government, but it’s one that we’re not shy about.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I understand the Minister of Housing is now available.

Housing

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m delighted to lead off the Estimates 2021-22 debate on Vote Housing and Urban Development. Vote Housing and Urban Development in Budget 2021-22 consists of $4.694 billion in appropriations, which represents a 65 percent increase in actual spending from the 2020-21 year.

The Hon Dr Megan Woods is the Minister of Housing, and her ministry is the vote administrator. In keeping with our sector approach, we heard from Minister Woods. Accompanying the Minister were the three :Associate Ministers: the Hon Poto Williams, who is responsible for public housing, the Hon Peeni Henare, who is responsible for Māori housing, and the Hon Marama Davidson, who is responsible for homelessness. Ministers were accompanied by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and also by Kāinga Ora. We appreciate the logistics of the four Ministers appearing together alongside their ministries, and we thank them and the select committee clerks for their approach, recognising that it was not a simple feat.

The Social Services and Community Committee covered wide-reaching topics. Our first was in relation to house price increases, purchases of land for housing by Kāinga Ora, including the proportion of buy-ins by Kāinga Ora. We heard that Kāinga Ora has bought 308 pre-existing properties—0.37 percent of the total real estate in New Zealand. We interrogated the substantial funding for Māori housing. Minister Henare discussed the Government progressing work alongside Māori providers and iwi and hapū to support Māori housing aspirations, and capacity-building was also progressing on the alternative pathways to greater development of papa kāinga housing and whenua Māori.

KiwiBuild was discussed, including that 934 KiwiBuild homes had been built, with 897 under construction. There had been an underspend. We inquired where this would be allocated. We heard that the money eventually returns to the Crown and can be recycled for use in other programmes.

We also discussed emergency and transitional housing. It was a very significant topic. We also asked how people with disabilities or with mental health and addiction issues would be supported within this system. We discussed the Aotearoa Homelessness Action Plan released in 2020.

We also followed a line of questioning on public housing and the register. We note that the waiting list is increasing. We heard that a target of 18,000 new housing places across the country by 2024 has been set. We heard that this will be achieved by standard public housing, greater use of higher-density housing, mixed-tenure models, and distribution of housing outside the main centres.

As the chair, I sincerely thank the Minister, the officials and clerks, and the select committee members for a thorough and robust set of hearings. Thank you, Mr Chair.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): At the heart of this multi-billion dollar set of Estimates is an organisation called Kāinga Ora, and that organisation has been conducting itself in such a concerning manner that the Public Service watchdog has had to step in and investigate. So my line of questioning to the Minister tonight is going to be about how she can offer assurance to taxpayers, about how she can be confident, that that organisation—subject to a Public Service inquiry for the lack of conduct by its staff, their lack of integrity, and their lack of political neutrality—is worthy of the trust she has placed in it, on our behalf, whereby she trusts that organisation to borrow $8.3 billion of money and she allocates it hundreds of million dollars to spend.

What people listening to this debate need to know is that Kāinga Ora is a bloated, underperforming bureaucracy. It is an organisation that has grown from just over a thousand people to more than 2,000 people on this Minister’s watch. It has roughly doubled in size and so taxpayers have a right to ask, “Well, have we got double the results for that doubling of staff?” Well, no. No, we have not. We’ve seen a quadrupling in the State house waiting list, and that is the core function of Kāinga Ora—it’s to provide State housing. On this Minister’s watch, it has quadrupled. We’ve seen a complete failure on KiwiBuild. We should be having 16,000 houses by now, according to the promises made by this Government. But, actually, we’ve only just got 1,200 about the same number of staff that they’ve hired. We’ve seen Kāinga Ora go out and bid in direct competition with first-home buyers for homes, so that they can make the Minister’s numbers look good when it comes to State houses. That’s $824 million worth of homes bought by the Government in competition with first-home buyers. And what the Minister gets up and says, when I ask her about this, is she says “Oh, well as a percentage, it’s fine.” What people listening to this debate need to know is that over the entire course of the past National Government this occurred less than 10 percent of what this Minister is doing.

So what we have here is a bloated and performing bureaucracy. And so my first question to the Minister is, given the serious allegations and the serious issues that were brought to public attention by me last week, that she knew about since August but did nothing about, how can we be confident that Kāinga Ora can be trusted to deliver in the public interest for New Zealanders? And does that Minister have confidence in the board of Kāinga Ora and its ability to secure value for taxpayer money?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I’ll take a short call and address some of the statements, as well as the questions that were in there.

I think it’s been well canvassed in this Chamber, the fact that I was not satisfied with the conduct of Kāinga Ora in regard to a series of emails, and I in fact referred it to the Public Service Commission and asked them to have a look at it. But the member asks about how it is that the New Zealand taxpayer can have confidence in Kāinga Ora and their ability to deliver. I want to direct the Chamber’s attention to a series of numbers. If we take it back to 2016-17, the year of which our Government had nothing to do with delivering, 409 houses were delivered by then Housing New Zealand. We then see 2017-18, when there is a change of Government, that that goes up to 838. I then want to take us through to 2018-19: that goes up to 1,461; in 2019-20, 1,229; and in 2020-21, 1,866. So the member asked the question that we might have doubled the number of staff, are we doubling the performance? Well the answer is we’re more than doubling the performance when it comes to that core role of actually building houses to help New Zealand solve a housing crisis.

The member says that all that this agency does is buy in houses to improve the numbers. That simply is not correct. And I’d like to, again, take this House’s attention to another series of numbers. If we have a look through, for example, 2012 to 2013, 63 percent of all properties that Housing New Zealand—under the previous Government—bought were buy-ins. They weren’t building them; they were buying them off the private market. What we have done, through a programme of work, has got it down to 13 percent of all new properties being added by Kāinga Ora being buy-ins. So when the member talks about this very large number, $824 million, that’s what happens when you actually have an active acquisition programme around houses and you are a Government committed to adding to the housing stock, not flogging it off. I’d like to point that member’s and this House’s attention to the fact it’s around 0.2 percent of all real estate transactions in this country that are accounted for by Kāinga Ora. On this side of the House, in this Government, we think those that are in public housing deserve somewhere to live as well.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): The Minister in the chair, Megan Woods, has just told the committee that she continues to have confidence in Kāinga Ora. So I want to ask the Minister whether that confidence is based on her understanding of what has gone on in that organisation since revelations were made last week. She has said she was concerned by those revelations, so I would like to know: is the Minister aware that no internal communications went out to staff at Kāinga Ora about what had occurred until Saturday morning, and that it was on Saturday morning that staff at Kāinga Ora were told that they best be careful to adhere to the expectation of political neutrality. Does the Minister think that was a timely intervention by the leadership of Kāinga Ora, or does she think that that should’ve happened days, weeks, or months earlier?

Furthermore, is the Minister confident that the leadership of Kāinga Ora has taken her concerns seriously in light of this email which I am about to read? This email says, “I feel compelled to email you this morning, Nicola. I work in a share space and I am surrounded by an increasing number of employees of Government departments, most of them from Kāinga Ora.” The email goes on to say, “While I was getting my coffee today from the kitchen beside one of our conference rooms, I observed laughing and joking from the main boardroom. It was one of the regular Kāinga Ora team meetings, and it soon became clear to me that the topic of conversation was the current Arena Williams - Kāinga Ora email saga. What was also clear to me was they all, including senior members, consider this a bit of a joke, and the tone and theme of conversation was ‘Bummer we got caught—bit of a laugh.’, etc., which indicates to me that this event is clearly not being taken seriously with the agency.” I would like the Minister to respond to that.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I will just address some of the inaccuracies in the statements that member has just made, that in fact there may have been another email sent out on Saturday of this week but, in fact, there were one-on-one conversations with the staff members that were directly involved with it several months ago. But, of course, this is all now subject of the Public Service Commission and the work that they are doing to look at that question. The member asks how I can have confidence in that board and the fact that things will change. I think that I can have absolute confidence that the communication I have had with the chair of Kāinga Ora is that he absolutely accepts what happened was unacceptable, it should not have happened, it will not happen again, and that we need to take a robust look at it.

But I will note that this is actually not something new. If we look back to the Mt Roskill by-election, actually, Nick Smith, as the then Minister of Housing, was pulled up for directing housing officials to help with Parmjeet Parmar’s by-election at that time. I think documents revealed that “Parmjeet Palmer has expressed a keen interest in hosting a roadshow. She is keen to raise a local profile in Mt Roskill in case of a by-election.”, an email from housing Minister Nick Smith’s private secretary said.

Now, I can accept that what happened within Kāinga Ora was simply unacceptable. But I’ll tell you what did not happen: my office was not involved in it; I did not know about it until I read the email. So I think that we can accept things go wrong, but I think some members should be careful of throwing stones.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I want to know if the Minister of Housing remembers a Social Services and Community Committee hearing where she sat next to the chief executive of Kaīnga Ora, Andrew McKenzie. That hearing took place on 9 June, and at that hearing I put to the Minister and Mr McKenzie allegations that have been put to me repeatedly by housing developers across this country, who have come to me on multiple occasions to say, “You know, the problem is this Labour Government has filled Kaīnga Ora up with so much money, they’ve put so much cash in the piggy bank, that those guys are going around the country, spraying the money around it, outbidding the private sector for land such that we can’t compete.” They’re outbidding, they’re pumping up the price of land, and they’re doing it with no commercial discipline whatsoever.

I said to Mr McKenzie, “How do you respond to these allegations that you’re flinging the taxpayer’s cheque book around?” And I got specific. I raised the specific example of Swanson Road, a property that I had been told on good conviction that Kaīnga Ora had allegedly offered around $36 million for, whereas the nearest underbidder allegedly made a bid of $26 million dollars. And I put to Mr McKenzie that the story being told around New Zealand boardrooms is that what then happened was that the developer community got wind of this overbid, threw their toys, Kaīnga Ora got ear of it, the heat went on, and they found a reason under due diligence to withdraw their bid. And I said, “I’m troubled by this, because what that tells me is that Kaīnga Ora was prepared to pay $10 million more than the market for that property.”

And Mr McKenzie, he dismissed my concern. He said, “The winning tenderers were a small amount below us.”, and, “The purchaser purchased it for within $2 million of the amount that we had assessed it, subject to due diligence.” So you can imagine that I was pretty upset when some time later, Mr McKenzie wrote to that select committee to say that the comments he had made were incorrect—that, in fact, Kaīnga Ora had been told that the final purchase price was $8.3 million less than the offer they had made. That is to say, that the allegation I had put was substantially backed up by the real numbers.

So what did we do? We saw that Andrew McKenzie, whether knowingly or unknowingly, had mislead a parliamentary select committee on aspects of fact. He had misled that committee, so we wrote to the committee and we said we would like the chief executive of Kaīnga Ora to appear before us to explain this, to explain this, and—

Angie Warren-Clark: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): A point of order, Angie Warren-Clark.

Angie Warren-Clark: Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d just like to—

NICOLA WILLIS: Cover up again, like you did?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! This will be heard in silence.

Angie Warren-Clark: I’d just like to raise that the official does not have the opportunity to defend themselves from this House, and I would like to also advise that the official wrote to us and noted the matter without prompting from anyone.

NICOLA WILLIS: Ha! Mr Chair, I’ll respond to that.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, no, e noho! I’m going to rule on this. You don’t get to interrupt. The member is quite right: officials don’t have any ability to respond. However, what I say to the member is she is sailing really close to the edge, and she should be very careful and not let the emotion tip her over that line.

NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Chair, I take your point entirely, and I take the point that Angie Warren-Clark has made, because I think there is a very important principle here, and that is that officials should have the opportunity to address issues of this nature. That is why I, together with my National Party colleagues, wrote to the Social Services and Community Committee, asking that Mr McKenzie be recalled, pursuant to Standing Order 191, so that he could better explain these matters for the House. And I would note, for the record, that Labour members voted against that.

I find that I find that very upsetting because I think there should have been the opportunity for Mr McKenzie to explain how this error was made. And I make no judgment on whether the error was his or someone who advised him. What I note for the record of this House is that the allegation I made in the select committee was substantially backed up by the facts, but only after the fact, and I find that troubling. I find that troubling in the context of an organisation that the Public Service watchdog is investigating on issues that, in his own words, go to trust and confidence in the Public Service. And I put to this committee that we have evidence before us in the letter from Mr McKenzie that demonstrates this is not the first time that Kaīnga Ora had, willingly or unwillingly, mislead members of the public. I find that very troubling.

But the bigger issue that I would ask the Minister to address is this: is she confident that Kaīnga Ora, with the billions she has allocated to it in this Budget, will not be bidding up the price of land in New Zealand, that Kaīnga Ora will not be grossly outbidding other private housing developers for land, that it won’t be squeezing out those who wish to get on and build housing, and that when it does acquire land it will do so having demonstrated that it will build houses quicker than those private developers could have? I think those are very legitimate questions for this committee that the Minister should answer.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. While this is an incredibly important topic and the Greens do have concerns, I will try and keep my volume to a bearable level. So noting that there’s been a net increase of 2,490 public houses in the September 2020 to September 2021 year, Kāinga Ora has been delivering at about this rate steadily for three years but has not scaled up. So the Green Party would like to know: could Kāinga Ora, local councils, and community providers, including iwi and Māori providers, be delivering more public housing if additional funding was provided? If not, what other constraints are limiting capacity and how will the Government be addressing these factors? More specifically, are there any steps being taken to build capacity of iwi and Māori providers to deliver housing on their land?

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to put some recent announcements of the Government to the Minister to ask how they square up. So if I look at a recent Beehive press statement made by the Hon Dr Megan Woods about the Housing Acceleration Fund, she’s stated that, “Between the Government and Auckland Council we have identified that these are the places where we want more growth.” It then goes on to say, “As part of the Auckland partnership, the Government and Auckland Council have agreed these areas as joint spatial priorities for growth.”

Now, these are for five suburbs that the Government and the council together have decided should be spatial plans where there’s need for housing and a need for infrastructure to go with it. I’d like to know how that squares up with the recent announcement of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, which essentially makes it a free-for-all, ripping up the rules that are in place within Auckland Council, the plans that are in place, the priority areas that have been drawn up over years of work for suburbs that the council has deemed to be important places for growth that need infrastructure funding, and I’d like to know how it is possible that these two different things could be happening at the same time. There is a need for infrastructure, so why on earth is she ripping up the rules when she thinks that infrastructure is important, and when she also thinks working and engaging with the local councils is also important?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I will take a short call here and address some of the questions that have occurred over the last three or so speeches. I would like to make the point that when a member wants to hold a public servant to the level of political neutrality that I also believe they should be held to, then there are actually some conventions of this House around attacking politically neutral public servants and not dragging them into a debate in a space where they cannot defend themselves. I think it has been deplorable what we have seen from that member in the Chamber tonight. That person is not here to defend themselves, and of course there is an active Public Service Commission investigation under way, which is the due and proper process in which that should be done. So I am very disappointed.

The Opposition spokesperson from the National Party did ask me if I remember the select committee and being there when she was asking questions about a purchase of a property at Swanson Road. I remember it very vividly, because the member was convinced that she had a smoking gun. It was when she was told that, actually, Kāinga Ora hadn’t actually purchased the property that the wind went out of the sails of the member a little bit. She then asked the chief executive what the valuation had been. He said, off the top of his head, he thought this was the number. He then found he had made an error, and he wrote to the committee, off his own back, saying he had made an error in an answer and wanted to correct it. I come from a school of thought where I believe humans are human, and people sometimes do make errors when they’re recalling numbers from the top of their head. And when you have the chance to correct it and you do of your own volition, then actually I think that is called putting it right.

I’d also like to address some questions that were put to me by Jan Logie, who asked about some of the constraints that we were seeing—was it funding or were there further constraints? And the member said that we’d seemed to have only scaled up and been delivering at the same scale for the last three years. I’d like to point the member to the figures that I read out at the beginning of this session, that, actually, we’re tooling up our public housing organisation from being an organisation that sold off our public houses over the tenure of the previous Government and had forgotten how to build houses—it didn’t have the skills, and it had to be rebuilt in order to do that. I think we’ve seen a phenomenal turnaround of that organisation in the ability to deliver at the very high levels that we are. Of course, there are going to be COVID implications and lockdowns that have to be taken into account. But of course there are constraints that exist out there, one of which is sector itself. Workforce is a critical one, and it’s why this Government has put so much effort into apprenticeships and why Kāinga Ora itself is a leader in terms of the build partnership agreements it has with the private sector that it works with. There have been many, many apprentices that have gone through and are part—every time I visit a Kāinga Ora site, it seems that I’m meeting more and more apprentices who not only are building and rebuilding the public houses that were sold off under the previous National Government, but are actually learning a trade and the skills required to do it.

She also asked, “Could we do more if we work with councils and iwi?” Well, we are. The community housing sector is receiving funding unlike they’ve ever seen before simply because we are building at a scale that has not been seen since the 1970s. And, of course, we have put significant money into iwi partnerships, papakāinga, but also with iwi Māori organisations. We also know that there is more work that we need to do around this, and there’s new challenges such as supply chain constraints that have been thrown up. And I’ll leave my answers there.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): As I say, we offered the opportunity for Mr McKenzie to come before the Social Services and Community Committee to explain himself, and that opportunity was denied by Labour members. My point is one about Government policy, and it is an issue that that Minister is responsible for. It is about the Kāinga Ora land acquisition programme.

Now, we know that Kāinga Ora has previously had access to funds to purchase land for housing. And this has led to the spectacle at Ihumātao of that fund being raided to sort out a political problem. And in that matter, the Auditor-General did find that, actually, there hadn’t been proper process. So there is concern here historically about the way these land acquisition funds have been used. But my question for the Minister is about the Kāinga Ora land programme that was funded in this Budget, because I would like to know why it is that a Budget passed in May then led to a meeting in August between the Minister of Housing, the Minister of Finance, and their officials to clarify the Minister of Finance’s expectations in relation to that programme, because I would like to know: why weren’t the expectations for that land programme clear before that Government allocated billions of dollars for the programme? I would like to understand that.

And I would like to understand if the Minister has had raised with her by Treasury or others concerns about the way that land acquisition programme will occur, and whether or not there is adequate coordination across Government programmes, whether or not the decision-making processes and consultation for those billions of dollars have been properly formed, and whether or not the role and emphasis for that programme is correct. And I ask the Minister these questions in light of this knowledge: that Minister and the Prime Minister have received letters raising with them serious concerns about Kāinga Ora’s approach to land acquisition and its willingness to outcompete private developers in a way that cuts off their ability to access the land they need to build housing on.

And I raise these questions in light of the record of this Government when it comes to actually getting houses built on land. I’m lifting up an article about the Unitec development in Auckland. Years and years and no houses. So my question is: why should we have confidence that that Government allocating itself billions to outcompete with private developers will deliver more housing than the market would without taxpayers having to foot the bill?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I’m just going to address a couple of things. One is a simple inaccuracy by that member and, I think, a lack of understanding of how the various funds work. So the fund that was used, the Land for Housing fund, which was, in fact, a fund set up under the previous National Government, was the fund that was used to purchase the land at Ihumātao. It was nothing to do with Kāinga Ora. It is a fund that is administered for the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, so absolutely nothing to do with Kāinga Ora there.

In terms of the question she’s asking about the meetings between the Minister of Finance and myself to discuss the continuing governance and setting up an exciting $2 billion fund so we can start doing some property development: yes these happen all the time, not just in August. This is an ongoing piece of work that we have Ministers from across Government having conversations on, just like I have conversations with the Minister of Transport around a lot of this. We have a group of urban development Ministers, and, of course, the Minister for Infrastructure, who is also the Minister of Finance and the Deputy Prime Minister, is a critical group of those urban development Ministers that need to be continually talking to each other to make sure that across the massive investment we’re making in infrastructure, whether it be through three waters, whether it be through Waka Kotahi, whether it be shovel-ready, whether it be the Housing Acceleration Fund, we are lining these up. And I’m pleased to say that we are.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to simply raise the same point that I raised before and hope that the Minister will actually answer my question that I know will be on the minds of many New Zealanders when it comes to the Housing Acceleration Fund and how that works against the recent announcement of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. In one case, you have the Government saying that it’s really important to work with councils and that when we’re building new homes, it’s really important that we have the infrastructure there, and it’s funded, so that we can actually have a city that works. Now, under the recent announcement of the enabling housing supply legislation, they’ve ripped up the rules, they haven’t consulted councils, and they don’t know how they’re going to fund the infrastructure. So how do these two positions add up?

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I return to the line of questioning that I raised earlier because I think it’s very important that the Minister provide assurances about the billions of dollars that have been allocated in this Budget for land acquisition. The concern I raised was a substantive one. It was: how can the Government be confident when it goes out to purchase large tracts of land for housing, multimillion-dollar plots of land, tens of millions of dollars being spent on land, that when it does that, it is adding net benefit for taxpayers? Because the alternative, in most of these scenarios, is that a private developer purchases that land, then builds housing on it. The record that New Zealanders are very well aware of, whether it’s KiwiBuild or the failed State house bill targets, whether it’s the slow build at Unitec, is that actually the Government isn’t as good at building houses at scale and pace as the private sector is.

So the question is: how can the Government be confident when it purchases large pieces of land that it is not simply pumping up the price of land by outbidding private developers, robbing them of opportunities to build urgently needed housing, and stopping houses being brought to market as quickly as they would otherwise? This is a critical question. I know these are questions that officials across Government have also been asking. I would like to understand how the Minister can give taxpayers confidence that these funds will be spent prudently, and that these funds will create value for taxpayers.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m interested in exploring a bit around rental costs, which we know have increased by 10 percent in the year June 2020 to June 2021, according to TradeMe’s property index. If I think about my neighbourhood in Cannons Creek, a traditionally very low-income community where for rental houses now they’re asking almost $600 for an ex-State house for low-income families, it’s completely out of reach for most people. I note that Te Puni Kōkiri advised the Government to implement a rent freeze during periods of alert level 4, but this was not implemented. So I’m interested in what projections the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development have regarding future rental increases for the coming year, and is the ministry considering further measures to regulate rental increases?

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. With the time I have left, I’d like to talk to one other issue, and this is in regards to the healthy home standards. I know that the associate housing Minister said that she was aware that some landlords won’t be able to meet compliance deadlines, because of COVID restrictions, and she had received advice on that. However, she was not willing to release that advice publicly to let landlords know whether the Government should believe that there should be an extension, so landlords who might not be able to comply, through no fault of their own, would actually know what the rules are going forward. If the associate Minister is withholding that advice, will she release it?

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you. Just a quick follow-up to that, actually. The Greens are interested in the implementation of healthy homes standards, because they make such a profound difference in terms of money in the family and the health of people, being able to go to work and to school. So we were pleased to see the introduction of the new standards from July this year. We’re just wondering what proportion of new tenancies entered into since that date are fully compliant with the healthy homes standards, and what enforcement action, if any, has been undertaken against non-compliant landlords.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I want to note for the Hansard that I have given the Minister multiple opportunities to address what I think are substantive questions about how taxpayers can be assured that value for money will be achieved for the billions of dollars that this Government has allocated for the purchase of land by Kāinga Ora and that the Minister has not chosen to address those questions. I find that very concerning. I think this is a matter of public accountability and that it would be appropriate for the Minister to share with this committee the advice she has had on those matters.

None the less, given that she doesn’t want to address how this $2 billion piggy bank will, in fact, face constraints, I will ask her some other questions. I would like to know from the Minister whether she can confirm that she was provided advice that tax changes put forward by that Government to remove interest deductibility for housing and to increase the brightline test could have the effect of increasing churn in the rental market, with the impact being felt mostly by those at the lower-income levels of the tenancy market, with the likely outcome that it could lead to an increase in demand for social housing and an increase in demand for emergency housing.

If she can confirm that she received that advice, I wish to know what she makes of the fact that the State house waiting list has continued to increase at a rapid rate and that rental prices have continued to accelerate. And I wish the Minister to give this committee an assurance of by what date this Government will finally succeed in reducing the State house wait-list, at the very minimum, to the levels it was at when that Government took office.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I will address some of the issues that have been raised. The issue around the relationship around the Housing Acceleration Fund (HAF) and how that works with the up-zoning legislation that is currently going through this fund—yes, there is some relationship in some places, that there could be either through the money that is being paid to large-scale projects, where we’ve seen that both in Porirua and in Auckland, that there has already been allocations to those large-scale projects. There could be some interplay there. But then, also, between the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund and the up-zoning, there also could be interplay.

One of the things that we’re also very aware of is that one of the things that this legislation is doing is bringing forward the National Policy Statement on Urban Development. And, of course, this is one of the first times that a requirement was put on councils to account for infrastructure costs associated with projected housing needs in their areas, and they needed to account for that in their long-term plans (LTPs). So, yes, some of it will be through central government funding, and I think we’re seeing, across a suite of Government funds, that there is funding available for local authorities around infrastructure, for housing—of course, that’s just a fancy name for roads and pipes. So there’s various ways—the three waters funding. There’s the Waka Kotahi and the transport funding as well as our HAF funding. But then there is also a requirement for councils to start accounting for this in their LTPs and making provision across projected housing needs in their needs as well.

The Green member asked me about why it was that we didn’t take the advice from Te Puni Kōkiri about putting in a rental freeze with the lockdown this year, as we had, actually, in the March 2020 lockdown. The reason for that was that, in the intervening period, between the March 2020 lockdown and the lockdown this year, there had, of course, been the amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act, and there was only the ability for landlords to raise rents once a year. It did not exist when we went into lockdown in March 2020. So it was under quite a different environment that we were operating there, as well.

I’d also like to address some of the other questions that were raised. One was about the State house waiting list and how we account for it being so large. Part of that is the fact that there weren’t simply enough State houses when we came into Government, because the previous Government had sold off so many. In fact, over a period of nine years, not only did they not add to the stock at all but they ended up with 1,500 fewer State houses than they started with. That is less State houses than we are adding every year. So I would like to point to the fact that if the previous Government had not sold off State houses and if they had built at the rate we are—or actually below the rate that we currently are—we would have nearly an extra 16,000 State houses. So when I look at that State housing waiting list and I think about the families in my electorate whom I represent who can’t get into public houses, I also get a little bit angry. And I get a little bit angry that we had a Government that decided it was better to flog off our State houses and to end up with 1,500 fewer than when they started.

So, in terms of a commitment of when it will be that we will get the State house waiting list back to what it was when we came into office, well, what we won’t be doing is having a State house waiting list, like when we came into office, that suppressed the demand, that did not show the real demand. I know there were people in my electorate that were too scared to come forward and go on the State house waiting list, because they were living with other families in a State house in the electorate and they knew that that family would get evicted because they were breaking the terms of their lease. So there was so much suppressed demand. So I can give that member an assurance there will never, on our watch, be a State house waiting list like we found when we came into office. If there is a problem, you have to know what it is and you need to actually add to the houses and not sell them off.

The member also asked about what the arrangements around the Kāinga Ora fund, the land acquisition fund, are. She had asked in previous contributions, with a conspiratorial lens, around meetings between myself and the Minister for Infrastructure and the Minister of Finance—what we were talking about. We were actually talking about the governance arrangement that goes around that fund—what the tipping points before it needing ministerial or Cabinet signoff would be, and what that framework looked like. So there is a very clear process that involves governance, and it involves triggers of who it is that needs to sign it off. And of course this is something that we’ve given a great deal of thought to, and Ministers do, from time to time, gather in the same room, talk about it—it’s called a “meeting”—and put together what that framework is going to look like, and they ask officials for advice.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I find it very rich that the Minister is talking about people who are scared, in relation to State housing, in the very week where we’ve had the spectacle of a pensioner couple telling of how an intimidation campaign by their State house neighbour, a Black Power member who threatened to slit the throat of an 82-year-old man and watch him bleed out, are now too scared to live in their State home, because that Minister has presided over a change in policy which means that tenants can no longer be evicted from their homes. I find that pretty rich.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Incorrect.

NICOLA WILLIS: If the Minister thinks that’s incorrect, I welcome her addressing, in this debate, why it is that there have been zero State house evictions in the past three years. And when it comes to the State house waiting list, which is the core issue in this Estimates—

Hon Michael Wood: Point of order. My point of order is to draw attention to the fact that the matter being raised by the member is clearly, as described by the member, a policy matter. It’s not clear to me that it’s actually a matter that goes to the question of the Estimates of Appropriations that are supposed to be subject to this debate.

Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of the order, there could be nothing more fundamental than the issue of the expenditure, or lack of expenditure, in the Estimates, of State house evictions. It’s well within the parameters of the annual Estimates debate, which considers the appropriations that the Government seeks from Parliament, and the issue of whether or not Kāinga Ora has been using the money appropriated by Parliament to its agency in order to do evictions or not is well within the scope of the debate.

Hon Michael Wood: Speaking to the point of order, if I may, Madam Chair. I’ll simply refer back to the actual comments of the member concerned, who specifically framed her comments as a question of Government policy, and had no reference at all to the way in which it was being implemented through appropriations.

Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): One more time. Point of order, Chris Bishop—and then I’ll go back to the person who was actually asking the question.

Chris Bishop: The issue of Government policy is, of course, expressed through the Estimates. I think the member is dancing on the head of a pin. Government policy is expressed through the Estimates. Government policy is part and parcel of what is being debated in Parliament. This is Parliament doing its constitutional duty to scrutinise the actions, or lack of actions, of the Government.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Estimates is a forecast of how it is that the Minister of Housing and Urban Development is actually going to invest in this portfolio. I will let Nicola Willis finish her question.

NICOLA WILLIS: Perhaps I can be helpful and ask the Minister this: how much does she forecast Kāinga Ora will spend in the next year on security guards for tenants who are too scared to live in their homes because of the abusive Kāinga Ora tenant next door? How much does she forecast in the next year that Kāinga Ora will spend compensating tenants because they are having to live in fear? How much money does she expect the Tenancy Tribunal will order Kāinga Ora to pay because it hasn’t met its basic obligations as a landlord to protect the safety of its tenants?

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I hoped maybe I could just simplify one of the Kāinga Ora matters by asking a very simple question of the Minister: does Kāinga Ora ever bid against private developers, and, if so, why?

Now, I’d like to go back to my second question of the night, which I note the Minister once again didn’t answer, and that was a simple question about the healthy homes standards. I know it might be easy to answer the easier questions here, but I can’t help but be part of the ACT Party and ask the hard ones. But we do expect answers.

Now, this goes to the heart of the matter for landlords, New Zealanders who are providing other New Zealanders homes. They had a deadline of 1 July to make sure that their homes for tenants comply with the healthy homes standards within 90 days of any new tenancy. Now, some landlords have said that they will be unable to comply with that standard because of COVID restrictions and the delays that have been put in place because of those restrictions. They are asking for more certainty to know that they will not be unfairly penalised, through no fault of their own, because they couldn’t meet those standards.

So I’m asking: will the Government provide an extension for those landlords who’ll be caught out through no fault of their own, who may be outside—these are law-abiding people who want to do the right thing, but they’re unsure what the Government is expecting for them to do the right thing. Because when the ACT Party asked for advice on whether they would give these landlords an extension, the Minister withheld the advice that she has received, even though she admits that there could be a problem. So will the housing Minister commit to actually allowing these landlords some peace of mind and give them the advice that the Government has received and let them know whether this extension will be granted?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to the question around time frames and whether or not an extension will be granted, as the member herself has identified, it’s the Associate Minister of Housing who’s responsible for this piece of work. As she’s also acknowledged that that Minister, Minister Williams, has acknowledged that there is an issue here and it is a continuing issue that she is looking at. But what I can reassure both that member and tenants is that there does need to be a degree of pragmatism around this in terms of how the tribunal would need to consider such matters, what would be reasonable. Now, there will be tenancies that swapped over before the deadline and before the country went into lockdown. I don’t think the tribunal would be granting leniency there because there wouldn’t be a reason that was associated with the lockdown that would’ve got in the way in terms of complying with that standard. But, as in all things, we will be pragmatic and continue to look at the issue, and the tribunal will apply a degree of pragmatism and consideration and be reasonable there as well.

In terms of the questions that came from another Opposition member around whether or not there had been a change that prevented Kāinga Ora from—well, it wasn’t so much a question; it was an allegation that there’d been a change that prevented Kāinga Ora from evicting tenants. That simply is not true. Kāinga Ora can evict tenants. In fact, it has made three evictions since 2017. So to state that there has been a change that prevents it is simply misleading and untrue.

But I think one of the approaches since we came into Government is that we know these are some of the most vulnerable, and if these people cannot be housed here, more work needs to be done to ensure that these people can be housed in a way that is suitable. I think one of the things that I have always failed to understand or even hear a solution from those that oppose, that just advocate for evicting people, evicting people, evicting people, is these people still exist and they live somewhere and they’re going to be someone’s neighbour. So how about we put in place the right supports in order to make sure these people actually can sustain a tenancy? Of course no one is excusing the kinds of behaviours we’ve heard about in the media, but I think the member showed her true colours when she asked what budgets we had in the appropriations for security, for coming down with a heavy hand.

In fact, what I would instead point the member to is the part of the appropriation that shows an increased budget in our new builds, where we actually provide wraparound services for those living in transitional and public housing. I would point to the fact that now in many of our new Kāinga Ora developments we are building in space to have on-site community development, to work with the tenants as well as provide the wraparound services. I think this is what will benefit New Zealand as a whole.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): Noting the significant allocations in this Budget with a purpose of provision of State housing, I wonder whether the Minister thinks it’s acceptable that, on average, people now wait 293 days to be housed in a State house, having been judged as eligible for one, and whether, given in September 2017 that figure was 104 days—so around a third of the waiting time—the Minister would consider reinstituting a Public Service target to reduce public housing wait times, as existed when that Minister came to office. Or does it remain the Minister’s position that, as long as she keeps allocating hundreds of millions, if not billions, to Kāinga Ora, then one day, someday, things might get better—even though the evidence month after month, year after year, is that the waiting list keeps growing, the waiting times keep growing, and that every time they pile more costs on to rents, more people turn up in need of a State house? I wonder if she’ll answer that.

I also return to the point that the Minister has refused to address while asked by me and other members tonight, which is whether she will address the widespread view in the community that Kāinga Ora is routinely over-bidding for properties. Land prices are skyrocketing in New Zealand, stifling housing supply, and the Government’s housing arm is out-competing private developers for land, and that Minister in this debate has refused to address how that provides value for taxpayer money.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Madam Speaker, do we still have any time?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Yes. I call on the Minister Hon. Dr Megan Woods.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Thank you. In the final seconds that we have remaining in this debate. I’d just like to say that we are a Government that do not believe that the market alone is going to fix the housing crisis. Over a series of decades, it has served up a crisis, and we on this side of the House do believe that you need an active Government that is involved and committed to solving it. I don’t think it comes as any surprise that there will be other property developers who are competing for the same land that might sometimes write a letter to a Minister and a Prime Minister because they don’t buy that piece of land. This is the price of having an active Government, and one we do not resile from.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The ACT Party have a few more minutes for this part of the debate, so I’ll allow Brooke van Velden to ask the last question.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ll make this quite quick, because I just have one point to raise to the Minister. I think this is really important for all New Zealanders, and I want to just ask the Minister, for the record: did she just tell New Zealand that the Tenancy Tribunal should not enforce the law if landlords have not met the healthy homes standards due to COVID? Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Brooke van Velden.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Will the Minister just answer the question?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): No. That is not what I told the House.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Thank you. We will now move on to the next part of the Estimates debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Thank you. We will now move on to the next part of the Estimates debate. If we can have the Minister for Children in the chair.

Oranga Tamariki

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise for the third time tonight as the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee to discuss the Estimates of Vote Oranga Tamariki. The Minister for Children is responsible for nearly all the appropriations in this vote, which is administered by Oranga Tamariki. We discussed the vote with the Hon Kelvin Davis, as the Minister for Children. Vote Oranga Tamariki is approximately $1.468 billion in the 2021-22 year, an increase of $94 million, or 6.9 percent, from the previous year’s actual expense. The majority of funding within this vote is allocated to the multi-category appropriation “Investing in Children and Young People”.

The progress towards transformation of care and protection under Oranga Tamariki has been often raised by the public. And accordingly, we learnt that in 2021-2022, $23 million was allocated to improving the wellbeing of tamariki and whānau with the greatest need. The Minister told us this funding will enable the ministry to devolve power to Māori and to regions in New Zealand and that this funding will support the ministry’s response to the report of the ministerial advisory board, which will be discussed later.

We discussed the devolution of power to iwi and Māori organisations in the context of the new Section 7AA in the Oranga Tamariki Act, requiring improved outcomes for Māori. Budget 2021 provides $21 million for by Māori for Māori services. The Minister told us that bespoke solutions are required as the needs of communities differ.

The Estimates hearing covered such topics as the significant organisational change, with the resignation of the chief executive and the announcement of the ministerial advisory board. The board was due to report back to the Minister in August 2021 in regards to Oranga Tamariki.

The committee also asked about the approach to addressing violence. We were advised that $8 million is allocated to the new policy initiative called “Preventing Family Violence and Sexual Violence: Working With Communities and Whānau to Support Parents and Reduce Risk”. We also asked about the ministry’s complaints process, hearing the numbers sat at under 200 per year. We discussed the independent child’s monitor. We learned that the monitor will become its own departmental agency.

We heard about the changes to care and protection facilities and asked whether institutions are appropriate places for children who have experienced significant trauma. The Minister told us that the ministry is moving towards smaller, more home-like facilities with $71 million over the next four years to see these built. Oranga Tamariki is partnering with iwi to build these.

As the chair, I sincerely thank the Minister, officials, and clerks, and the select committee members for a thorough and robust set of hearings. Thank you.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I’d like to thank the member who’s just resumed her seat, Angie Warren-Clark, for the great job she’s doing chairing the Social Services and Community Committee.

Look, as we all know, Oranga Tamariki and its predecessors, over probably the last 30 or 40 years, haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory when it comes to caring for our most vulnerable children. The reason being, or one of the reasons, is that Oranga Tamariki and its predecessors put themselves at the centre of the system and everything revolved around them. That’s changing, and, as I’ve said to Oranga Tamariki, our children and their wellbeing need to be at the centre and at the heart of everything we do.

So the ministerial advisory board did produce a report, Te Kahu Aroha, looking at changes that need to be implemented. It complemented a number of other reviews that Oranga Tamariki has undergone over the last few years. And to cut a very long story short, the results are that decision making and resources are going to be devolved to communities and to Māori, because I believe firmly that communities and Māori know what’s best, what the solutions are for their own children. Secondly, we’re going to also improve the social work practice to make sure that the practice that those children experience from Oranga Tamariki staff is up to scratch, and also that we all do our part in the prevention of harm coming to children in the very first place. I’d rather be the ambulance at the fence, at the top of the cliff, rather than the ambulance at the bottom. So that, in a nutshell, is the future focus and where our budget commitments will lie, to improve the outcomes for our most vulnerable children.

One of the things that the future direction—and we have a plan, a three to five-year plan for the future direction of Oranga Tamariki. What that plan is not and what the future direction is not, because I’ve heard calls from certain sectors of the community and of society, is it is not about new bureaucracies and new structures. It’s not about jobs or pay or people trying to secure authority. It’s not about organisations jockeying for positions. The future of Oranga Tamariki and the future direction to ensure the wellbeing of our children is in the hands of our communities and Māori.

So I’ll leave it there. There is a bit of a time constraint, I’m told, so I’ll listen to the speakers and their questions, and I’ll try to answer a group at a time.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Kia ora, Madam Chair. I acknowledge the Minister in the committee this evening, and also the acting chief executive of Oranga Tamariki.

Before I address the committee further, I’d like to pay respect and acknowledgments to Neville Baker, a kaumātua of Te Atiawa and Taranaki, who died just a few days ago. I make mention of Neville. His tangi was today, out at Waiwhetū Marae, and Neville was quite a significant participant in the report Pūao-te-ata-tū, which is well-known over the last three decades. I have a copy of it here. At the time Neville Baker was the head of community affairs in the Department of Māori Affairs, and I was a young woman working in the Department of Māori Affairs at the time that this report was penned.

This report is, fundamentally, the precursor to a number of reports and reviews that have been written as a result of Oranga Tamariki and Child, Youth and Family Services—the ministries’ taxing responsibilities that they have in terms of the child welfare State agency in Aotearoa New Zealand. I take heed of what the Minister has said when he addressed the committee by saying that Oranga Tamariki has not covered themselves in glory. I think it’s significant to acknowledge the onerous task that social workers have within this State welfare agency and that because of the nature of the framework and how it’s set up in the legislation, they have those challenges that are there.

So I’m going to come back to the debate on the Estimates, where the Minister has talked about his ministerial advisory group and the recommendations that have come out of the report Te Kahu Aroha. The Minister has made a commitment for devolving responsibility for child welfare, care, and protection to communities Māori, the Minister says. I say Māori and non-Māori, our communities—our people at flax-roots and grassroots. I was back home in Whanganui on the weekend, when I always connect with my people—our people on the ground—and I mention particularly Tim Metcalfe, who has been working in the family violence sector for decades in one of Whanganui community’s welfare agencies, Jigsaw. So I connected with Tim and I’ll be spending more time with him, but we have our Māori communities, as well, who I stay engaged with.

I know Child, Youth and Family Services, having worked as a lawyer within the institution. I know the legislation, and the proposals and the recommendations—some 79 of them—that come out of Te Kahu Aroha but also the recommendations that come out of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, the Office of the Ombudsmen, Whānau Ora, and also the Waitangi Tribunal. It is repeating what is in that foundational document of Pūao-te-ata-tū. It was published in 1988 and it was written in 1986, and so I acknowledge Neville Baker for his contribution, not just in that field but throughout a lifetime of service to our communities.

Minister, my question to you is you talk about the commitment that you as the Minister in leading a change in the framework in the organisation of Oranga Tamariki. I turn to the commitment in the Estimates, and it’s acknowledged that there’s $1.47 billion, and 90 percent of that, which is $1.354 billion, is over four expense category outputs. Two of those category outputs: one is prevention and early support, with $404 million, and the other is statutory intervention and transition, with $917 million.

Minister, you say that there’s a commitment for the devolution of child welfare to our communities. How could that be given priority when the majority of that funding I’ve talked about—statutory intervention and transition, with $917 million—is twice that of prevention and early support? What I’m saying to you, Minister, is that the fiscal commitment does not match the rhetoric, and I would invite the Minister to reconsider the approach that’s given there, particularly in partnering with our communities.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. And I firstly want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair for the work that is progressing, and acknowledge him for starting off by talking about and contextualising the work in this long history where whānau have not been supported by our State, and children have been taken from whānau and put into harm. And we have hurt children and we have hurt families as a country, and that’s a brutal reality, and generations of that—and some of the stories that we’re hearing through the royal commission of the lifelong impacts of that. And when we hear some of the vilification of gang members from some of the members of the Opposition, disconnected to that history, many, many of those people, actually, were taken into gangs out of a sense of trying to bring family together to protect themselves after a history of abuse in care. We have to take some responsibility as a country for that reality and hold that in context.

So this is a critical time in our history, and this is not going to be easy. A Government agency with that history—and it’s not just Oranga Tamariki that has got it wrong, right? This has been our courts, this has been our schools, and this has been our health system. It is an entire system that has been failing our children. And we have to bring that together and turn it around to a prevention-focused system that recognises that relationship is the only thing that actually helps people change. That without a relationship, nothing changes. People resist and they bed down or they hide and terrible things can happen. And when you lose trust, you lose an opportunity for change. Our system has no acknowledgment and our systems are not trust or relationship centred.

So there’s a huge amount of work to be done, and part of that is between the relationship between the Crown—which most people outside of Wellington refer to as “Wellington”—and communities. And actually, that trust has been broken as well, and that needs to be restored. So I’m really interested to hear—and this is also, we’ve particularly been focusing on this and the impact on whānau Māori, because that history is very well known and documented and it’s a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and the tenfold increase in bringing tamariki Māori into care compared to non-Māori is an absolute outrage on our society. There is also the lens in terms of disability around this that I don’t think we acknowledge enough, where the Ombudsman’s report that came out earlier this year—in the case files he reviewed, in every single family at least one of the parents had a disability, and that lens was not brought to the interventions by Oranga Tamariki. And we know, our services on the ground, that enabling good lives is about starting to get supports for people to be able to overcome the barriers from our disabling society, but we have a very long way to go. And that is all part of the work that we need to do urgently. So I’m really interested.

I also just want to talk about the devolution and the importance of that. And I’m interested to hear from the Minister, because prior to the current model, or maybe a couple before, we had this concept of differential response, which was of Oranga Tamariki only taking a certain proportion of cases, and then the community dealing with the ones that didn’t reach a threshold, even though there was never actually a real threshold. But the problem was that our communities were not resourced to be able to respond effectively, and there was no local accountability and the funding was racist and disablist. So how, in terms of devolution, is the Minister going to ensure that we properly resource and put in place appropriate monitoring to deliver for our children?

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Whilst the Minister is turning his thoughts to providing answers to the questions that have been posed, I have an additional question. Where the Minister made the statement that, “The independent child’s monitor is not about new structures or bureaucracy.”, then why is it, Minister, that under questioning of the Social Services and Community Committee on 21 June, as is recorded in Hansard, an answer that you gave to Ms Logie’s question “The independent monitoring not being truly independent.”, the Minister’s answer is, “No, not at all. So the independent monitor will become a departmental agency.” So, Minister, could you please confirm what it is, whether it is, in fact, another departmental agency, which is a new structure in addition to the decommissioning of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, or is it not about new structures in bureaucracies? There is an inconsistency in the statement that you’ve just made in the committee this evening to that which you gave in evidence before the select committee on 30 June this year.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to remind you—around the select committee on votes Oranga Tamariki, the conversations we had during that select committee. We were talking about how there’s been many, many reviews in quite a short time frame, and I asked you, you know: when are we going to see some action? I asked the Minister, Kelvin. And I was told the time for reviews and sitting around having chats is over. It’s time for action. And when asked, “Well, have you got a time frame?”, he was “When the Ministerial Advisory Board report comes out.” You weren’t able to say in two months, three months, six months, nine months, 12 months—this is where Oranga Tamariki is going to be. The report that you were talking about in select committee has been released; it’s dated July.

So, Minister, we are now four months later from when this report was ready. Where is Oranga Tamariki now, and where is it going to be? Have we got time frames put in place where we are going to set targets each month and reach them?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Again, I’m aware of time constraints, so I’ll try to give fairly brief answers. To Harete Hipango, her question asking whether I will reconsider my approach to partnering with communities. The answer is “no”. If the National Party doesn’t believe in partnering with communities, I think that they need to—

Chris Bishop: That’s not what she asked.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: That is exactly what she asked, and the answer is no. We will be partnering with communities and with Māori. I think the member who’s having a bit of a “waa, waa, waa” at me over there, he needs to actually read the Hansard, because that is exactly what she asked me.

I agree entirely with Jan Logie about the loss of trust and that Oranga Tamariki has, and other Government agencies have, a huge amount of work to do to regain the trust of people. I’ve been saying to Oranga Tamariki staff that we will start to regain the trust of people, of whānau, when they see our social workers, our staff, actually going out and fighting for them, advocating for them on their behalf, to get better services from other Government agencies, and when we start seeing the results too.

The devolution question: definitely the devolution of resources in decision making needs to go to communities, which is, again, why I question what Harete Hipango asked. That’s essential. It comes down to the engagement with communities and the relationships that will be formed with them. Again, Harete Hipango said something about the independent child monitor—that is a departmental agency; I have been advised that it is a departmental agency.

To the member Karen Chhour’s question: work has started. We have a three- to five-year plan. It has goals for zero to six months—it has goals out for the five years. So that is in place. Work has started on addressing those goals.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Well, it is reassuring to hear that the Minister in the chair, Kelvin Davis, has made a commitment to partnering with the communities, because I put it to the Minister again, in evidence that he gave to the select committee on 30 June, that there is a $400 million commitment provided across the country; $100 million—that is, 25 percent—goes to Māori providers right now. Minister, you have also put on the record that 68 percent of children in State care are Māori. You have also indicated in the strategic planning and accepted all recommendations from your ministerial advisory group about the importance of equitable investment. So, Minister, could you please answer: if 68 percent of the children in State care are Māori and only 25 percent of the budget allocated across the country goes to Māori providers right now, how is that equitable?

Further, Minister, I think the record needs to be clarified and clear: you gave in your speech or opening statement this evening that the Independent Children’s Monitor is not about new structures, not about bureaucracy. However, you have confirmed, on advice, Minister—which, as the Minister for Children, you ought to know, because you are the proponent for an Independent Children’s Monitor. You are the proponent for the bill that has been introduced to the House with the oversight of Oranga Tamariki and the establishment of a new Children and Young People’s Commission. The Minister for Children ought to know that in commending and recommending this new structure, it is another bureaucratic Government department.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): The member is totally confused. I didn’t mention anything about the independent child monitor, but there are other political parties in this House who wanted this big bureaucracy separate from Oranga Tamariki. That is what I was talking about. She’s totally gone off on another tangent, on another planet somewhere. I was not at all referring to the independent child monitor. The member has this habit of standing up and, under the guise of asking a question, going down these garden paths and these trails and totally confusing everybody that’s listening, and basically invents and puts words into people’s mouths that were never said. It’s absolutely mind-boggling that she can basically invent a Hansard for me. So—

Harete Hipango: Point of order, Madam Chair—point of order. For the Minister to suggest that I’m inventing or I’m fabricating is really bordering on an allegation or an assertion that I am not making a statement of fact, nor that I am telling the truth. I invite the Minister to reconsider, because Hansard will evidence what has been recorded in the Chamber this evening.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: In reply to that, no, I’m not going to reconsider. This was what I said right at the outset: the future direction is not about new structures, bureaucracies, jobs, pay, authority, and people or organisations jockeying for position. Nowhere in that did I mention the independent child monitor.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Can the Minister lay out the goals he set for Oranga Tamariki’s performance? Are they just one at six months, one at five years, or are there other goals he didn’t mention? If there are other goals, what are they and when are they set for?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): That’s easy. Look, there is a future direction strategy. It has a number of objectives covering from now until five years. I don’t have it on me. I haven’t memorised every single element of the plan. But I’m happy, you know, to discuss it. It’s no big secret. The fact is that we’re moving ahead in a direction that will give decision making, resources to communities working in partnership to make sure that we get the very, very best outcomes for our most vulnerable children.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): I posed a question to the Minister this evening and the committee and members of the public who may be listening in are still awaiting a response. The question was along the lines of the commitment that the Minister has made to partnering with our communities, and the Minister has also made a commitment to accepting and endorsing all 25 recommendations of Te Kahu Aroha. Recommendation 19 is that of “adequate and equitable investments in Māori collectives and communities.” I’ve stated to the House this evening and put it to the Minister: does he accept that the allocation of 25 percent, $100 million of the $400 million that has been committed to community partnership, is an equitable fiscal allocation aligned and on par with the number of children, Māori children, in State care?

Also, before I conclude, I think it’s important and it would be appropriate and becoming of a Minister for a department for children to be the exemplar in how women are treated. I know that, as a lawyer who was advocating for Māori mothers and for non-Māori mothers of children, it was evidenced time and again how they were spoken over by people working within the agency—unbecoming, inappropriate. And I would invite the Minister to reconsider how he conducts himself in that position of responsibility as the lead for the Ministry for Children.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Just very quickly—in terms of the partnership, I don’t know how much further I can explain: the whole future direction of Oranga Tamariki is working in partnership with communities and Māori. I don’t know how much more explanation or how much more I can emphasise, and yet she keeps asking these questions about “will I commit to partnership?” That’s the whole point of what we’re doing. That’s the whole change: empowering communities and Māori.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The time for this particular debate—

Hon Member: Four minutes on the clock.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on Harete Hipango.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it’s abundantly clear that the Minister and his ministry—which I commend for the efforts and the work that is done by the workers within the ministry—have made a commitment for the transformation. Again, I put the question to the Minister, which has been evaded at least three times now: in terms of fiscal commitment, does the Minister consider that the fiscal commitment in the Estimates is on an equitable basis to meet the needs of Māori children in State care?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the committee report progress.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered a special debate on current issues and priorities, and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Incorporated Societies Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, prior to the debate on the current issues and priorities, we were debating the second reading of the Incorporated Societies Bill. Simon O’Connor had the call and he has 18 seconds remaining, should he desire. If not, we’ll go to call number—

Hon Member: Mr—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you’re not Simon O’Connor. I call Helen White.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I speak in support of the Incorporated Societies Bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2), the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and the Commerce Amendment Bill.

House in Committee

House in Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The House is in committee on the COVID19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2), the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and the Commerce Amendment Bill.

Bills

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

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): We come first to the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2). The question is that Part 1 stand part.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. This is going to be a very interesting debate, because the Opposition has laid out some very interesting Supplementary Order Papers on the floor of the House, and we’re looking forward to a long and extended debate on the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2). And isn’t it interesting what’s not in this bill? I tell you what’s not in this bill, and that’s the traffic light framework, which starts at some point in the future: we don’t know when. It’s definitely after 29 November when the Government deigns to make another announcement about when it will start. So at some point post - 29 November, I’m willing to put money on the fact it won’t be 30 November, although you never quite know with this Government. So I think it will be December—

David Seymour: December 1.

CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, and I welcome my good friend David Seymour to the Chamber, and I know he’s got many things to say.

David Seymour: Many, many things.

CHRIS BISHOP: Many, many things. I think it will be December, but the traffic light framework is not in this bill. And we find ourselves in this quite extraordinary situation where Parliament is belatedly going to pass through the second COVID-19 public health bill which does a variety of sometimes sensible things but is based on a fundamentally flawed premise, which I’ll come back to. But we find ourselves in a situation where the traffic light framework—or, to use its formal title, the COVID-19 Protection Framework—is not there. And the Minister, I know, will probably tell us that the House will consider that at some point in the future, but I just make the point to the committee that that is not going to be very much time before it comes into effect. In fact, I think it’s already been signalled that the House will be in urgency to consider that, and that is a terrible way of making law.

We kicked this around at the select committee and we had a good discussion on a variety of issues at the committee. There’s a couple of things that I want to flag up now that we’re going to want to get into on this side of the Chamber. The first is the fundamental architecture of the bill, which relates to the managed isolation and quarantine system—which is MIQ. And we now are in this bizarre circumstance where Parliament is layering further and further infrastructure around MIQ, when fundamentally we should be doing the opposite—fundamentally we should be dismantling the entire regime [Interruption]. What’s that? Oh, there was a remark, but not repeated. We should be dismantling. Oh, she said you wanted to build it. Well, we do want to build it. We want to build quarantine facilities, that’s the point. We should have been building quarantine facilities 12 months ago—MIQ, to give it its vernacular title. Of course we should have been building purpose built quarantine facilities, because for the last 14 or 15 months we’ve been—

Hon Chris Hipkins: That’s not what your policy said.

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, no, the policy is to build quarantine for people with COVID.

Hon Chris Hipkins: So MIQ.

CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, MIQ because—

Hon Chris Hipkins: That was your policy.

CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, that’s right, because if the Government had built purpose-built MIQ 12 months ago, we would not have people with COVID in the centre of Auckland, in the Crowne Plaza, and that’s how it eventually escaped into the community. But now we, finally, have full or at least a very high level of vaccination from people coming in through the border, so it doesn’t make any sense to have purpose-built MIQ, but of course it still makes sense to have purpose-built quarantine facilities, like the Australians have at Howard Springs and like the Victorian Government is still building or is going to build near Tullamarine airport in Victoria. Of course that makes sense, because there are going to be New Zealanders who turn up unvaccinated and we’re going to have to do something with them.

One good thing we could do with them is make them do a period of isolation in a purpose-built facility. We find ourselves in this situation where people who have COVID for the better part of this year have found themselves in the centre of Auckland, and that is a ludicrous scenario. But, you know, the Government has not done that, although we do hear rumours round the traps in Wellington that the Government is still looking at a business case for purpose-built quarantine. So we’ll wait and see what happens there.

But I want to make the point, at the outset, that the fundamental premise of this bill is flawed. The fundamental premise of the bill is that New Zealand should remain a fortress for a long time to come, because the bill extends the expiry date of the Act until May 2023, not May 2022, which is when the current Act expires, but May 2023; a long, long time away, about 18 months away. What we say, in Opposition, is that it is impossible to envisage a scenario—I would hope it is impossible to envisage a scenario—in which we have this elaborate architecture and infrastructure around MIQ in May 2023. What does that say about our attitude to the outside world? What does that say about our attitude to opening up to the rest of the world? It says that we’re so limited, our ambition is so small and so reduced and limited that we will still be shut away in “Fortress New Zealand” in May 2023.

We find ourselves in this scenario where—I checked the numbers—there are 34 people with COVID in MIQ right now—34.

Hon Member: Thirty-four seeding events.

CHRIS BISHOP: Thirty-four seeds, I think we hear. Here we go again. See, this is the attitude that the Government Ministers—

Hon Member: That’s not what I said.

CHRIS BISHOP: What did you say? I heard “seed” sorry.

Hon Member: Listen up.

CHRIS BISHOP: All I heard was “seeds”. I accept the Minister didn’t say that, but she seemed to take some sort of alarm at the idea of 34 people in MIQ with COVID. So there are 34 people in MIQ with COVID, and there’s over 4,000 people isolating at home with COVID or close contacts, likely to get it, around the upper North Island, in Auckland and Waikato. So where’s the relative risk here? Is it MIQ or is it actually out in the Auckland community?

Now we find ourselves in the situation where Aucklanders, from December 15, will be allowed to leave. The Government’s argument prior to the announcements today was that we couldn’t have people arriving into New Zealand and going into the community, because they might arrive into Auckland, which is the predominant major entry point to New Zealand, fair enough, and go into the community and they might spread COVID. Well, now Aucklanders are going to be allowed to leave Auckland from December 15, and they have to be fully vaccinated, which 98 percent of people coming into MIQ are, or they have to have a test before they go. So Aucklanders are going to leave, people are going to leave Auckland, and they’re going to spread around the country, and they’ll probably take COVID with them, and in the Minister’s own words “COVID’s going to spread around the country.”—he’s admitted that.

So the Government’s one rationale for MIQ not being liberalised and deconstructed has fallen away because they’ve changed their own policy. So the real question—and it goes to the fundamental premise of the bill that the Government is asking the Parliament to consider again and to extend—is: is it really the intention of the Government that we will still have this elaborate infrastructure and architecture around MIQ as late as May 2023? Surely we should be more ambitious for this great little country, down at the bottom of the world, that makes its way in the world and makes its income in the world from its connections with the rest of the world. It is not just about trade, it’s not just about the agricultural exports. Those days have long since gone, when New Zealand was just Britain’s farm. It’s actually more about the Kiwi entrepreneurs who jump on a plane and head up to San Francisco, the tech entrepreneurs. It’s about the Kiwis who and turn up in London and pitch a business idea. It’s about the people who go and scout for foreign investment and go and scout for business ideas in China, Paris, London, San Francisco, Washington, Africa, Europe, all around the world. We’ve got to be a country that is connected to the world and is globally open. There’s no future for New Zealand with this autarkic approach that the Government is locking us into in relationship to this bill.

So the question I want to ask the Minister goes to the fundamental premise in relation to the dates, because it’s the starting point of the bill to extend the existing COVID-19 public health Act, and it is: is it really the Government’s intention that MIQ will still be here in May 2023? And if it’s not the Government’s intention, can we not wind the expiry date of the bill back? We’d be prepared to put some tabled amendments on the floor of the House to wind the expiry date back closer towards where we are now. And if the Government’s prepared to do that and we’re prepared to put them on the floor of the House, we could get some consensus here, and just make not a particularly good bill slightly less bad. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): What a fanciful effort to rewrite recent history that the committee just heard. Let’s turn our minds back to when this bill was introduced to the House, on 21 September. Back at that time, the very member who just resumed his seat, Chris Bishop, was demanding to know how COVID19 could possibly have made it out of an managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facility and why the Government hadn’t done more to make MIQ facilities more robust, and make the systems more robust—those very things that he is now arguing we shouldn’t be doing. And yet, when the bill was introduced, he was arguing that we needed to be doing more.

He then tried to argue that now we should be closing MIQ facilities, right about the time that the purpose-built facilities he was arguing a year ago we should have started to construct might actually, even if they were fast-tracked, be starting to come on stream. They weren’t quarantine facilities—I’m happy to remind Chris Bishop of his own public statements that they were MIQ facilities, purpose built to allow more people in from overseas. Those were his own words, his own media statements, his own claims that were suggesting that we should do that. We would have built hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of white elephants had we followed the National Party’s approach at that particular time. They were wrong then and, of course, they’re wrong now.

I would just remind the member of why we have border controls in place at the moment, and it is still to contain the outbreaks of COVID—the potential outbreaks of COVID-19—within the community, because, if we follow the member’s train of thought, which is that we allow this Act to disappear, we say we don’t need it any more, then we would have no controls at the border around COVID-19 at all, no ability to stop someone who wasn’t vaccinated coming in at the border, which is still the National Party’s policy. And yet they’re proposing to do away with the legislation that would allow them to enact their own policy. They’re proposing to now do away with it. So we would be saying the border is open—anyone can come in, vaccinated/unvaccinated, tested/not tested. There’d be no legislative framework whatsoever to allow any of that to happen, which means hundreds of cases of COVID could arrive at the border every day and there would be nothing we could do about it, because the law that allows for a vaccination requirement, the law that allows for a pre-departure test requirement, would be gone. And those requirements would no longer be in place, because, by the member’s own statements, he believes that the law that allows those requirements to be put in place should no longer be there, that the Parliament should not extend it for the next year and a half. In other words, it should remove those requirements. Because, once this law is no longer in place, none of the requirements that have been put in place under it, including the border restrictions that the member’s party’s policy requires, would no longer be possible. And that’s what he’s just argued in the Chamber.

Does it mean, by extending this Act, that every order that is currently unmade under this Act will continue for that entire duration of time? No, it won’t. That’s the beauty of this Act. It’s the reason it was designed as it was, to allow orders to be issued and removed at relatively short notice. So, when we’ve needed to escalate alert levels, we’ve been able to do that at short notice, and we’ve been able to bring them down just as fast. It means, for things like MIQ, at such time as we want to dial that back, and as we’re ready to dial that back, we will be able to do that, but we’ll be able to step our way through that. And it might be that additional protective measures are required instead of MIQ, such as home isolation, which is one of the things that we think will be part of the transition to a more open border. By removing this legislation in its entirety, none of that would be possible. And yet that seems to be what the National Party are now arguing for, and yet none of the things in their own policy suggest that that’s what they want. So they want to remove the law that would allow them to enact their own policies. It’s bizarre.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. I welcome the speech the Minister’s just given, which for the most part was a bunch of political attacks on the National Party and what their policies are and what they’ve proposed, and whether they should have proposed it and what that would have meant. The reason I welcome those attacks is that it really casts the net wide for a very wide-ranging debate throughout this committee, and I sense that there’ll be quite a lot of matters to be canvassed and it could go on for quite some time. So I thank the Minister for taking that and also you, Madam Chair, for entertaining it.

I think, for people who are watching this at home, probably thinking “What on earth is going on here?”, that’s a reasonable reaction to Parliaments around the world that citizens often have. I think it’s important just to take a step back and see how we got this COVID-19 Public Health Response Act that we’re now amending with the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2).

Cast your mind back to 23 and 25 March 2020. We had an extraordinary thing, something that even months earlier nobody would have thought possible outside of a totalitarian State, and that was the order for everybody to go home. And shortly after that, this Parliament, of course, was shut and the Epidemic Response Committee was established in its stead. One of the first things the Epidemic Response Committee discovered, on behalf of New Zealand, effectively acting as a kind of de facto Parliament at that time, was that actually all of those instructions for New Zealanders to go home were illegal. They had no legal basis. They had completely forgotten to get the paperwork done—

Hon Chris Hipkins: That’s not what the courts found at all.

DAVID SEYMOUR: —and there was a tremendous difficulty. And, of course, the Minister’s now saying, “Oh, that’s not what the courts found.” Well, you know, if that was true, I wonder why David Parker didn’t just point the committee to the legal basis. He couldn’t for a very long time. They actually had no basis for the first week of the lockdowns. That was the problem and actually, you know, that showed a real difficulty. That’s why this bill, at least in its first reading when it was introduced, ACT was very keen to support it, because at least we would have a system of law passed by Parliament, debated democratically, where people could actually go and read what my rights were.

In the early days of the 2020 lockdown, that wasn’t true. And as a constituency MP, I was frequently approached by people—and I remember some of them very clearly. An elderly couple had walked down to the beach at St Heliers, and they had taken some chairs with them because their knees were not very strong and they couldn’t walk on the hills. The police came along and said they weren’t allowed to take their own chairs to sit on, down at St Heliers. Now, having the law written down, and it wasn’t really clear whether they were or not—that’s how absurd things were in those days. So having the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act, a legal basis for specific orders that set out what people can and can’t do, is actually really important—that we have the rule of law in place; we didn’t initially. So that is why this law in itself is not entirely a bad thing.

However, there is a real problem with the fact that we seem to have almost no evolution whatsoever from that kind of crisis management, that continual approach of issuing public health orders under this Act on what seems like almost a daily basis. Just yesterday in Parliament, we had to approve a dozen that the Government had recently posted—a dozen orders. It seems with the first thing that this bill does, extending the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act by a further year, that what we’re really saying is that we don’t see a lot of scope for the Government’s overall approach evolving. We’re saying that well into 2023 we expect to still be in this paradigm of crisis management, where we require an Act of Parliament that allows a Government to make orders willy-nilly, only to be retrospectively approved by Parliament—that we don’t see anything like a return to normalcy. I think that is a real problem in and of itself.

Now, I’ve heard what the Minister has said, that actually the flexibility that the Act gives means that the Government can slowly wind down its COVID-19 response. I get that. But what it’s also saying is that it doesn’t really plan to do that any time soon. We will continue to be in a paradigm of crisis management. And I think that’s a real problem. You know, there’s an old joke: when the world ends, I want to be in New Zealand because they’ll be 20 years behind. It’s a long time since anyone’s made that joke about New Zealand, because we’ve been a very dynamic, leading country for many years now, but it’s actually starting to feel like that a little bit when you see people with full stadiums, going on with life, with air travel returning to above pre-COVID levels in North America, and so it goes on. We have a whole lot of people that are just moving on. The truth is that we know that the world is going to move on.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Let’s see how the northern winter goes—let’s see how the northern winter goes.

DAVID SEYMOUR: We know that COVID is going to become endemic in the world, and we know that sooner or later we end up living with it. We’re all going to the same place. The question is how much we’re going to borrow and spend and how many other costs on people’s psychology and the development of children we’re going to pile on to people in the meantime, and how prepared we are to reduce the worst risks that COVID puts on people.

What we have from this Government in this piece of legislation is just a holding pattern. We’re going to carry on for the next year and a half, and we don’t really see any change in approach. In fact, actually, things may be exactly the same. Now, the Minister here has just said something very interesting. He’s heckling—he wants this debate to go on a while, I can see. He said, “Look, let’s see how the Northern Hemisphere winter goes.” You know, he thinks that the Northern Hemisphere is going to be in big trouble because they have endemic COVID. Well, that’s interesting, because New Zealand’s going to have a winter next year, if the seasons are still the same—hopefully the Minister agrees with that.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Oh, what a profound statement!

DAVID SEYMOUR: Yeah, no, no—the Minister agrees with that. At least he’s got some science on him. And we, by that stage, by the Minister’s own admission, are going to have endemic COVID, because what he said to us is COVID is going to spread around the North Island and presumably then the South. So if that’s the case, then we turn to a whole lot of other questions, such as: how is the Government going at absorbing new technologies? How is it going at—and wasn’t it interesting at select committee today: there was the rapid review of the COVID-19 testing in Aotearoa New Zealand. I thought it was cool how the testing technical advisory group kind of trolled the Minister by putting “rapid” in the title. I actually thought that was quite good.

Chris Bishop: Ha, ha! It’s like a rapid review of rapid tests.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Yeah, yeah. Well, I tell you what, it’s not very rapid when you get in there, is it? But, you know, this is one of the questions: how are we going to get better at integrating technology? How are we going to get better at working with the private sector? How are we going to get better at partnering with business? This Government’s not interested in having any of those conversations; they’re just saying, “Oh, you know what we’re doing? We got a bill to extend it another year and a few other things that we’ll get into.”

But I think the other thing that’s kind of interesting is that this bill has been passed relatively rapidly, but now there’s going to be another bill next week passed even more rapidly. And the thing is that the Government’s response is just so flat-footed. You know, like, you know what it’s like catching the ball at second-five and you’re flat-footed, it’s not a nice experience; well, they’re actually going backwards catching the ball. That’s how bad this Government is, because they were so unprepared for Delta; they really thought that they were going to hit a perfect home run, that there was going to be enough vaccination—I remember Ayesha Verrall saying it in the last briefing that the Minister invited me to, and, actually, the Prime Minister invited me to another briefing yesterday in question time, so we’re looking forward; we hope that the Minister will host us for another one now.

Chris Bishop: Can I come too?

DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, we will invite Chris Bishop, of course. He invited me to the one he went to, so it seems only fair. And she said, because she’s too honest to be in politics, “Well, look, we’ve got vaccination; it’s all going to be fine.” You know, that’s the thing. They thought they were going to hit a home run. They didn’t count on Delta breaking through managed isolation and quarantine. They didn’t count on it being very difficult to get population immunity, and now they’re just scrambling.

So we’ve got this rushed law, which just says, “Oh, I don’t know, extend it for another year, you know, see where we go.” And then next week, they’re going to rush through another law to introduce the traffic-light system, which they obviously hadn’t thought of either. That’s the problem with this Government’s response. Once the great fortune of isolation and low-population density dissolved, they really aren’t sure what to do.

The way I’d sum it up is: once New Zealand was hit by Delta, this Government’s COVID response was helter-skelter. Unfortunately, while that may be amusing for some people here, it’s terribly disconcerting for people trying to plan their lives and their businesses. We’ll have a lot more to say as the debate goes on. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee is suspended and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. for extended sitting tomorrow. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 9.58 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 17 NOVEMBER 2021

(continued on Thursday, 18 November 2021)

Bills

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

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act, and Schedules (continued)

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): It’s been a very good debate so far, I have to say, and I’m looking forward to it continuing—probably for quite some time. I particularly want to draw attention to a part of this bill, clause 7. It’s a little bit confusing, the nomenclature, but clause 7 changes section 11 of the Act. Section 11 is all about the kinds of orders that the Director-General of Health, currently a position filled by one Ashley Bloomfield, can make under the law. What this bill does is it changes the COVID19 Public Health Response Act to say that in addition to the orders that can currently be made, the director-general can also requisition laboratory testing material, laboratory testing equipment, and laboratory testing personnel and force them to do testing for the purposes of the Government, and on the face of it, some people might say that if there’s an emergency, we want the Government to go and grab all the stuff it needs and enslave the people required and force them to respond to the emergency on behalf of the public. That’s sort of the cartoonish reading of this legislation. But, actually, people who have looked at this and people who have sat on the select committee, as I have and as ACT deputy leader Brooke van Velden has, and listened to the people who would be affected think this is a totally outrageous, dangerous piece of law.

Just to be completely clear about what section 11says, it says, in subsection (1)(d), “in relation to laboratories that undertake COVID-19 testing, by—(i) setting quality control measures … (ii) requiring test results to be reported … (iii) managing the supply of testing consumables …. (e) requiring the owner or any person in charge of a specified laboratory of any laboratory that undertakes COVID-19 testing to—(i) deliver or use in accordance with directions given under the order specified quantities of COVID-19 testing consumables that the Minister considers necessary for the purpose of the public health response … (ii) undertake COVID-19 testing solely for the purposes of the public health response to COVID-19 while subject to the order,”. What this means is that if you invest in the very thing the Government says it wants, then you might get all your stuff taken, and as Eric Crampton, the economist from the New Zealand Initiative, has pointed out, if the Government is worried about power cuts, telling people that anyone who invests in a generator might get their generator stolen by the State is not going to make people want to invest in generators.

These people, for example at Rako Science, have worked incredibly hard for almost two years, using their ingenuity, investment, and contacts with people overseas to bring this technology to New Zealand, and now the Government’s saying, “Actually, if we need it, we’ll just take it.” Taking people’s stuff is always bad but it’s particularly bad when it has the opposite effect of what it wanted.

Here’s the second issue. The Government says that there will be compensation at a market price. Well, here’s the thing: there is no market for this stuff. The whole reason there’s a shortage and they want to compensate it, is that there are very few willing buyers and very few willing sellers that they can actually go to work out what a market price is. So when you say there’s going to be compensation at a market price, that’s meaningless—there is no market price so there is no meaningful compensation. Then they say, “Well, if you don’t like the market price you can appeal.”, but actually—no, sorry, I made a mistake there. That’s what you’d expect in a normal lawful jurisdiction, a First World, developed, Western nation like New Zealand—that if you go and get a judicial decision and you disagree with it and there are problems with the decision, you can actually appeal to a higher court. We’ve got the District Court, the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. After that you’re kind of stuffed but you get four goes. And this law says, “Actually, you can’t appeal beyond the District Court.” This is an extraordinary thing to do.

What is more, you then ask “What does this do to New Zealand’s international reputation?” We’ve had over the last four years the idea of being able to search for oil and gas off the shores of New Zealand totally erased—no Cabinet paper, no consultation; just a “podium-ocracy” where the Minister gets up and says, “We’re not going to allow that anymore, and all your business plans are wiped.” People have asked what you can do about that and I’ve said that if the Government changes we can actually reverse that law, but we can never rebuild the trust of the global community who now see New Zealand as a place that’s a little bit more of a banana republic and a little less likely to offer you secure property rights.

Then we had a Government that said, in the middle of a crisis, “If you have a contract that you signed in, say, 2010, to have an arrangement between two people, an agreement they voluntarily entered into to pay rent in return for the service of providing property at a certain standard, well guess what? That may have been the law when you signed the contract but we are now changing the law retrospectively so the contract you signed will be judged under today’s law, not under the law of the time.” This is an extraordinary thing. If living in a civilised society with the rule of law means anything, it’s that you can only be judged for the things you did under the law at the time you did them. You can’t have the goalposts shifted and be punished for doing something that wasn’t actually wrong when you did it. So the Government retrospectively changed the law on commercial contracts. Then it comes along and says that if you have—and Chris Hipkins is muffling away there from behind his mask. He’s getting very agitated. Chris Hipkins is a very conflicted man here. You see, the thing is that Chris Hipkins the parliamentarian knows that all of this is wrong, but Chris Hipkins the buddy of Ashley Bloomfield is being forced to do this and he’s putting up these legislative initiatives that may well work with—oh, here we go.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Madam Chair. The member knows that the statement he has just made is contrary to the Standing Orders. It would suggest an extreme breach of parliamentary privilege and he should have to withdraw and apologise for it. He cannot suggest that someone is being forced to do something in the House.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member will withdraw and apologise.

DAVID SEYMOUR: I withdraw and apologise. Madam Chair, the problem is that the first part of my statement Chris Hipkins didn’t object to. He knows that it is absolutely wrong to be bringing up this kind of legislation that violates the rule of law and violates trust in New Zealand institutions and violates trust in New Zealand. He’s right that it’s wrong to say he’s being forced to do it, but he still knows that it’s wrong, and that’s his real problem and that’s why he’s muffling away and raising points of order—because he knows what he’s doing is a betrayal of the principles of the rule of law and the security that New Zealanders need.

Now, after we ban oil and gas contracts, after we ruin contracts between landlords and tenants, we’re now going to say that if you invest in the very thing that people say they need, which is testing capability, the Government may take it off you. Then Chris Hipkins says, “Oh, but if testing is really, really important, then that’s the only time we’ll use it.” Well, first of all, this a Parliament. We don’t give the Government lots of powers and say, “Oh, that’s pretty bad. I just hope they don’t use them.” Seriously? Parliament is here to restrain the executive, not make laws that allow for the executive to take your stuff. And the second thing is, if it’s true that we have a major problem with testing in New Zealand, this is a Government that has banned rapid antigen testing and won’t let anyone use it except the Ministry of Health. If they were worried about testing capability, why are they then so slow to contract and roll out saliva testing?

The report yesterday from the technical advisory group on testing was damning—this Government has completely failed at testing everywhere, and yet they now want to confiscate people’s property to cover their own failings, not realising they’re eroding the rule of law, they’re eroding trust in New Zealand’s institutions, they’re eroding property rights, and, funnily enough, they’re going to make it less likely that people will invest in testing. That’s why I have on Supplementary Order Paper 88 amendments that would remove that section 11—there would be no confiscation of people’s property in this country and there never should be.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Hon Chris Hipkins—Chris Bishop.

Hon Chris Hipkins: I think we’re both offended.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): OK, that’s excellent. Chris Bishop.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Oh, well, OK. That’s a bit mean, but OK. I’m wasn’t going to—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Which bit?

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I wasn’t going to go along with that, but OK. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to echo and agree with the remarks of my colleague David Seymour. This is a very troubling provision, the provision that he refers to, in relation to the requisition of the property of testing consumables and testing companies. When I explain it to people, they actually find it quite hard to believe, and when you explain the background to the provision, they’re actually horrified by it. I think we do need some answers from the Government during this committee stage, as to exactly what reason the Government is relying on as to why this provision is needed.

Because we tried to get into it at the select committee, via the officials, a little bit, and we heard the submissions from Rako Science and other submitters, who are largely, for the most part, troubled and horrified—insert various synonyms here—and we didn’t really get an adequate explanation. So I want the Minister to explain exactly why the Government is seeking this power.

The reason people are worried about it, and horrified by it at the extreme end of it, is the background to saliva testing in New Zealand. The allegation was made in the select committee by Rako Science, who came before the committee, that at the start of this most recent outbreak—the August community cluster outbreak, which has now turned into the September and November and, frankly, December outbreak. The allegation was made by them that they, Rako Science, approached the ministry and said, “We can do 10,000 tests a day. Do you want to use some of our testing capacity?”

Now, they’re a saliva-testing partner. There’s a long backstory to that, which I may well canvass during this morning session as well. Rako said to the ministry, “Well, you know, we’ve got to test very quickly. We’ve got to test as many people as possible. Bear in mind, at the start of the August outbreak, it came out of the Crowne Plaza—we know it came out of the Crowne Plaza; we don’t quite know how, but it came out of the Crowne Plaza—it was actually in the community for a number of days before it was discovered. We’ve got to test very quickly.” And the take-home point from all the international experience is, you’ve got to test, test, test as many people as quickly as possible to find the source and to contact-trace and to get on top of an outbreak. So, I mean, that’s a pretty reasonable offer, I would have thought—very sensible. Stand up as much testing capacity as you possibly can, test as many people as you can in Auckland, and go for gold.

And the ministry said no. Get this: the ministry said, “No, we do not want you.” In fact, the allegation from Rako in the select committee submission to the House—it’s been placed on the record of the House. The allegation, or the contention, was that they were specifically told by the Ministry of Health, “Do not reserve your testing capacity to do tests.” So get this: Aucklanders are lining up for 10 to 12 hours to do tests, and we all remember the stories on the news of people lining up in the stadiums and round the neighbourhood testing stations. And the ministry went and did the pop-up nasal PCR stations, and Dr Bloomfield appeared on the news and appeared at the 1 p.m. press conference, and the Prime Minister exhorted people: “Please go and get tested.” And like very diligent, conscientious people—Aucklanders are well used to this by now, and we pay tribute to them—Aucklanders who had a little sniffle or were a bit worried went and got tested, and they lined up for hour upon hour upon hour.

Members will recall the people lining up and the stories of people texting into Newstalk and saying “I’ve been here for nine hours and I haven’t been able to go out to go to the bathroom because there aren’t any Portaloos, and it’s really stressful, but I’m doing the right thing.” There are stories of people literally in the queues all day long who get to the front of the queue and then the testing station is closed. So they waited all day, took the day off work, probably reorganised their childcare arrangements—all sorts of chaos, because, you know, any disruption to family life is tricky sometimes. There will be all sorts of appalling circumstances. People did the right thing. They lined up, they got to the front of the queue, then the testing station closed at 7 p.m. or 6 o’clock or whatever, and they went home. Well, that was a waste of a day. People will remember those stories.

So get this: while all that’s going on, Rako Science, which can do 10,000 tests a day—it actually has surge capacity to do more than that, and I’ll come to that in a minute, Madam Chair. [Bell rung] Rako Science says to the ministry—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order!

Chris Bishop: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member is now seeking a call?

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Rako Science says to the ministry, “We can do thousands of tests for you. We can stand them up.” And here’s the other thing: this is in addition to the capacity the ministry has. This is not taking the resource of the ministry, it’s not taking up lab testing resource, it’s not taking one for one; this is additional. This is extra testing. Who would be opposed to extra testing at the start of a Delta outbreak in New Zealand? This is it. Who would be opposed to extra testing at the start of Delta in August in Auckland in New Zealand? The Ministry of Health. The ministry said, “No, no. Do not reserve that capacity. We don’t need it.”

And now we find—this is where it relates to the bill, Madam Chair—the Government is putting through a little provision through the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2). So rather than just contract with Rako Science, rather than just sit down, like in any other formal negotiation, and say “You have a product that we would like. We have money to spend. Let’s meet in the middle and come to an agreement.”—rather than do that, which is what ordinary Governments do—

David Seymour: It’s called “commerce”.

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that’s right. My colleague David Seymour says it’s commerce. Rather than do what sensible people do—meet in the middle, negotiate in good faith, and come to an agreement, which Rako Science wants to do and the Government should want to do—the Government’s decided to pass a nasty little provision through this bill to just say, “Bugger the negotiation. Bugger commercial agreements. We’ll just take your property.” That’s what they’re trying to do.

So I go back to what I said at the start of my contribution, which is, when you explain the background of this to people, they go from being kind of perplexed and bemused by it to outraged by it, and rightly so. There are far worse provisions in here as well. My colleague David Seymour has covered a couple of them in passing. The market rate provision—well, OK, as he notes, how is that going to be determined? Because the market for this is an extremely narrow one.

Then we get to the issue of the rights of appeal. So, for whatever reason, the Government is seeking the power to take this property with compensation, but if you want to appeal that, you can go to the District Court but no higher.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! I don’t want to appeal.

CHRIS BISHOP: Sorry, no—well, you would never seek to steal property like this, Madam Chair, I know. But the Government is seeking this power.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member will not bring the Chair into the debate.

CHRIS BISHOP: Sorry, Madam Chair. The Government is seeking this power, and there is no appeal beyond the District Court. So in our legal system, members will know, who’ve done Laws 101: District Court, High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court. But the Government, for whatever reason—and we want to hear an explanation as to why the rights of appeal have been limited beyond the District Court. The Government, in their infinite wisdom, has decided District Court only. Why not allow further appeals beyond that? And we’re yet to get an explanation from the Government as to why that is the case.

So the provision in relation to the requisition of private property is extremely concerning. I want to know what the Government’s rationale for it is. I suspect that they will say, “Well, it can only be used in an emergency.” But, of course, it’s in the times of an emergency that we need to be the most careful about trampling on longstanding rights, because it’s always in emergencies that Governments use powers, and it’s always in emergencies that Governments extend their powers. If you go back through our long history of common law, back centuries, it’s always at times of emergency that Governments overreach and overextend. It’s in emergencies—and COVID-19 is an emergency—that the legislature should be the guardian of private property and the people’s rights and the people’s freedoms. It’s at times of emergency that Parliament must do its job to invigilate and interrogate the powers that the Government is seeking for itself at that time of emergency. So that’s Parliament doing its job, and we need an explanation from the Government as to this big legislative overreach and whether or not it is in fact warranted. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I thought I’d briefly respond to some of the issues that have been raised so far. I can confirm that there are no provisions in the bill that relate to oil and gas exploration, no provisions in the bill that relate to commercial leases, and no provisions in the bill that relate to the Ministry of Health’s procurement of saliva testing.

With regard to the requisitioning of lab consumables, I note in their minority report that the Opposition criticised the Government for a lack of contingency planning around different scenarios with regard to COVID-19. In fact, these very provisions that they’re now criticising are part of the contingency planning.

We do have to be aware of the fact that the global pandemic is not over, and we could face another public health crisis at some point in the next year or so as a result of, for example, a vaccine resistant variant of the virus emerging, which is a very real scientific possibility, and one that we need to be prepared for. And we are absolutely committed to being prepared for that. If we found ourselves in the midst of such an outbreak, we would need to make absolutely the best use of every resource that was available to us, and the ability of the Government to come to the Parliament to seek support for any measures that might need to be taken could be limited, as it was during the course of the first significant outbreak that we dealt with last year, when Parliament was not meeting during that time.

So this is part of contingency planning. It does refine the emergency powers available to the Government, and they are just that; they are emergency powers and would only be used in such an emergency. But it would be important, if we were dealing with a large-scale outbreak of a vaccine-resistant variant of the virus—as an example, as an illustration—that we were able to make the best use of all of the testing capability that was available to us, because that would be the way we would have the best chance of getting on top of the virus again, bringing the outbreak back under control.

So that is what these provisions are designed to do. In terms of the compensation clauses within it, the compensation clauses mirror existing provisions within the Health Act in terms of public health responses. When things are required for public health responses, there are existing compensation provisions in the Health Act around that, and these provisions simply mirror those.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. It seems quite a long time since I’ve actually stood in this Chamber to deal with the committee stage of a bill, and what a particularly apt piece of legislation to contribute in. I’d like to commend to the committee an amendment in my name, Supplementary Order Paper 85. Although there are many things that I could contribute in this particular bill, I’ll leave it to my more learned colleague on this particular issue, Chris Bishop, and his other colleagues in the Health Committee.

But I’d like to focus mostly on the privacy of contact tracing data. As many people have mentioned publicly and in the media as well, apart from everything else with COVID, there are many who actually do not use the contact tracing app because they’re quite concerned about how secure that data is and what that data could be used for by the Government. So I’d like to put it to the Minister: is the Minister satisfied that he has addressed the concerns of over 120 lawyers, public health leaders, academics, and privacy advocates, who wrote to him in September, concerned about data privacy protection and the COVID-19 tracer app? If so, can the Minister please explain to the committee how he has done this? Secondly, are there any concerns have not been addressed and does the Minister plan to further amend the bill to take account of data protection and privacy concerns relating to the pending digital vaccination certification or pass system?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): In answer to the member’s question, I’d simply draw her attention to pages 21 and 22 of the bar 2 bill, as reported back by select committee, and clause 25A, which inserts new section 34A, “Protection of contact tracing information”. That does make it absolutely explicit that no information collected during the contact tracing process or collected using the NZ COVID Tracer app, the QR code system, can be used for any purpose other than the purpose on which it is collected, which is contact tracing. That provides an additional layer of certainty.

The advice that the Government has had is that this provision isn’t actually necessary, because the existing provisions that are in place already make that clear. However, we have heard the concerns from others that they would like to see that explicitly stated in the Act. That is the reason why we have agreed with the committee’s recommendation to insert these additional provisions.

In terms of the member’s Supplementary Order Paper, I have received some advice that suggests that some of the provisions in the member’s Supplementary Order Paper may not achieve the goals that she sets out to achieve, and may, in fact, contradict the very goals that she’s setting out to achieve. The Government won’t be supporting it.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the call. Before I get on to what I wanted to talk about, I just wanted to respond to the Minister’s comments from his previous contribution today.

It’s so telling that the Government have to insert this clause to take people’s property because they can’t work together with business. We talked about having a contingency plan. Well, a contingency plan is an ability to work with and harness the power of business—people like Rako Science—use them, and work together with them when we have these situations arise. But that’s not possible, because this Government is now so out of touch and so, I would go as far as to say, estranged from business, certainly in Auckland—they’re certainly estranged from Rako—that they can’t work together with them. So here we are today, passing this, where they can forcefully take their laboratory and their property, because they are not capable of working together and harnessing the power of business in their contingency plan.

It’s this centralisation and control and “We can do better.” Well, we’ve already learnt that that’s not the case, because we’ve had so many things that have come out in reviews saying that the saliva testing can’t be rolled out and that they’re not on top of rapid antigen testing. So what they’re doing here is saying, “Well, we’ll just take your stuff, and we’ll try and do it ourselves.” Well, that is going to end in disaster.

But what I wanted to talk about today in my first contribution is the tinkering around the edges of the managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities in this bill. We’re in a really interesting situation where managed isolation and quarantine had its place, but, certainly, it has outlived that. We’re now in a situation where you are more likely to get COVID going to your local supermarket than you are from having a fully vaccinated, negatively tested traveller coming home to spend time with your family.

Now, some of my colleagues are going to talk more about Kiwis coming home, but I want to concentrate my contribution in the next couple of minutes on migrant workers. I’ve, obviously, been talking quite a lot in the last 18 months about split migrant families, who, by the way, will be spending their third Christmas apart, and no resident 2021 visa or any other tinkering around the edges is going to have them with their families.

But it’s more than just split families. We are losing healthcare workers, we are losing engineers and construction workers—we are losing them because they can’t see their families. It’s not just that they’re split from their partner and their children, but if their mother is terminally ill or their brother, or if they need to travel overseas like Kiwis can at the moment, they can’t go—they can’t go and get back. It’s been such a long time that they’re leaving and they’re choosing not to be here, because they have to go through this ridiculous MIQ system—or they can’t, actually. They can’t go through the MIQ system. They’re trapped in New Zealand.

So here we are, continuing on with a managed isolation system that is not fit for purpose any more. It is actually having the opposite effect of what we need right now, which is a good economic response. We need those migrant workers to stay in New Zealand. They’re choosing not to, because they are, effectively, trapped here by an MIQ system. They’re double-vaccinated, they’re going to low-risk countries, and they’re taking negative tests. They’re more likely to go and get COVID going up to the shops in Auckland than they are travelling to see family and coming back, being double-vaccinated and providing negative tests.

It’s really interesting that there is a part in here, in new section 3232N(2A), in clause 22, that talks about “In determining the eligibility criteria under subsection (1), the Minister must take into account—(a) the right of New Zealanders under … the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act”. There have been a few court cases. Well, they didn’t quite get there, but one of them is Bergen Graham. She was pregnant, she was trapped in America, she had a high-risk pregnancy, and she needed to get back to New Zealand in case anything went wrong, because she was not covered in the States for healthcare. She had not long to get back, and that case was taken to court. There was Crown Law advice given, and Mr Hipkins will have seen this advice. We’re probably not going to get it, because they don’t like releasing Crown Law advice, but that Crown Law advice, I imagine, very clearly said that the Government is treading on very thin ice. I suspect that that Crown Law advice—[Time expired]

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to come back to this question of clause 7. There’s a couple of claims that the Minister has made. The Minister has said these powers to take away people’s property—to, effectively, enslave laboratories that provide COVID-19 testing—will only be used if we really, really need them. But one of the things that’s important here is that this Parliament is making laws—it’s what the law says that matters, not what the Minister promises.

Now, this law, I’ve just been trying to see—and perhaps the Minister can explain to us—where’s the bit that guarantees us that this power will only be used if it’s really necessary, because what I read here is that the director-general may make these COVID19 orders. Well, look, it says the director-general must be satisfied the order is urgently needed, is the most appropriate way; the director-general must be satisfied the order does not limit, or is a justified limit on, rights and freedoms; the director-general must be satisfied the order is appropriate to achieve the purpose of the Act. It seems to me that only one person is really charged under law with deciding if it’s truly an emergency or needs to be used. There don’t seem to be any requirements written down here that anyone else gets to judge whether it was right to take people’s stuff. It seems, to me, that it’s really just up to one person, and that’s not the rule of law. We’ve already talked about the fact that they can’t go and appeal any court decisions; they’ve taken away the rights of appeal, which is pretty incredible. But it seems, to me, that there is actually just one decision maker here; there’s no standards to see what might possibly invoke this law.

Here’s the next thing: as we heard from Erica Stanford, and Chris Bishop for that matter, in normal commercial relations you just make a deal. So here’s the scenario: you are trying to make a deal in normal commercial relations, but one party has a piece of law passed by this Parliament which says, at any time, you can just say, “Look, if you don’t like my terms, we could always invoke section 11 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act and simply say that we’ve decided that it’s really important that we have these powers, it’s really important that we have this equipment, because we need it for an emergency, so we’ll take it anyway. Now, is that your final offer?” The fact is that even if these powers aren’t used—and this is something that I think the Minister needs to explain whether he’s considered—they change the dynamics of any kind of bargaining with the State, because suddenly one actor has this incredible power that, in normal commerce, you wouldn’t have.

Another question for the Minister: no doubt the Minister will say, “Oh, but this is normal. We have emergency powers. Everyone knows that if there’s an earthquake you can commandeer someone’s car to use as a makeshift ambulance to take someone—” We understand all that. So here’s the question that I think the Minister needs to get up and answer: what powers already exist? Why aren’t the powers in the Health Act 1956 and the emergency powers in the Civil Defence Act not adequate to deal with this problem he talks about? And, if they’re not, what extra powers are in this law that aren’t in those laws, and what restraints are contained in those laws that won’t be constrained here? Because he can’t have it both ways. He can’t say, “Oh, this is perfectly normal. This is what we do in emergencies. We take people’s stuff all the time. No problem—nothing to see here,” and then say, “Oh, but we need to pass this extra law in order to be able to get the stuff that we need in a particular circumstance.” So there’s really two questions here: first of all, what restraints, other than the director-general saying he’s satisfied, are actually put in place on this power? Because it seems that the only restraint is that the director-general has to be satisfied. And, second of all, if these powers exist in other civil defence and health legislation, what is it that this legislation does that gives additional power?

And I’ll just finish by picking up on a remark from Erica Stanford, which was a very good one: what is it about this Government that makes it so pathologically unable to engage in commerce with business—that, when they talk about needing a contingency and needing supply, they can’t go and sit down around the table and nut out a deal, respecting people’s dignity and property rights as equals? What is it that’s so pathological about this Government that they need to resort to force to get what they want? Because, if they keep on doing that, you know what they’re going to find? They’re going to find that people with ingenuity and creativity and drive don’t have to play the game, or not in New Zealand anyway, and what they’re going to do with their succession of laws that resort to force and pathology instead of working together constructively and partnering—a word they usually like to make much of—is they’re going to make New Zealand a poorer, weaker, more dismal place with this kind of legislation. I hope they’ll stop.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to deal with some of the issues to do with—I’m just trying to find the exact right section—new section 32N(2A), inserted by clause 22, which deals with the issue of the Minister deciding eligibility criteria for offline allocations through managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ). What we’ve done as a select committee is recommended inserting new section 32N(2A), which requires the Minister to consider the right of every citizen to enter New Zealand under section 18(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. My question to the Minister and the Government is: what policy advice has been sought previously in relation to the compliance of the MIQ regime with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? The reason why this is a very important question is that in my view, and I think the view of many others, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provisions in relation to the free movement of New Zealand citizens have been overlooked in the development of the MIQ regime.

Section 18 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is very clear. Now, the bill of rights is declarative, so everything’s subject to reasonable limitation, I’ll come back to that. But section 18, “Freedom of movement”, is very clear: “Everyone lawfully in New Zealand has the right to freedom of movement and residence in New Zealand.”—that’s subsection (1). Subsection (2) states: “Every New Zealand citizen has the right to enter New Zealand.” That’s very clear—every New Zealand citizen has the right to enter New Zealand. Now, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 binds Parliament, it binds the Government, and it binds the judiciary—that’s section 3 of the Act—and “Every New Zealand citizen has the right to enter New Zealand.”

Now, there’s a limiting provision in the bill of rights. As described in the Bolton decision of the High Court, His Honour makes reference to the fact that it’s a bill of reasonable rights. I haven’t often heard it described like that, but that’s a reasonable description—it’s a bill of reasonable rights. So every right is expressed in a declarative way, but section 5 says that there can be limits on rights as long as they are justified in a free and democratic society. Here’s the issue: is MIQ a reasonable limit on the right of New Zealand citizens to come to New Zealand?

Now, 18 months ago, when the pandemic started and COVID was raging around the world, and New Zealand kind of by accident, kind of by design, more by accident, adopted an elimination strategy that we would keep COVID out of New Zealand, MIQ made a lot of sense. In fact, the National Party called for it, and I think we were actually ahead of the Government in saying, “You need to, you know, lock off the borders.”—because, just as an aside, the World Health Organization at the time—and David Clark, I see, is in the Chamber, and he’ll remember this from his time as health Minister—was specifically telling countries: “Don’t erect border barriers, because there’s no evidence that that helps in the prevention of spread of a pandemic.” So that was slightly strange advice from the World Health Organization; perhaps counterintuitive and certainly not in keeping with what subsequently happened. But anyway, the New Zealand Government did the right thing, which is that they put in place a very hard border in New Zealand, and said, “Basically, it’s going to be impossible to come to New Zealand—or very, very difficult—and we’ve established the MIQ regime.”, and we traversed some of the circumstances around that last night. We’ve had this MIQ regime in the hotels. I don’t want to get into the specifics of how all that works, but it’s worked pretty well—for the most part, it’s worked pretty well.

But the situation is markedly different now. Now, my personal view is that MIQ was a very reasonable limit on the right 18 months ago; it probably even was at the start of this year. But now we find ourselves in a situation where we’re in November 2021, and 96, 97 percent of the people coming through MIQ are fully vaccinated and they pass pre-departure tests, because the Government put in place that requirement in, I think, December last year, January this year, so that minimises the number of people with COVID coming in. So the situation has markedly changed now from what it was when MIQ started. The judgment of His Honour Justice Venning in the case of Bolton v The Chief Executive of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and the director-general as a second respondent, is a very, very interesting one—[Time expired]

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. That was very interesting, what my colleague Chris Bishop was about to embark on. Hopefully, we’ll hear the end of that story in another call, but I want to talk particularly about clause 7 in the bill. I want to point out to the Minister in the chair, Chris Hipkins, that on the weekend I met Rob Peach. Rob Peach is an immunologist based in San Diego. He has a lot of drugs to his name that he’s developed, particularly around multiple sclerosis and those sorts of autoimmune diseases. He and his wife came out to New Zealand. His issue with managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) was that he’s triple vaccinated—fully vaccinated and had a booster; and, by the way, in San Diego COVID is now the disease of the unvaccinated. He couldn’t understand why they needed to go into MIQ, but further to that, he said the most unsafe he was—the most unsafe—was on a bus from Auckland to Rotorua to go into MIQ. He said that the ventilation was totally inadequate on that bus, totally. I mean, this guy knows what he’s doing. He understands this. He said it was appalling, so that if he was ever going to catch COVID, it would be on that bus going to MIQ, penned up in a bus with inadequate ventilation, shoulder to shoulder with other passengers.

So my question around the MIQ facilities is: does clause 7 extend to the safety and adequacy of the transportation of people to and from MIQ facilities? I think that seems to be a gap. If you would—not you, Madam Chair, of course, but if we were to think about this—and certainly in business you’d go do a gap analysis around the whole facility—that would be the first thing you’d identify. Where’s the weak point? Oh, it’s the bus. Well, what are we going to do about the bus? Well, you’d figure that out, wouldn’t you? Then then you’d start to think, well, hang on a minute. Someone who’s triple vaccinated, and they’re a New Zealand citizen—actually a philanthropist as well—comes to New Zealand, gave some money on the weekend to an aquatic centre that’s just opened in Kaikōura, where he grew up, went to school. Why is a person like that in an MIQ facility when there are gang members isolating at home that have COVID?

I’m not sure if the Minister is aware—this is another question for the Minister. Is the Minister aware that gang members tend not to follow rules? Is the Minister aware that gang members have been riding past the so-called roadblocks in Auckland and not being asked for their papers, whereas law-abiding citizens who are double vaccinated wait patiently in a line and then they have to get to the front and show their papers, show they’re checked—

Simeon Brown: Yes. Some of them get turned back.

STUART SMITH: Some of them do get turned back, while the gang members ride past oblivious, and I understand the police have been told not to chase them, just let them go. So that’s another gap in the system, Minister. Is there anything in these COVID orders that will say, “You must stop the gang members—nobody gets through. Nobody gets through without having their papers checked.” Actually, I don’t think we should have that, but that’s my personal view, and I’m hoping in time that this Government comes to its senses and puts some decent rules in.

So, Minister, you’ve got a couple of questions there. I can see you’re furiously writing away there and thumbing through the book, looking up—“gang” starts with “g”. Just go through that and see: are we stopping them, Minister? Are we? Because we know that they’re not—they’re not being stopped. If they want to go past, they just sail on by. Isn’t that a gap in the system? That also starts with “g”—have a look at that. But why are we having fully vaccinated, triple vaccinated New Zealand citizens locked up in MIQ and putting them at risk in a bus full of people, an inadequately ventilated bus, taking them from the airport to MIQ facilities? It’s crazy. It doesn’t make sense to anyone, and I just wonder who is making these decisions, because, quite frankly, in the private sector they would’ve lost their job long ago.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): To work my way through the various issues that have been raised at the moment, there are no provisions in the bill that relate to gangs specifically.

In terms of the transport to and from managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities, the bill does provide further clarity around the ability to require people to comply with the public health measures put in place. They’re to keep them safe whilst they are in transit. I can confirm that we use buses because the gap between Auckland and Rotorua is a long way to walk.

In terms of the other issues that have been raised, Erica Stanford raised issues around why the Government’s not removing MIQ requirements. Nothing in the bill prevents the wind back of MIQ requirements when that is justified.

In terms of the issues from Chris Bishop around compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the Government has taken the view, which has been supported by the courts, in many of the court cases raised so far and I’m aware that there are several of them ongoing, that the requirements around MIQ are a justified limitation where there are public health grounds for them to be in place. Now, where there are not, of course, then nothing in the bill prevents the Government from winding back when that advice changes.

In terms of David Seymour’s question around why a requisition power is needed, the existing legal framework provides the ability to requisition some things but not others. So the Director-General of Health, the Government, those leading the pandemic, for example, could requisition a building for the purposes of treating a patient but couldn’t requisition the use of a laboratory for the purposes of processing tests. So there’s an inconsistency in the legislation around what can be requisitioned. There is a gap, in other words, and this addresses that gap.

In terms of why we’re not being more specific about the circumstances under which it may be required, one of the realities of dealing with a global pandemic is you don’t know what you don’t know, and we don’t necessarily know what situation we may be faced with in the future. The Act as it exists now specifies the criteria on which the powers within it can be used, which is around the global pandemic and around the needs of managing the global pandemic. It is limited to those.

There are safeguards in place. Orders made under the Act need to be endorsed by the House of Representatives. As Minister I am ultimately accountable for any such orders that are made under the Act, so there is a check there in the sense that I as the Minister have to sign off on the use of those powers. I am accountable to the Parliament. Orders that I make under the law have to be confirmed by the Parliament. My ability to issue those orders as the Minister responsible for that has to be regularly renewed by Parliament.

This bill extends the life of the Act but it will still have to be regularly renewed by the Parliament, and when it is no longer required, of course, the Parliament won’t renew it and therefore all of the provisions enacted underneath it will disappear at that point. One of the reasons that we are seeking to extend the Act for a reasonable period of time, or extend the ability of Parliament to extend the Act—I should be very clear about that; this doesn’t automatically extend the Act until the middle of 2023. Parliament will make that decision on a regular basis as to how long it is extended for. This extends the maximum time Parliament can do that. And the reason for that is that many of the transitional provisions that will be required, as we move into different phases of the pandemic, will still require the powers under the Act—for example, the power to require pre-departure tests, the power to require people to be fully vaccinated on arrival in New Zealand. Those things rely on this Act continuing to be in existence. If the Act disappeared we wouldn’t be able to do those things. The power to require people to self-isolate at home, if that is justified under public health grounds, that requires this Act in order to do that. So that is why we are continuing the Act. It does not mean that the Act will continue to be used with all of the existing orders still in place. Orders will be removed when they’re no longer justified.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to go back to the question in relation to Supplementary Order Paper 80 in my name and actually address some of the comments that the Minister has made.

But, before I do that, I’d like to commend my colleagues who have actually mentioned the issues of managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) and also migrant families, and also the travelling by bus that Stuart Smith talked about, because many of us do, in fact, have family who are stranded all around the world.

I personally have a family member who’s in New York, and we only get together at Christmas-time. My brother and his family can’t visit. He is a New Zealand citizen. Even my eight-year-old nephew in New York has been vaccinated, and that is what is actually happening. But because they can’t even get an MIQ slot at the moment, we can’t even plan Christmas together. I haven’t seen them for many years. My father is elderly, he’s now stuck in Korea, and that is because I have told him I don’t want him to go through MIQ, being elderly and with health conditions that might put him in danger; at risk of contracting in MIQ. He’s double vaccinated. He hasn’t been home for more than two years. It’s been, gosh, July of 2019—that was the last time that I saw my family.

I think there are many risks and there are many questions. One of the reasons why I keep asking, in terms of the security of the privacy of the COVID-19 tracer app is because there are many questions that people do, in fact, ask, on many issues, including things like: what happens if we move to the traffic light system? If we do the quick response (QR) code and if we keep a record of people coming in, and if we do, in fact, go to the red light of the traffic light system, does that mean that having hand sanitisers and wearing personal protective equipment, and preventing people who actually have COVID or have tested positive, who are not double vaccinated from using some services including hairdressers—is that enough, or is there more that the Government actually requires? And there isn’t enough information, it seems, going to the public to make very clear as to what is required of them, just like this privacy issue.

Speaking to the Supplementary Order Paper 85 in my name, can the Minister please outline why he thinks that the short recommendation by the Health Committee in proposed new section 34A, in clause 24, is sufficient for addressing the privacy concern raised by stakeholders and members of the public regarding the COVID-19 tracer app. I think he indicated that he does not support the Supplementary Order Paper in my name, and if that is, in fact, the case, I’d like to ask him: why not? Is it purely because it something that is recommended by an Opposition member, or does he believe that my more comprehensive Supplementary Order Paper does less than what the actual report back from the Health Committee actually means it does? He actually said that there are no concerns in terms of privacy, because the Government actually promises to keep that data secure, but I’d like to remind the Minister that, in August, in Indonesia, the Health Alert Card—it was reported in Reuters on 1 September—actually exposed the data of over 1.3 million users due to a lack in proactive updates in the app.

They also had a situation with Singapore—and it was reported by the BBC on 5 January 2021—as it has allowed COVID tracing data for criminal investigation, despite public officials previously explicitly ruling that data would not be used for anything other than the virus tracking.

Also, the Australian state police forces were using QR code scanning data—reported on 6 September—in the context of a criminal investigation, prompting a law reform to be passed in Australia.

If that is the case, Minister, how can we be certain? When other countries promised to actually keep data secure and haven’t, how do we trust that the New Zealand Government would? I think we need to make sure that it is, in fact, secure and does—I’m not so sure if the Minister actually heard. Is he just opposing this Supplementary Order Paper in my name, No. 85, purely because I’m an Opposition member, or does he believe that currently, it goes as far or further than what the Supplementary Order Paper is actually trying to promote?

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take a call on this COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2). For the public listening at home, this piece of legislation extends the Government’s emergency powers substantially in a number of areas for an extra 12 months through to May 2023. That is something which I think needs to be noted to start with.

The main contribution I want to focus on, though, is clause 12, which relates to checkpoints, which is something which I know many Aucklanders have a very strong interest in at the moment, due to the announcement yesterday that we’ll finally be allowed out of Auckland from 15 December, with the requirement to have either a vaccination certificate or to be able to produce a negative test within 72 hours.

Whilst that decision seems to be pragmatic of sorts, the real question is around how these checkpoints are going to be managed. The question I’ve got, based upon clause 12, is that this bill now means it’s no longer just going to be the police who could be manning these checkpoints but it could be a Māori warden, it could be a nominated representative of an iwi organisation, it could be a Pasifika warden, or even a community patroller.

So my question to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins, is: will people leaving or coming into Auckland over these summer holidays potentially be stopped at a checkpoint or be stopped on the side of the road by any one of these four different groups either leaving or coming into Auckland?

Hon Member: Which clause?

SIMEON BROWN: Clause 12. Clause 12 gives the power for the enforcement officers to now be a whole range of additional categories under this piece of legislation. I’m not sure if the Minister’s even read clause 12; he might like to take a quick look at it—clause 12.

It says here in clause 12 that this means they will be able to put these people in place—the commissioner will be able to recognise these people as enforcement officers under this piece of legislation. And so we’ve got an amendment on the Table which, effectively, removes this increased power to be able to put in place a whole range of other people to be able to enforce these provisions.

I can understand, potentially, why the Government’s wanting to do this, because the police are stretched. There are 500 police who are either in managed isolation and quarantine or sitting at the boundary checking people as we speak. Just imagine how many more police are going to be needed to be able to do those jobs over a very, very busy summer, when tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of Aucklanders who have been locked up for months and months and months will want to be heading away on holiday or going to reconnect with family and friends.

So I would like the Minister to please explain why this clause is needed, why the additional range of enforcement officers are required, and what use he is planning to utilise these different groups of people to be able to enforce restrictions under this legislation. Will these newly appointed enforcement officers now be used at our border boundaries, in checkpoint style? Will they also be entitled to stop people, potentially, in other areas around New Zealand—for example, in the Coromandel—and ask people walking down the street, “Are you from Auckland? Have you got your vaccination certificate? Have you got proof of address?”

These are very real questions which I think New Zealanders would like to know the answers to, because this is a significant extension to the powers. I think the principle which most New Zealanders would agree with is that when it comes to enforcement of the law, in general, particularly powers which are included in this public health response legislation, it should be the police, and most people would expect that if they’re going to be fined a thousand dollars for not complying, it would be the police who would be enforcing those powers, issuing the infringement notices, stopping them and potentially turning them back if they don’t follow. I think most New Zealanders would be saying, “Actually, it’s the job of the police to be doing that.” It’s not the job of a community patroller or a Māori warden, as good as they are, as important as there role is in the community and in society and what they do.

I mean, these people all have an important role in New Zealand, and I respect the role that they have, but when it comes to enforcing pandemic powers, which are incredibly, incredibly powerful, which are unheard of in terms of domestic restrictions—you know, stopping people travelling around their own country and potentially fining them or turning them back—those are significant powers and I think most New Zealanders would say that’s the role of the police.

And so I think the Minister needs to take a call and explain very, very clearly what he plans to use these new enforcement officers for, and what they will not be used for, and particularly, when it comes to these new summer restrictions, whether or not they will be used on the boundary, or will it just be our police? And can he please answer that question—both going north of Auckland and also south of Auckland. What are the plans? Will it just be the police or will there be other organisations or groups under this particular section also being used to enforce these powers, and what will New Zealanders be expected to see on our roads over summer?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): If I could just briefly respond to Melissa Lee’s questions earlier. I do acknowledge that people want absolute certainty that their information cannot be used for any purpose other than for which it is collected, and the overseas examples that she has highlighted, I think, do underscore the public’s desire for clarity there, and that is why the bill specifically states now, following the amendment by the select committee, that the information cannot be used for any purpose other than that purpose for which it was collected.

In terms of the comments raised by Simeon Brown, I would refer him to section 22, subsection (5), in clause 12, and the second part of that, “if acting under the supervision of a constable.” These powers will only be able to be exercised by the police and other people working under their supervision. So the police will still be the ones responsible for ensuring compliance. In terms of where they can be used, I’d refer him to subsection (3A), “For the purpose of enforcing or monitoring compliance with a COVID-19 order that restricts movement by persons with or without vehicles, a constable may stop …”, etc., etc. It makes it absolutely clear that it is the police that are responsible for enforcing the orders, but at the moment the current practice is to use additional people to help, including our military, including Māori Wardens, including community patrols, and including some iwi representatives who have offered to help, to do some of that work. But it is ultimately the police that are still responsible for that. Now, I think that the provisions in this bill are very pragmatic and sensible, because it means the police will still be in charge, the police will still be ultimately accountable for what happens, the police will still make all of the decisions around enforcement of the orders, but it will free up police from some of the more menial processes involved in enforcing these orders, so that they can actually do their core job which is to fight crime.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in relation to that last comment by the Minister, is he able to give us an indication of what that supervision actually means? Does it mean that a sworn police officer needs to be at that border actively monitoring the community patroller, or whoever’s there? We’ve had the situation in the past where the police actually haven’t been there. So does supervision mean they have to be there or are they just in charge from a distance? That’s something that we need to know.

I want to go back to what I was talking about earlier, and what Chris Bishop also mentioned as well, on new section 32N, in clause 22, around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and New Zealanders’ rights to come home. The reason that I want to question the Minister around this is because he stated in an earlier answer that restricting Kiwis’ rights to come home under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is a justified health response. Chris Bishop’s argument was that that may have been the case earlier, but is it still the case now? Now, the Minister said that he’d had advice that says that it is a justified health response. What I specifically want to ask the Minister is: has the Government, has he, seen Crown Law advice specifically relating to the case of Bergen Graham, who was the woman trapped in America who could not get a managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) emergency allocation because she had a high-risk pregnancy. She couldn’t get into New Zealand. She had no ability to have the baby there, because she didn’t have health insurance and she had no visa to be there. She was there illegally; couldn’t get an MIQ spot. She took the case to court with the help of a number of pro bono lawyers, and immediately she got an emergency MIQ spot.

So the question is: what was the advice? This specifically relates to new section 32N, in clause 22 of the bill, where the Minister has to take into account the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Has the Minister seen that Crown Law advice on the specific case of Bergen Graham? Because it’s very curious that she got an emergency spot very soon after bringing that court case. I suspect that the Crown Law advice to the Government and to the Minister specifically said that the Government are skating on thin ice and, in fact, that this is in contradiction to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—people’s right to come home. This relates directly to new section 32N.

I want to know clearly from the Minister: did he receive Crown Law advice on Bergen Graham’s case? What did that Crown Law advice suggest? And does that sit with what he said earlier that, in fact, MIQ is a justified health response in stopping Kiwis coming home, in contradiction to their rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? I want to know what that Crown Law advice said, because we’ve heard that that Crown Law advice did say that this is no longer legal, when it comes to that Act. Has the Minister seen that piece of advice? What did it say? And was that the reason that Bergen Graham was very quickly allocated an emergency spot in MIQ? I think the Minister needs to answer those questions.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Chair. I was beginning to believe the narrative that women over 60 are invisible. Thank you, Madam Chair—I’ve only been here for a few minutes, though. I’m wanting to ask a question of the Minister regarding section 11, inserted by clause 7, around managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ). A number of my colleagues, including my colleague Erica Stanford, have said we accept that MIQ was absolutely necessary in terms of securing our health services in the early stage of the pandemic. But what I want to ask the Minister is: does he believe now that continuing our MIQ is helping or, indeed, heeding our health services?

I want to give him three examples which may assist his thinking on this. In August, we had the unfortunate situation where our head of obstetrics in Invercargill hospital had to go back to the States. His mother had, sadly, died and his elderly father was terminally ill. He went over expecting that, as a critical health worker, he would be able to get back into the country, and the DBH gave him leave expecting that. Sadly, it took three attempts and considerable publicity from myself and Joseph Mooney before he was able to be granted a critical worker MIQ spot to come back into the country. Our maternity services were at that stage in danger of being downgraded, and pregnant women with complications were going to have to be transferred out of Southland. I was particularly aware of that because I had a daughter heavily pregnant at that time. So that was one example.

Last week, I spent considerable time out and about with rural GPs, and I want to acknowledge the tremendous work our rural GPs and our nurse practitioners are doing out in the rural sector and the great sense of nervousness that they have of how they will be able to cope when COVID becomes more widespread, because our rural GPs and our nurse practitioners are under an incredible amount of pressure as it is. In fact, a number of our rural GPs have been trying to get locums in to assist them but because of the MIQ situation have not been able to get in a locum for up to 18 months.

The third example I want to give the Minister is an ICU nurse in Invercargill, a recent migrant who was a very valued ICU nurse. She had a partner in Sydney who was an engineer, and Southland was looking forward to not only keeping a very valuable ICU nurse but gaining a well-qualified engineer. Sadly, because he couldn’t get an MIQ spot, she decided to go over to Australia and join him.

So here we have three examples where the MIQ system has impacted significantly on our health services in New Zealand. At a time when we have over 3,000 people with COVID isolating at home in New Zealand, here were people who were double vaccinated and would have been assisting our healthcare system in New Zealand being denied access to return to or come to New Zealand. So I want to ask the Minister whether he considers that section 11—and all the infrastructure detailed in that section around MIQ and how MIQ will be run continuing on, and with the provision of it being able to continue right through to May 2023 with the extension in this amendment—may well now be actually hindering our health system in New Zealand rather than helping it. I would appreciate his answer to this. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): As I’ve repeatedly said during this debate, the provisions in this bill do not prevent the removal of managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) requirements for people coming into New Zealand. They simply state that if MIQ is going to exist, then it gives some ability to enforce the MIQ requirements or enhances the ability to run MIQ efficiently and smoothly and consistent with the very best public health advice.

It doesn’t stop us winding back the MIQ requirement or the requirement for people to go into MIQ when they arrive into the country. As the Government has already indicated, that is likely to happen progressively over the next couple of months. We’ll be seeing more and more people isolating at home rather than through MIQ. This bill does not, in any way, prevent this from happening.

But I would note, for members who simply say we just do away with it completely and do it right now, that even when we reach the point where the majority of people are isolating at home or even when we reach the point where some people won’t have to isolate at all—it is quite possible, in the future, that we’ll reach that point—there’s still likely to be a need for MIQ capacity for people coming into the country of some sort.

We have to think about what we do with those who are not vaccinated, for example. So if the requirement is for people to be fully vaccinated, what about those who have a right to enter the country but aren’t fully vaccinated? What about those who are coming into the country potentially with COVID-19 but are entering the country on justified grounds? We still need to have an ability to run a system to support those people.

So the continued refinement of the MIQ system—and I’ve repeatedly said this during the debate—does not mean that it will continue to apply to everybody coming into the country.

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

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to start off by thanking the Minister in the previous answer to questions that I had in relation to the example that I provided. So going back to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 85, in my name, I just want to ask the Minister, noting the new section 34A, inserted by clause 25A, as proposed by the Health Committee’s recommendation, how would that section effectively deal with the examples that I provided? And just to update the members, I’ll repeat them: in August, the Indonesia Health Alert Card—and it was reported on Reuters on 1 September—exposed the data of over 1.3 million users due to a lack of a proactive update of the app.

The other example I gave was that Singapore—it was reported in the BBC—had allowed COVID tracing data for criminal investigation despite public officials previously explicitly ruling that data would not be used for anything other than the virus tracking.

The third example I gave was the Australian state police forces using QR code scanning data in the context of a criminal investigation, which prompted a law reform to be passed. So I would appreciate if the Minister could answer how new section 34A could actually address these concerns, and whether that will actually fix the problem.

There is another thing that I would also sort of like to ask the Minister. I note that in the primary Act, the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, section 9(ba) states that the Minister must be satisfied that the order does not limit, or is a justified limit on, the rights and freedoms in New Zealand’s Bill of Rights Act 1990. So why does the Minister believe new section 34A is needed, if that is the case, as recommended by the Health Committee, if he believes it does not go far enough to protect the data?

The other question that I have is why has the Minister not supported further subsections to ensure that no order could affect individual privacy and information privacy principles, as set out in section 22 of the Privacy Act 2020, that my SOP would protect by amending section 9(ba) with a new subsection (2)? So if the Minister could actually address that, and, also, why has the Minister not supported further subsections to ensure that no order could affect the immunities and privileges that are recognised in Subpart 8 of Part 2 of the Evidence Act 2008 that my SOP would protect by amending section 9(ba) with a new subsection (3)?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I’ll go through this for a fourth time now: the reason that the Government is not supporting the member’s Supplementary Order Paper is that we believe that the new provisions inserted in the bill, combined with the existing protections of the Privacy Act, are sufficient. But, for the benefit of the member, I’ll read the relevant section to her—34A(1)—“Despite anything in the Privacy Act 2020, personal information about an identifiable individual that is provided or obtained for the purpose of contact tracing under this Act (such as through QR scans or paper-based forms) may not be collected, used, or disclosed by anyone except for the purpose of contact tracing under this Act or for the purposes of the Health Act 1956.” And it goes on further to say that a person who intentionally fails to comply with that commits an offence, and that that offence could result in a fine not exceeding $12,000 or six months’ imprisonment. So we have a very significant protection regime in there to ensure that the information collected is only used for the purpose for which it is intended. The Privacy Act has comprehensive provisions in it. The overall response to COVID-19 regularly touches on privacy concerns, and, in fact, they were the subject of questioning in the House yesterday when it came to the sharing of people’s vaccination information. That has been the subject of court cases at the moment, and the law there is clear.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to drill in a little bit into the Minister’s responses to Simeon Brown’s questions around clause 12, because I think this is a significant issue of potential concern. We have seen a number of images of roadblocks that have been staffed by people who are not members of the New Zealand Police; in fact, on many occasions, they haven’t been sanctioned by that, and this is going to tidy that up, on one level. But I think it also raises a number of questions.

The Minister rightly points out subsection 5 of clause 12: that an enforcement officer may also stop personal vehicles, but only if acting under the supervision of a constable. We don’t have “supervision” defined. I think it’s quite important to reflect on where the term “supervision” is used in other legal situations. We have it in, for example, a corrections sense, when somebody is sentenced to supervision. In our medical and healthcare system, we have a number of trainees that, from time to time, might be practising under supervision. But that does not mean that the person charged with supervising them has to be physically present at that time. Even if one looks at the plumbers and gasfitters legislation, where trainees are able to practise under supervision, the qualified plumber doesn’t need to be there at the time.

Now, the Minister has quite glibly said, “Oh, well, of course, there will be a police officer there.”, but that’s not actually clear in the legislation if one takes a broader definition of, as it is in other laws, of what “supervision” actually means.

That then leads on to the question of: what are we supervising and how qualified and trained are the enforcement officers going to be? Yes, they may be members of the armed forces. Yes, they may be Māori wardens or Pasifika wardens—that’s fine. But what specific training are they going to receive in order for them to be able to exercise what are significant powers and constraints on peoples’ freedom of movement? So, I think, the House, in order to satisfy itself into what it’s actually sanctioning here, needs to have a sense of what sort of training is going to be undertaken.

If there is a physical police presence, it’s important to understand what the ratio of sworn officers to enforcement officers will be. One could envisage a scenario at the border, in the lead-up to Christmas, where the police, frankly, do have other things to do and—some would argue; I would—better things to do, that this law could be complied with with one sworn officer and dozens of enforcement officers. So is that an adequate level of supervision, given the powers that are being conferred?

The fourth question I have is: to what degree does this confer a power to arrest or detain? It may have the power to detain, and that in itself is a significant thing. Will it have a power of arrest? If there is an enforcement officer on the boundary who stops a vehicle, checks a vehicle, and then the persons inside the vehicle become non-compliant, what further powers will the enforcement officer have? Because, in law, the person inside the vehicle has complied, chooses—perhaps of its own volition, rightly or wrongly—to decide it has met those requirements and goes to move off, will the enforcement officer have the power to physically detain a person against their will?

These are really important questions. I want to hear from the Minister on this. What is his definition of “acting under supervision”? What will the training requirements be? What will the ratio of sworn officers to enforcement officers be? What powers of arrest or detention will they have?

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I echo the comments of my colleague Michael Woodhouse. I would like to speak to the tabled amendment in my name, which is a very important amendment. What I’m proposing is that after clause 9, we insert, after new section 12(2) of the current Act, a new section 12(2)(d). And just by way of context, section 12(2) is the power for the Minister to make COVID orders. That’s the operational provision of the Act. That’s what gives the Minister the power to do a whole, actually, massive swathe or suite of things. I’m proposing that what he will not be allowed to do now is make orders in relation to fully vaccinated international travellers entering New Zealand—very, very simple; very, very simple amendment. It will stop the Minister making orders in relation to fully vaccinated international travellers entering New Zealand. Now, what that means is that orders will not be able to be made for fully vaccinated travellers to this country. This will start to dismantle and erode the managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) system. What it does is place restrictions around what the Minister is not allowed to make an order about.

We’re saying, on this side of the House, that the time has come to start dismantling MIQ, because full vaccination—the evidence is now extremely clear—provides enormous benefit to not only individuals who receive it but also the community, and what we’ve seen is that the risk of fully vaccinated travellers entering New Zealand markedly diminishes because of that vaccination. We’ve got the data now.

Hon Chris Hipkins: What would you do with the unvaccinated ones?

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, in relation to unvaccinated—and the Minister said it before: there has to be provision of MIQ facilities available. We had this long argument last night—well, not long, but we had this argument last night in the House. I think there’s widespread consensus that there should be some quarantine facilities, and, on this side of the House, we think there should be purpose-built. If the Government had done it a year ago, they’d be opening now—maybe; although the way this Government does things, probably not, but we had the quarantine facilities. But for fully vaccinated travellers—and we’ve now got the data.

So here’s the thing: the Government only started collecting the data on the vaccination status of people who arrive into MIQ from 23 August. One might well ask why the Government didn’t collect that data earlier, and I’ve got the written question answers from the Minister. It wasn’t that they didn’t ask—every now and then the health officials would ask, but they got collected—and I can’t believe this is true, but it is—in just sort of a general, all-purpose, any-other-section sheet on the returnees’ health forms. The Minister says it will be too difficult and cumbersome to go back through every form that people filled out, to figure out if they’ve recorded their vaccination status or not. I accept that that would be—I mean there’s 130,000, or something, people who have been through MIQ in that time, so it would be ridiculous to figure that out. But that doesn’t answer the question as to why the Government only started asking people from 23 August onwards, and that, actually, the tragedy of this whole situation is that if we’d asked people about vaccination back in maybe March, April, May, or June, rather than August, we could have made changes—we could have made the changes that the Government’s making now, in terms of halving the time in terms of MIQ from 14 days to seven days. We could have made that earlier, and thousands more people could have come home.

The other point is the emergency-allocation process, which is a debacle. Still, today, we see, in the paper, examples of people who have been granted an emergency allocation into MIQ, but they can’t get early release to come out of MIQ, even though the reason they got the allocation in the first place is because of compassionate reasons. Now we find they can’t get early exemption to leave. Again, if we’d taken account of vaccination status earlier, then we could have made some changes to that process.

So this is a very simple amendment. It will prohibit the Minister from making orders in relation to fully vaccinated international travellers entering New Zealand. What this will mean is that full vaccination will give huge benefits to people in terms of travel. There are 240,000-odd people who are registered in the MIQ system who have never received a spot. Again, we have this from the Minister himself, in terms of written question answers. It’s around 240,000 people who are registered, who’ve never received a spot. People, I think, get a little bit confused by it, or at least misled, by the MIQ lottery numbers that appear whenever the Government allows the lottery to take place, because there’s anywhere between 25,000 and 35,000 people in the lottery on a regular basis. But what that doesn’t capture are the people who are registered who never bother to enter, because, you know, they see the time frames and that’s not available for them or, actually, just the logging in on Twitter or Facebook, and they see everyone else in the lottery posting up and saying, “I’m number 25,043.”, and, you know, they’ve got no hope—they’ve got no hope. Even if they are a fully vaccinated Kiwi in Queensland, they’ve got no hope. So they just give up.

So there’s 240,000 people in the system who never bother to actually go into one of these regular lotteries. Even James Shaw had to do it. James Shaw had to go into the lottery to go to Glasgow. I think he got a special spot in the end, but he participated in the lottery, and I asked him in a written question, “What number did you get to?” He claimed he didn’t remember, which was interesting—but anyway. But that was interesting. So James Shaw’s sitting there on his laptop, trying to get all the way to Glasgow for the international COP26, and James Shaw had to log in. He was looking to see—up there in his Beehive office with his staff around him. Nine o’clock rolls around. “I’m registered in the system.”—the Hon James Shaw, Minister of Climate Change. Off he goes into the system and off it pops, “Oh, you’re number 17,043.”—no chance, or whatever it was. But that’s the stupidity of that situation. In the end, he got a special slot.

But, anyway, this amendment would mean James Shaw wouldn’t have to get a special allocation from the Prime Minister or the Beehive through the group allocation system—it would mean he didn’t have to do that. James Shaw could go to COP26; happy days. It means the Prime Minister could go to Europe because she’s a fully vaccinated traveller. So the European trip that got cancelled at the last minute, she could go without being worried about taking up a slot for somebody else. Damien O’Connor went on a trip. He didn’t get much flak for that because he was doing God’s work during the free-trade negotiations, which has bipartisan support—but Damien O’Connor could go without worrying about it. And I’ll tell you what else it could do. It’s not about the Government, actually. It’s not about Ministers; it’s about Kiwis and it’s about New Zealanders travelling overseas to Australia.

I’ve got a similar amendment, which I’ll talk to later—a similar amendment in relation to the trans-Tasman bubble, which the Government will not make any move on before Christmas for reasons best known only to themselves—not even on a state-by-state basis. Queensland, for example, Tasmania, Western Australia, and ACT—where, yeah, there’s a little bit of COVID, but a very, very small amount. The ACT is 97 percent vaccinated and the Government’s position is that—it’s a jurisdiction; it’s not a state, better get that right—a jurisdiction of Australia, the ACT, that has a 97 percent first dose vaccination rate, we can’t have a bubble with. Or Queensland, where there is very little COVID—the vaccination rate’s lower there; I accept that, but there’s very little to no COVID there, and tens of thousands of New Zealanders live in Queensland and have family and whānau over there. The Government’s position is that we can’t even have a state-by-state bubble with Australia before Christmas

So all of that will be eroded and evaporated with this amendment. It’s about the right of Kiwis to come home, and this amendment is consistent with the arguments that Erica Stanford and other colleagues have made around the Bill of Rights Act, because there is a right in section 18 of the Bill of Rights Act for New Zealand citizens to return to New Zealand. I accept the argument that that was a justified limit under section 5 18 months ago; very few people think it is a justified limit these days in November 2021, heading into December 2021, with the benefits of full vaccination and the risk calculus that exists in New Zealand right now.

I refer the Minister to the very good opinion piece by Professor Andrew Geddis of the University of Otago law faculty, who has written about this particular issue. He makes the same argument I do, which is that MIQ was justified last year, but it is increasingly difficult to justify the restrictions in November 2021 once you take into account vaccination and also once you take into account the fact that COVID is here. Elimination is gone. COVID is here; it’s not going away. The Government now accepts that and the Minister has been, I actually think, refreshingly frank, about the fact that COVID is here and it’s not going away and it will spread. He’s been refreshingly frank in a way that I wish the Prime Minister would be in relation to those salient facts. So, when you take into account the fact that COVID’s here and the Bill of Rights Act and vaccination, it’s hard to justify not supporting this amendment, and I invite the Minister to support it.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 45

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Melissa Lee’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 85 be agreed to. All those in favour say Aye, to the contrary No. The Ayes have it.

The question is that David Seymour’s amendments set—

Willow-Jean Prime: Sorry, Madam Chair. You said that the Ayes have it. Party vote.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): My apologies. The Noes have it.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

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

Amendments not agreed to.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Point of order. Madam Chair, I just want to express some consternation about what just occurred in that vote. You declared a vote on the Supplementary Order Paper as a Yes vote, then, based on some interference from the Labour Party, you then changed the vote. And I’d like some explanation why, because I think that is a very, very serious matter. And, if I’m not satisfied, I will seek to have a recall of the Speaker.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Speaking to that point of order, the declaration of the Chairperson as to whether the Ayes have it or the Noes have it is an indication to the House of how the Chair interprets a vote, and the Chair is at liberty to make that declaration however they choose to. If it is then contested, it is ultimately a roll-call of party votes that determines the matter, and that is exactly what happened. Members regularly contest the view of the Chair. The Opposition contests the view of the Chair as to whether the Ayes have it on a very, very regular basis.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Speaking to the point of order, that is not my recollection of actually what occurred. The Speaker—the Chair, I should say, sorry; we’re in committee—had expressed that the Ayes had it, and Melissa Lee’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) should then stand. There was no request for a party vote. The Chair had expressed that the SOP had been voted in favour and carried on the voices, and, unless I am satisfied to a high degree that there was not interference and that the Chair did not accept that interference and then change the vote, I will be seeking a recall of the Speaker.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Assistant Whip—Labour): Speaking to the point of order, I did request a party vote.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The party vote was actually called for. It was my mistake saying the Ayes have it, instead of saying the Noes have it.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): So that’s a mistake. So I’m going to seek a recall of the Speaker. That is an egregious issue that’s occurred in this committee stage, on a very significant piece of legislation, and I would like the Speaker recalled.

Hon Chris Hipkins: You have to move that the Speaker be recalled.

Chris Bishop: You have to move it.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I move, That the Speaker be recalled.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those in favour say Aye; to the contrary, No.

Hon Louise Upston: Oh, borderline call. Be very careful with that.

Hon Chris Hipkins: You’re wasting the Speaker’s time.

Hon Louise Upston: No, the Chair had moved on. This is outrageous. This is a significant piece of legislation, and if Labour are blocking, it is absolutely outrageous. I would be very careful.

Kieran McAnulty: It’s the second time she’s spat the dummy in about a couple of weeks.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): On the voice, in terms of the Noes versus the Ayes, the Noes have it. If you’d like to declare a party vote, I can call for a party vote?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Yes, I’d like a party vote.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Speaker be recalled.

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

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

Motion not agreed to.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Point of order, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to bring to your attention some behaviour in the House that I think is totally inappropriate, and that is the National’s whip was taking a legitimate point of order and raising a legitimate concern from this side of the House. The Labour Party’s chief whip came into the Chamber and made what I think was an extremely negative—

Hon Louise Upston: Unparliamentarily.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —an unparliamentarily comment directed at our senior whip. I’d like you to take some action on that, please.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Speaking to the point of order, you’ll be aware, Madam Chair, that all votes in the House are heard in silence. If the Opposition’s acting whip wishes to be respected during that time, then she might want to follow the rules of the House.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Speaking to that point of order, what we’ve seen occur here is that a vote had been taken, and, on the voices, the Chair had declared the vote and moved on to the next Supplementary Order Paper before interference from a Labour member. Now, in terms of parliamentary procedure, I will make zero apologies for taking this seriously. In my 13 years, I’ve never seen a motion to recall a Speaker voted down. So I accept the member’s comment that votes should be taken in silence, but I think the member who is the Minister is charge of this piece of legislation should also respect that this is a very contentious piece of legislation. For the process and the Chair to change direction on an interference from a Labour member is absolutely why there is heightened sensitivity. The recall of the Speaker is not one that is ever, ever undertaken lightly, and so I’m reinforcing my colleague’s request for an apology by the chief whip of the Government.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Point of order, Madam Chair. What we’ve just seen is an egregious breach of the Standing Orders. It is absolutely unacceptable for any member to at any point suggest that a presiding officer’s actions in the House have been as a result of any form of coercion from any members of the House. That is actually one of the most serious breaches of the Standing Orders that any member in the House can do.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Referring to the point of order from the Hon Louise Upston, it is absolutely out of order to allege interference in the chairing of the House. We also then had a party vote. A member who voted for the declared majority can call for a party vote—for a declared minority, sorry, can call for a party vote. That has happened. The party vote declared that the motion has been agreed to and the party vote has now been correctly recorded.

Hon Members: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Chair’s ruling is final in this case, the Hon Louise Upston. We shall move on.

Hon Louise Upston: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Is it a fresh point of order?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Yes, it is. For the ongoing order of the House, I would request respectfully that attention is paid to the replay of what has occurred in this committee stage. And I put that request politely.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that David Seymour’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 88 be agreed to.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Point of order—

Hon Chris Hipkins: There’s a vote in progress, you can’t do it while the vote’s in progress.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Well, are you prepared to hear my point of order, Madam Speaker? I want to go back to my original point of order, which was never addressed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Is it about the vote?

Hon Mark Mitchell: No, it’s about my earlier point of order that was never addressed by you.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): We’re actually completing this whole voting process, Hon Mark Mitchell. [Quiet discussion amongst members] Are you relitigating the previous ruling?

Hon Mark Mitchell: No, Madam Chair.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

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

Amendments not agreed to.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m requesting that my original point of order that I took was never actually responded to or addressed by you.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Can the member remind me of his point of order again, please?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah, my point of order, quite simply, was that during the period of time when the whip was taking points of order, raising legitimate points of order, the chief whip for the Government came into the House and made some very negative comments and inappropriate comments directed at our whip.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): So if the whip actually said something that was unparliamentary against the Opposition whip, can he please withdraw and apologise?

KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): Let’s just get on with things. I withdraw and apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Chris Bishop’s tabled amendment to clause 9, inserting new section 12(2)(d), be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Chris Bishop’s tabled amendment to clause 12, deleting section 22(6)(b), be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Simeon Brown’s tabled amendments to clauses 13 and 14 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

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

Amendments not agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 45

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

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Consequential amendments to Summary Proceedings Act 1957

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 45

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

Part 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Schedule 1 stand part.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Schedule 1A stand part.

Schedule 1A agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we now come to our final debate, which is on clauses 1 and 2. The question is that clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m just trying to find—

Hon Chris Hipkins: It’s the title and commencement.

CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, I realise that. I’m just trying to—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

CHRIS BISHOP: I realise clause 1 is the title; I was just making sure I got the wording right, which is the No 2—COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2).

This bill, and the title of the bill, is an unfortunate day for the Parliament, because what this House is doing is passing into law—soon going to pass into law, because we’re under extended hours; we’re into the third reading this afternoon—a bill that does two obnoxious things. Firstly, it continues the obnoxious, abhorrent system of managed isolation and quarantine for much longer than is necessary; and, secondly, it puts into law obnoxious provisions that allow the Government to steal private property under very dubious circumstances.

So the bill is misnamed. It’s very anodyne, in its current form; it’s banally worded—the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2). It should really be better named the “COVID-19 Public Health Response (Theft of Private Property) Amendment Bill.”

Hon Member: Abrogation of rights.

CHRIS BISHOP: My colleague says abrogation of rights. Thank you very much; that was going to be my next point. I wasn’t going to put it quite—

Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Madam Chair, the member knows full well, as does, I’m sure, the committee, the Standing Orders are very clear, as are Speakers’ rulings, that debates on title and commencement must be specifically on that matter and cannot be used as a way to criticise or critique the content of the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Relevance is something that the Chair rules on. Thank you for your assistance, Kieran McAnulty.

CHRIS BISHOP: Thank you for adroitly pointing out that I was speaking specifically about the appropriateness of the title. I accept it’s a narrow debate, but I’m talking specifically about what the bill should or should not be called. Clause 1 is the title, clause 2 is the commencement, and the title of the bill is misnamed. It’s inappropriately named, because it’s a very banal title for a very serious bill. That’s my critical point, and the first of my, no doubt, many contributions on this particular clause.

It is an inappropriately titled bill. For a bill of such significance that does so many serious things, there should be the proper title and proper words in the title that make it—

Hon Louise Upston: Which we will be tabling amendments for shortly.

CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, well, my colleague Louise Upston is in a fiery mood this morning, and she points out that the Opposition will be tabling amendments in relation to this.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Are you going for the deputy leadership, Chris?

CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Are you going for the deputy leadership?

CHRIS BISHOP: Ha, ha! I tell you, the member who’s just making that rude interjection certainly will never be the deputy leader of the Labour Party, not after the—although, having said that, Kelvin Davis is doing such a shoddy job at the moment. “Where’s Kelvin?”, they call him up north; he’s disappeared off the face of the earth.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Point of order, Chris Bishop—come back to the bill, please.

CHRIS BISHOP: Was that a ruling? Was there a point of order? [Interruption] Oh, OK. Well, anyway. Sorry, Madam Chair, I was provoked by the Government frontbencher.

Anyway, the point is—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: If you’re going to filibuster, you have to up your game, so take calls.

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, again, I certainly won’t be taking advice on filibustering from that member, who is not renowned for the filibuster; I’ll take advice on filibustering from the Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon Chris Hipkins, who’s at least a parliamentarian performer, but I won’t take it from Megan Woods—Dr Megan Woods.

Anyway, the point I was making was that for a bill that is actually of significant importance in relation to rights and freedoms, it should be better named. And so there should be a recognition in the bill title that this has a big impact on a lot of New Zealanders. It’s not every day that Parliament passes laws that arguably are in contravention of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We don’t do that very often; we do that on a very rare basis. I acknowledge that there’s no section 7 report from the Attorney-General—that he’s concluded that the bill is in accordance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but I disagree, and I think a lot of legal academics would say otherwise, and a lot of legal experts would say otherwise, and that’s the whole point of a parliamentary bill of rights.

My simple point is that the bill should be better titled to reflect the significance of the rights that we are imposing upon. Thank you.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take a call on the title and commencement clauses of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill, I think, would be better named as the “COVID-19 Public Health (Extension of Powers by Another 12 Months) Response Amendment Bill” because that is one of the significant things that this piece of legislation does. The COVID-19 Public Health Response Act was brought into place in May of 2020, following our first lockdown, with a time constraint of two years, and now we are saying, under this piece of legislation, that it will be extending those emergency powers—significant emergency powers that we’ve seen under the COVID-19 orders—for another 12 months.

This comes as we’ve had the year of the vaccine—or the vaccine “stroll-out” as some people call it. It’s now November and the Government still hasn’t completed its vaccine stroll-out.

Hon Kris Faafoi: Have you had yours?

SIMEON BROWN: I’ve had two. I’ve hope you’ve had your two as well there, Mr Faafoi?

Hon Kris Faafoi: Waiting for the third.

SIMEON BROWN: You’re waiting for your third—good man. We’re all waiting for our boosters.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! In the meantime, I’d appreciate the member keeping the Chairperson out of the debate.

SIMEON BROWN: Sorry, Madam Chair. Yes, we’re all waiting for our boosters now and that’s another story of slowness and stroll-outs—

Hon Member: Which one?

SIMEON BROWN: —if that’s the Minister comments that he wants to be talking about. But the issue here is an extension of these powers by another 12 months, at a point in time when, actually, the Government should be putting in place much tighter powers with far fewer limitations rather than, effectively, keeping in place significant powers. And, of course, we’re going to be back here next week talking about another set of regulations, and that’s not going to be about tightening up what’s in the law but about including a whole other set of regulation-making powers and a whole other set of rule-making powers for the Government.

If the Government was saying, “Well, we’re going to remove these ones and replace them with a tighter, more targeted set of powers”, I think most New Zealanders would be OK with that. But what we’re saying is that for another 12 months the Government will be able to put in place level 3 and level 4 restrictions nationwide until May of 2023, under this piece of legislation, despite the fact that next week they’re promising a new protection framework and a traffic light system and all of these other wonderful things that they’ve promised but that we still have not seen the actual hard letter of the law written down on paper for New Zealanders to be able to look at and scrutinise. So this legislation gives another 12 months of significant powers.

The other possible name for this piece of legislation would be the “Public Health Response (We Need to Widen the Mandate of Enforcement Officers) Amendment Bill”, because this bill significantly widens who is able to enforce the powers under this piece of legislation. I think most New Zealanders would agree with me when I say that, actually, if you’re going down the road and there’s a boundary restriction around alert levels, and that if the police are checking to make sure you’ve got a legitimate reason for travel, they’d be quite OK with the police enforcing those powers. But this piece of legislation now widens that and says, no, no, no, not just the police will have those powers to enforce the boundary restrictions but also a Māori warden, or a Pasifika warden, maybe a community patroller or a representative of an iwi—all good, well-intentioned people, no doubt, but now it’s no longer just about being stopped on the road by a police checkpoint with people that New Zealanders would respect and understand the role, the powers, and the authority that they have, but widening this to a whole bunch of other people who this legislation doesn’t require appropriate training for. It doesn’t describe in what detail they need to be under police supervision. Will a police officer actually have to be physically with them as they’re undertaking their powers and duties? It doesn’t describe whether that person will be able to also issue infringement notices and under what conditions or supervision. This piece of legislation extends powers significantly and that’s why those suggested names for this legislation are far more appropriate than the very bland name it currently has, which is, simply, the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2).

I’ll be encouraging the Minister to put a much more accurate description in the name of this legislation in place, because that is exactly what this legislation does—it extends the powers, extends the enforcement powers, in a way that I think most New Zealanders would be significantly concerned about as we come out of this pandemic over the next 18 months. This bill is about extending powers, not making them more limited.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that clause 1 stand part. All those in favour say Aye, to the contrary No. The Ayes have it.

Hon Member: Noes have it. Party vote.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Party vote has been called for. Apologies for the delay. There’s been a late entry, so I will pick up—I’ll just confirm where I pick because we’ve just got something added in. Oh, we’re having a morning, aren’t we! The question is that Chris Bishop’s tabled amendment to clause 1, to change the title to “COVID-19 Public Health Response (Infringement on Property Rights and Other Matters) Amendment Bill”, be agreed to.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Madam Chair. I think the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings—Speakers’ rulings in particular—have made it very clear that a proposed alternative title has to be a serious and credible attempt to name the legislation; it’s not an opportunity to make political points, as the member’s amendment suggests.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): OK. Thank you. Thank you for that. The reason I paused in the deliberations was to consider that very issue. My ruling is that I am going to proceed by putting the question.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 45

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

Clause 1 agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 45

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

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

Part 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bills

Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Part 1

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we turn now to the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and we first debate Part 1—this is the debate on clauses 4 to 7—“Amendments to Part 1”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Chair. Most of what I want to say on this Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is related to Part 2, but what I just did want to say in relation to the bill overall, as we start debating the committee stage, is that it’s a terribly awful piece of legislation. It’s completely unnecessary. I sat in on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and we heard the submitters talking about their role in decommissioning, something which the submitters from the industry supported and have no problem doing. And this bill is a total overreach, where there are some very big concerns around trailing liabilities, the retrospective nature of some of the parts of the bill, strict obligations to remove infrastructure. You know, we’re going to get to a stage in this industry, as if enough damage hasn’t already been done to this industry by the Minister of Energy and Resources, that we are going to have directors who are not prepared to put their name up for positions like this until they’re at least probably 85 years old, because actually the young, vibrant people are going to go, “Well, this is absolutely far too much of a commitment by us to be able to put our names to this.”

And so all I really want to say right at the beginning of this bill is this is a bad piece of legislation. It is another blow to an industry who we need for energy security in this country. We are importing record amounts of coal due to the decisions that have already been made and the blows that have already been taken by this industry.

We will be putting up some Supplementary Order Papers and suggestions when we get to Part 2, because it’s a terrible piece of legislation. We certainly won’t be supporting it. Thank you.

Part 2 Amendments to other Parts of principal Act, and Schedules 1 and 2.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 8 to 27, and Schedules 1 and 2, “Amendments to other Parts of principal Act”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): I thought the Minister in the chair, Megan Woods, was going to take a call and I was prepared to let her take one, but she hasn’t stood up, so I’m going to take my first one. My first one is speaking to my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 90, and it is around clause 17. In this clause, we want to replace the words “The Minister must” with the words “The Minister may”. There are too many incidences in energy at the moment where the Minister wants to have her hands and her fingers in the gearbox around everything, and we can see the results were actually going to be leading to a lot of energy insecurity in this country. So we want those words removed, because the mandatory imposition of financial security requirements on permits and licences is not something that the Minister should be putting her fingers into. Amending the word to “may” allows discretion to be used by the Minister, but requiring financial security without a risk assessment would be disproportional to the actual risk. I don’t believe, in terms of reading the information that I’ve seen on this bill and listening to the submissions, that the Minister has been listening on this at all, and I would be quite concerned about putting a clause in any energy bill where the Minister “must”, rather than the Minister “may”.

So that is my first SOP and perhaps the Minister, when she’s ready to take a call, may want to get up and tell us why this is going to be a power which she’s going to impose on the current energy Minister or future energy Ministers, and why she feels this is necessary to impose herself and others on this industry when they are going to be decommissioning anyway.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Thank you, Madam Chair—happy to take a call to answer questions as they arise. I will address just a couple of the introductory comments around the requirement and the purpose of the legislation that the member who’s just taken her seat raised in her first contribution. She claimed that this was a piece of legislation that there was no necessity for—it was not required, and we didn’t need it. I’d like to point this committee to the fact that the New Zealand taxpayer has been left with a bill of $349 million cleaning up a decommissioning cost that should’ve been borne by somebody else. I do not think it is fair, I do not think it is right, and I do not think it is just that the New Zealand taxpayers should be left to clean up after a commercial operator has been in and they simply absolve themselves of what is required after the permit.

This is not a theoretical concern. The purpose of this bill was born out of what we have seen happening in Taranaki with the Tamarind situation in the last few years. When we first came into Government in 2018, one of the first things I did as the Minister of energy was to clean up the loophole that the previous Government had left that allowed the situation with the Tamarind to exist. So we’ve closed that down, but we have an obligation to the taxpayers of New Zealand to further protect them from being left with the bill for cleaning up and the decommissioning after someone has finished their activities in exploration and drilling work.

The member also said that this was retrospective legislation and something that should be considered carefully, and on this point I absolutely agree with her. This is something that we have taken seriously, that it is something that we do have to make sure we are ensuring that we are working within the usual conventions of how it is this House would legislate on these matters.

One of the things that was pointed to in the advice that we heard was that the licences that are issued under the Petroleum Act of 1937 are subject to an explicit statutory obligation to remove any chattel, machinery, or any other property placed on land through the course of the licence. So in terms of making sure that you do fulfil what is set out in that 1937 Act and those licences are issued under, this is just putting in law what is required of the companies anyway and protecting the New Zealand taxpayer. Permit commissions can further specify holders’ decommissioning requirements, and most permits do include some form of decommissioning obligation, though conditions can vary between permits. So it is not an unreasonable expectation that someone who holds a permit for oil and gas exploration in New Zealand should expect that they will have an obligation to remove any chattel, machinery, or any other property placed on the land throughout the course of the licence. Of course, post-1937 and the passage of that, we did also move to offshore exploration and drilling within our oil and gas sector. So this is not unusual.

In developing this proposed legislation, we consulted the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee guidelines, and these state that the starting point is the legislation should not have a retrospective effect and should not interfere with accrued rights and duties. But we note that legislation should generally have prospective and not retrospective effect. The proposed provisions in this bill will apply prospectively but are designed to affect what the fiscal risk to the Crown is the greatest from, rather than future petroleum mining exploration permits. So this consideration was something that was given due consideration during the course of the bill.

In terms of the member’s SOP that she spoke to in her contribution, we will not be voting in favour of the Supplementary Order Paper that the member has put up. We consider that acquiring a financial security from a permit holder is an important risk mitigation that needs to be put in place to protect the taxpayers of New Zealand. Now, the taxpayer already has obligations under the Crown Minerals Act in respect to decommissioning, but so do those who hold the licences, and that is what this financial security is about. It’s about making sure we’re putting in that risk mitigation so not only is the Crown responsible for its obligation under decommissioning but so are those who have commercially operated these permits and have received profit from doing so.

There is flexibility built into this legislation, and that’s one of the critical elements that is in the bill that we’re debating in the House. The amount and kind of security is decided by many factors, allowing a risk-based approach to the implementation. It’s for that reason, that we have already embedded within the framework of this legislation this risk-based approach that is flexible, that we won’t be supporting the member’s SOP.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): While I expected that the Minister may not support this particular Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) and has given an explanation about why this particular clause is required, the Minister has failed to tell me why the words “Minister must” rather than the words “Minister may” are so important, because, for us, the words “The Minister must” would need to come out, because we don’t support this particular piece of legislation. I understand many of the explanations—also understand the explanation that the Minister gave around decommissioning and why it’s important. It’s not decommissioning that’s the problem; it’s the extent of the overreach which is in this bill. So I hope, when the Minister takes the next call, that she’ll take an opportunity to tell the House why it’s a requirement that “The Minister must” rather than “The Minister may” within my Supplementary Order Paper.

And, if the Minister is not going to take a call at the minute, I would actually also just like to talk about one of my other SOPs at this stage, Supplementary Order Paper 91, and it is to reinsert new section 89E(2), previously removed by the select committee, to remove the strict obligation to remove petroleum infrastructure if it could be repurposed by another permit holder. Now, this is quite an onerous task that needs to be done, and sometimes things can be repurposed. Sometimes things can be used again, and sometimes there are pieces of particular plant and equipment where there may be more issues with trying to remove the particular piece of equipment than there is by actually leaving it where it is. You can certainly see, in some aspects, that some of the equipment, particularly—and I know, with the offshore stuff, they actually become quite seabed orientated, and if there’s no risk of a leak or anything that’s going to cause us any environmental concerns in the near future, then it seems like dead money and sunk money to remove absolutely every last nth degree thing without an absolute reason as to why it’s going to cause a problem. We can fully understand why the industry would want to remove anything that’s going to cause a problem and cause a leak.

And I do just actually want to say that this bill is the problem, not the decommissioning, because what we’re seeing in this House at the moment, and we’re seeing it on a number of bills, is that one incident seems to take this Government down a track of control, ban, and the Minister stands up and talks about the Government paying the costs of decommissioning in the Tamarind situation, which was unfortunate, and it was one of those situations that would be better if it didn’t happen. We all know that from an environmental level, but we’ve got a Minister here that’s really damning the industry over one incident, an industry who is prepared to decommission, an industry which contributes $2.5 billion to the New Zealand economy. It brings in around $750 million worth of export receipts, approximately $500 million in royalties, and income tax for the Crown. So this is not a one-way street. This is not an industry that’s all take, and I also want to reiterate the fact that this is an industry that’s going to help keep our lights on. Even the Climate Commission has made comments around how we’re going to need gas for the future, and this bill is just going to put another nail into this industry and take away investment and really, really hurt the energy security of our country.

I would like the Minister to stand up and refute what I’ve just said, going in through the next 10 to 15 years, where we’re trying to get our energy security under control—that this bill isn’t another nail in the coffin that is going to lead New Zealand to awful climate change problems, with the amount of imported coal we’re bringing in on ships that are actually coming from another country.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I’ll answer a couple of the questions that were put there. The member Barbara Kuriger asked for a more explicit explanation around why we won’t be voting for her Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that asks that the Minister “must” rather than “may”. When it comes to a Minister having to require permit holders to provide a proposal as to what is the right security for them, it actually is a case that they must do that, because it is a bespoke—it’s not a one-size-fits-all provision. It’s that the Minister must require that each of the permit holders puts forward the details of their particular permit, around their own individual circumstances. So the “may” provision that the member is proposing simply is not workable.

The member has also talked about her Supplementary Order Paper 91, which we will also be voting down. We won’t be voting for this, because, actually, it’s not required. The select committee simply moved that provision when it was there. So, while it was deleted from 89E(2), it was folded into 89E, which does make an amendment that introduces a provision allowing a process to be set aside in regulations whereby infrastructure may be left in place if certain criteria are met. And this would allow a range of considerations to be taken into account. So it’s simply not required. It would be superfluous. It was fixed up by the committee, and it was one of the pieces of work that happened there.

One of the comments—it wasn’t so much a question—that the member who just resumed her seat made was that this is putting an undue onus on industry and that it may cause them to not further invest. But I’d just like members of the House to reflect on the fact that this bill is designed to clarify the existing expectation that decommissioning informs an important part of the petroleum lifecycle. And, actually, most companies realise this and are happy to do so. There are flexible arrangements built into this, and I’d point the member to the fact that, actually, what we’re enacting here is actually following international trends that we’re seeing around decommissioning obligations as the world moves towards decarbonisation, and that we have a number of areas, including New Zealand, where we’re getting to the late stage development of fields, and decommissioning needs to be taken into account. So New Zealand is moving in line with international trends; it certainly isn’t an outlier. At the moment, it has one of the more permissive regimes that did allow for a situation where the taxpayer of New Zealand—it wasn’t just a little annoyance to the taxpayer of New Zealand; it was $349 million. And when I reflect on the houses or the schools or the healthcare that we could have put in place rather than picking up the tab from someone shirking the obligations required of them under their permit, then we as a Government have an obligation to the taxpayers of New Zealand to ensure we do not see more of that.

One of the things that we do know is that the New Zealand oil and gas sector, by and large, with a couple of exceptions, is operated by multinational companies—that we don’t have the fact that companies will be staying in New Zealand. A number of them exit as soon as they exit their permit. There’s no enduring relationship that needs to be preserved or preservation of reputation, which, if it’s a domestic onshore company, is a further incentive for companies. We do have some New Zealand - based petroleum and oil companies, who certainly are very aware of their reputation and the need for them to preserve their reputation, and this is exactly why a flexible, risk-based approach has been built into this legislation so that a number of factors can be taken into account.

The member talks about the need for us to move away from moving coal; I couldn’t agree more. Central to this Government’s energy strategy is the fact that we need to move away from fossil fuels and we need to have transition plans, whether that be coal or whether that be gas—both are harmful to our climate and, as a country, we have to have a plan to move ourselves to renewable forms of energy—but, in order to make sure that the taxpayers of New Zealand are not left holding the decommissioning bill, it is the responsibility of a responsible Government to put them first and foremost.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to rise and support my colleague Barbara Kuriger on this side of the Chamber, and I’ll start off with a comment to Minister Woods, who just took her seat. I completely agree with her in terms of our Government having a plan to have a greener future, and I think all of us actually want to make sure that our carbon emissions are reduced and we all sort of buy in to that rhetoric. Having said that, when a Government starts talking about having the obligation to the taxpayers and actually imports more coal than we used to because of their policy settings, you have to wonder whether we should start believing anything that the Government is talking about. When the Minister says “having an obligation to the taxpayer”, it’s not just the consumers who pay tax. It is actually the businesses who pay tax as well, and you need to make sure that the settings are fair.

I think we want to represent the people who have submitted to the select committee, and I’d like to quote from the chief executive of Energy Resources Aotearoa, John Carnegie. There were many submitters who said that they support the ideas that the Government is talking about in terms of the new rules for decommissioning. They totally support it—many businesses believe in the commercial and the corporate responsibilities that they have when it comes to decommissioning. It’s not that all of us on this side are saying, “Oh no, let them leave everything that they’ve put in place and dirty our environment and just leave it, and the taxpayers and the Government should actually pay for it.” We’re not actually saying that. What we’re talking about is in terms of the flexibility, which this doesn’t seem to have. It’s an overreach and not a balanced one.

When we’re holding operators liable for things that happen after they sell the business and they are held continually responsible, in what other sector do we have this responsibility? It’s like having a factory owner who sells the factory and for unforeseen circumstances something happens in the factory after he’s actually sold it, and then the person who sold the factory is held accountable for it when the transaction’s already happened many years ago. It doesn’t happen in a normal commercial transaction.

I mean, I said this in the second reading. I think it’s sort of like when you look at the very idea of rugby, we all love rugby. It’s like when somebody kicks for goal, and then the goalposts are shifted after the ball has been kicked. I mean, that’s ridiculous, and it certainly goes to show that people on that side of the House don’t understand about business or about contracts.

It’s about the obligations that people have when they sign a contract. You don’t let people who have invested under a particular condition in an industry to all of a sudden find that the goalposts have actually shifted and the responsibility that they now face is completely different to when they invested. Who would invest in New Zealand in the future, when that actually happens? I think when Governments make law, we need to make clear law that is actually fair, and not shift goalposts in the middle of it, or after the transactions have happened.

In terms of the Tamarind case, yes, it is very unfortunate. It shouldn’t have happened, but it has. But the thing is that when you look at businesses, sometimes they fail. Operators go bankrupt and we have circumstances in all businesses where that does actually happen. But to think that that one incident should sweep the whole industry into being responsible in a sort of obligation that backdates even to after when they sell their business seems very much a huge overreach. I would like the Minister to explain how this bill isn’t an overreach and how she thinks that it’s going to fix the problem when sometimes businesses do fail, even with this in place.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I’ll address the question that was in that member Melissa Lee’s contribution. Most of the points she’s raised have already been addressed in earlier contributions that I’ve made in answer to previous members, but I will reiterate, once again, why it is that we require this bill and why it is not an overreach.

I think the members are talking very generally about an overreach, but I’d like to point the members to the provisions of the bill—new sections 89K and 89L in clause 17—that actually build in the flexibility that is required around perpetual liability and how that will be assessed. It provides a wide range of tools within the legislation for the Minister and for the regulator designed for this flexible approach, because we understand that one size will not fit all.

I think one of the things that the members of the Opposition are failing to understand is that in the life cycle that we’re at in terms of New Zealand’s oil and gas industry, we are having a number of late-life field operators come in, and we’re seeing a lot of the large companies move out and onsell their permits. So to just write off what happened with the Tamarind purchase as unfortunate is really a dereliction of the duty that is required by a Government to New Zealanders to protect them from the potential liability that fits here.

What we do have is a number of smaller companies that don’t have as much of a balance sheet behind them that specialise in late-life assets—in squeezing the last drops of oil and the last petajoules of gas out of a field. That is their speciality, but they tend to be much smaller operators. They’ll often have subsidiaries that sit under a parent company that dissolves when their interest in New Zealand finishes, and that’s certainly what we saw in Tamarind.

What is acknowledged internationally, and not just in New Zealand, is that when you have an industry that is moving into this phase, you have to put in more protections for the domestic economy in which those companies are operating so that there isn’t just an upping sticks and leaving behind of the chattels and the assets that the 1937 legislation put an obligation on those holding a licence to remove. This is not a new duty. This is putting in place protections for New Zealanders so that we don’t have multinational companies just exiting New Zealand, taking the profits that they’ve been drawing out of those oilfields and gasfields, and leaving the New Zealand taxpayers—both consumers and businesses—to pick up the tab. That simply is not fair.

Now, I recognise there are a number—most—of our oil and gas operators in New Zealand that fully and well understand their obligations around decommissioning. They understand what is required of them with their permit. They understand what corporate responsibility means and what they will need to do. But that does not remove the obligation on the Government to put in place the protections for the New Zealand taxpayer around this so that we’re not left with another $349 million tab coming to the taxpayer rather than the people that have been not only extracting the oil and the gas but the profits from New Zealand and leaving what is their obligation on New Zealanders.

Bear in mind that New Zealand and the New Zealand taxpayers already have an obligation under all of our oil and gas permits in terms of picking up some of the costs of decommissioning, but it’s not the full cost. All we’re asking for is a regime that puts in place some protections so that those that hold the permits will fulfil their obligation that is set out under legislation that has been in this country since 1937.

Now, it’s not unfortunate we got into the Tamarind situation. If the previous Government hadn’t created the loophole that allowed it to happen, we wouldn’t have been left with that $349 bill. We’ve fixed that. This is the second stage of the fix to ensure that we further protect the taxpayers of New Zealand.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would like to make a contribution to the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 91 in the name of my colleague, Barbara Kuriger.

This SOP refers to clause 17, and asks that new section 89E(1) on page 13 after line 3, inserts another set of wording that doesn’t make the obligation on removing assets after decommissioning. I have listened to some of the questions and the answers from the Minister Megan Woods and I’m still quite confused about the necessity for the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Because, from my understanding, when applications are made via the Resource Management Act and resource consents are applied for, there is a requirement to have a bond in place for this very purpose, so that when a resource consent reaches the end of its workable life there is money now set aside for the decommissioning and rehabilitation of the land.

I’d just also like to point out around the “must remove” rather than “may”, because there are a couple of examples that I’d like to use around where that obligation to remove is enforced, how some opportunities might be lost. One of them is around the site at Pike River, which is back in the front of mind again this week. At the Pike, over 2006 and 2007, there was a huge amount of infrastructure installed to the mine, and of that were 7.5 kilometres of brand new, 100 kilovolt lines to a brand new substation that was purpose-built, and then a further 8.6 kilometres of 33 kilovolt line, which went to another substation which split the power then into three 11 kilovolt lines. Along there, in order to get the lines in there, there was something like 180 power poles inserted, plus 16 kilometres of two-lane sealed road. Now, part of the conditions of that particular application was that, at the end of the life of the mine, those assets would all be removed.

There’s another example I’d like to use about decommissioning through the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill: the OceanaGold mine site in Reefton. For those of you who don’t know Reefton, which is locally known as the town of light, it is a place of innovation. It’s the home of the Bearded Miners, who are a famous tourist attraction in that town, and John Bougen’s tiny homes manufacturing. It’s also got world-class mountain bike tracks. But, of course, it’s most famous for one of its older personalities during the mining era of that town, Little Biddy, who is now the name of Reefton Distillery’s most famous gin. But when the OceanaGold mine went in, so too did the roads and the bridges, and the buildings in there. And since that mine closed down in 2016, the local community has been trying to repurpose some of those assets and use them as a tourist attraction. So if we have a situation such as this bill, then if those assets are forced to be removed those opportunities have also gone with them. This SOP simply leaves the door open for the opportunity for those assets to have another purpose, to give more life to those communities, because—as you will no doubt know—when those mines close, so too do the jobs go with them, and these assets can provide a very real alternative for workers. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Madam Chair, I’ve spoken to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that the member that’s just taken her seat, Maureen Pugh, has spoken to, and will give an indication to the committee that we won’t be supporting those. I’d like to also point out to the member that the examples she used are completely irrelevant. This is a piece of legislation that is about petroleum permits. None of the mining activities that the member spoke about would be touched by this legislation.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you. I’ve still got two tabled amendments that I wish to speak to, so I don’t think we want to close this down just yet, because I want to hear what the Minister wants to say on another couple of issues. However, what I did want to say, before I move to those other tabled amendments, is that the Minister talked about overseas companies as opposed to New Zealand companies. Now, we know that around the world that this is an industry—we’ve just had COP26; we know that we’re not the only country in the world that’s actually trying to get to the new clean energy future. I just must point out that this country’s gone backwards in the last few years, which is very disappointing. It was heading towards 90 percent renewable electricity in 2016, and struggling to make 75 percent this year.

So we’ve just got to be careful what we do, because the Minister talks about a transition, and I’m still waiting to see one. I don’t actually think this is going to be part of a good transition going forward any time soon, because when I go out into energy meetings and conferences, the word that is most often used is “uncertainty.” Government has no plan; Government has no transition. Call it a just transition—you can call it whatever the Government wants to call it, but actually, if it isn’t a transition, it isn’t a transition.

We know that coal and gas are two fuels that at some point in the future we will need to have replacements for. But that’s a long way out in terms of this country, in terms of the needed gas. The Climate Change Commission made that point. It seems really silly to target our own resources and lob off what we have and import fuels from Indonesia that are not as climate-friendly as the ones that we can produce in our own country.

What I also want to say is that the Minister’s made a lot of noise today about the money that it cost to unpick the Tamarind. You know, that is not a good thing that happened, right? We stand here and we know that. We’re not arguing decommissioning; we’re arguing this bill, because it’s an overreach.

The Minister talked about schools and building buildings and making sure we need the money in this country to do the things that we need to do. I know that the Minister’s been to Taranaki, and I know that the Minister will have seen buildings all around Taranaki and probably in other parts of the country which have been paid for by this industry. So, you know, it’s all very well to cry in one direction and not appreciate what has happened in another direction. I can tell you that a lot of stuff, the local swimming pool, a whole range of things—and I bet there’s a few members on that side of the House that have actually been to WOMAD over the years—are all supported by this industry. They have been absolutely fantastic sponsors in the community. So I don’t think it’s fair for this Government to characterise this as an industry who just does stuff to us and walks away. That is not true. I know that those overseas companies will dearly have in mind about decommissioning, because right across the world, they are the focus of attention of a lot of people. So no one is actually disputing, Minister, that we need to decommission; we are just disputing this bill.

So I’m going to start talking on the next one of my tabled amendments, and this is an amendment also to clause 17. This is about removing the trailing liability provisions, because this is an unnecessary and highly unusual instrument in New Zealand law. Other provisions in the Crown Minerals Act 1991 and this bill will ensure that the decommissioning will be properly executed. The bill, as it stands, makes attracting directors unnecessarily difficult—[Time expired] Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Barbara Kuriger.

BARBARA KURIGER: Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill, as it stands, will make attracting directors unnecessarily difficult, as they will be subjected to perpetual liability. It also undermines the norms of civil and criminal liability by making directors liable for decommissioning after a permit has been transferred. If you want an equivalent to that, perhaps we should be asking about perpetual liabilities of Governments that make really silly decisions in this space, whether it’s the Public Service, whether it’s Government or not. When Ministers get to the point where they keep pointing the finger at private sector for their decisions and not wanting to take personal responsibility for their own policy decisions, then I start to have a problem with it.

We had submitters come to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and they said there is no other directorship in New Zealand that would be expected to be able to work under this regime. Now, is this a start of something that this Government is going to continue in terms of overreach into other directorships? I don’t know. Nothing would surprise me at this point in time. But is it fair to actually override what good directors put in place by putting legislation in place that’s going to expect directors of a particular industry to have to go much, much, much further than directors in other industries? It’s something that’s untenable and unheard of.

I know that this Government is opposed to large business. I know they’re opposed, particularly, to large international business. We’ve sort of heard connotations—probably not those words this morning, but heard connotations come out of the Government. But some of those businesses have done amazing things for our community. I’m sure Angela Roberts has probably been in the swimming pool in New Plymouth, I’m sure been to WOMAD, and I’m sure many others on the other side of the House have actually benefited from this industry. So let’s not stand here and pretend that they’re all bad, because it doesn’t matter if I look at my energy portfolio or my agriculture one, this Government is actually pointing the finger at the industries that we need in this country. We’ve just had a massive pandemic, and I know that you’ve noticed, and we’re not happy with all the things that are going on around that at the moment, either, and overreach. But at the end of the day, the energy industry is something that we need in New Zealand, and right now, with not just this bill but various things that are going on around energy by this Government, we are going to become a very energy—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Can I ask the member to come back to the bill.

BARBARA KURIGER: Yes. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will come back to the bill. So in order to keep our energy security up, I propose that, with this tabled amendment that I’ve put in place, we do not expose the directors of this industry to wider director duties than we do with directors from other industries.

Now, I’ve got another tabled amendment here which I’m putting in place. I don’t expect the Government will support it, but it would be nice if they did. This amendment is to entirely remove the post-decommissioning fund, because the fund was entered into the legislation without consultation, and that’s something that we hear pretty often these days—without consultation, “let’s just do it; don’t ask anybody.”—and without a cost-benefit analysis or evidence of a problem that it seeks to solve. The fund ignores that the “polluter pays” principle as a levy is imposed on all permit holders, regardless of their actions or their risk profile. The “polluter pays” principle is a foundation for environmental law in New Zealand, and it creates a perverse incentive for companies to act within the bare minimum legally mandated scope of decommissioning as they will still pay for decommissioning failures. So, you know, it’s just another piece of this bill that is overreach.

In the remaining section of this speech—and I’ll probably take another one if I get the opportunity—is that we’re not opposed to decommissioning, just the overreach—[Time expired]

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will speak to the member’s Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) 87 and 89 and give an indication to the committee of why we won’t be supporting either of those. But I actually think, in fairness to our oil and gas industry, that there’s a point I need to clarify from the speech from the previous speaker, Barbara Kuriger. I have never heard any of the women or men of our oil and gas industry come into my office and say they should not have to fulfil their statutory obligations because they pay for swimming pools, or that they should not have to fulfil their statutory obligation because they donate some money. I have never heard one of them say that they don’t recognise that they have obligations under their licences to uphold their end of liability for decommissioning, and I think that to suggest otherwise actually does a disservice to the men and women who work in our oil and gas industry.

So I take the SOPs that we won’t be supporting that the member has put up and, the first is SOP 87 in the name of Barbara Kuriger. This is the amendment that seeks to remove the trailing liability provisions from the Act. We won’t be supporting this. We consider that perpetual or trailing liability is an appropriate response to the trends observed both overseas and here in New Zealand. I think one of the things that we have to recognise is that in the oil and gas sector New Zealand does not exist in a vacuum and there is a lot of working going on internationally around what provisions need to be put around it. While the New Zealand petroleum sector differs in many ways from some overseas jurisdictions, the policy driver for the provision that we’re talking about here in fact has a lot in common with overseas jurisdictions that we would look to.

It’s important to consider all views around perpetual liability in the context in which the bill intends it. The provisions are designed to only be used in the case of the last resort where the current permit holder cannot carry out and fund decommissioning. So I think it’s important to read the detail of what it is that is being established under this legislation. The provisions are already limited in the way they only apply to wells and infrastructure present at the time of transfer. So there is a lot of detail that I think the member needs to go back and have another look at.

In terms of the onus on directors and the criminal penalty that will apply to directors, this is a penalty that is reserved for only the most serious of cases where directors knowingly act to fail to meet decommissioning obligations. That is a very high test—knowingly act to fail to meet the decommissioning requirements that occur both under statute and, in many cases, within the individual purpose. So I think we need to understand when it is that these provisions will be applied. The bill provides defences for directors if they can demonstrate that they took all measures to ensure the business could meet its decommissioning obligations or that there were situations that prevented their actions. This is a provision of criminal liability for those directors who knowingly seek to shirk their responsibilities for decommissioning and instead leave New Zealand taxpayers paying the tab, and I don’t there are many fair-minded New Zealanders that would see that as something that is an overreach. I think they’d be thankful that this is a provision and a protection that we are giving them under law.

An amendment, of course, as the member will know, was made at the select committee to limit liability so that a director could only be liable for criminal prosecution if they were a director of the current permit holder at the time the breach occurred. So I think there has been some work done on that provision, and for that reason I’m satisfied that it is appropriate and it is proportionate and it is the right thing for the Government to do. So we will not be supporting SOP 87.

Neither will we be supporting SOP 89 in the name of Barbara Kuriger. This is the associated civil pecuniary penalty that this ones speaks to. The post-decommissioning obligation is an important provision in there to protect taxpayers from expenses incurred from work required to wells and infrastructure over the years and decades after decommissioning has been completed.

Subpart 3 of the bill requires permit and licence holders to pay into a fund to provide a financial security to address issues related to the monitoring, maintenance, and remediation of wells and infrastructure left in situ after decommissioning has been completed, and in practice it’s likely that Government agencies will be left to carry responsibility for monitoring and remediating decommissioned wells and infrastructure. It’s appropriate that those who have benefited the most from the petroleum production should financially contribute to this work. I think that that passes a pretty clear fairness test, and I do note for that member’s assurance that this post-decommissioning regime for decommissioning wells and infrastructure are well established in other jurisdictions—certainly other petroleum and gas producing jurisdictions that New Zealand would look to: Norway, Canada, and the United Kingdom. So this really is bringing New Zealand more into line with those more developed regimes that we see in those countries.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. A very quick question to the Minister. She has actually talked about the decommissioning and, you know, answered some aspects of the question that I actually asked in relation to the responsibility by corporates after they’ve actually on-sold their business.

I’d just like to compare a situation for her, and I would like her answer as to whether she actually thinks that that would be fair. A Minister is responsible in setting, you know, in terms of a responsibility, for example, the Government’s decision to kill off the idea of oil and gas exploration in the Taranaki, which killed off thousands of jobs, and then, basically, said that the reason why the Government was actually doing that was to reduce the carbon emission profile of New Zealand, and we’re actually moving to a greener future for New Zealand. I completely understand what the Government was actually talking about.

Similarly, an oil exploration company drills, got a licence to drill and explore and all that sort of stuff, and they’ve decided that, you know, they now want to move and actually move on, pass on the licence to another company who could actually continue on the job. Something happens like in the case of—maybe Taranaki is actually a terrible example. But something happens and they’re not able to continue to do so. Similarly, the Minister’s idea about going a little bit more green. We want to reduce the carbon emissions and actually kill off oil and gas exploration. But the thing is that the end result is that we are importing more coal from overseas. Does this mean that the country should be sending the Minister the bill for the increase in carbon emissions that now New Zealand is actually facing, just like businesses are actually being faced with the bill of the clean-up? No other industry, as I actually said previously, is responsible, so perhaps the Minister could answer whether that comparison is actually fair. If not, why not? Because I think it’s actually very similar.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, I want to go back to Supplementary Order Paper 91, that I spoke to before, in the name of Barbara Kuriger. This relates to clause 17. I used a couple of mining examples in my contribution, and I realised that the Minister has referred to them as not being relevant. I used them as examples of the types of local infrastructure that is often built when people are accessing sites, no matter what they’re doing there, whether it’s gold mining, coal mining, whether it’s oil and gas exploration. So I just want the Minister to perhaps reflect on the compulsion to remove those assets when they could be repurposed.

What is the Minister’s aversion to actually having that infrastructure remain in place for other purposes? Because we know that when things happen and mines decommission, there is always loss of jobs, loss of community infrastructure, and if they can be used for other things—and it just seems ironic to me that, you know, we have these assets that could be repurposed. The Government, on one hand, is saying they’re worried about wasting taxpayers’ money. And on the other hand, they’re quite happy to have millions of dollars’ worth of infrastructure removed and taken out with the decommissioning process. It just beggars belief, to me, that that would be a compulsion, as part of it. Simply, all I’m asking is: would the Minister consider that this is a negotiable arrangement at the end of that process? Because we don’t want to lose something that can be repurposed and perhaps grow another industry out of that potential that is there.

We know that there are some contributors, very strong contributors, to community, while they are there on site, and Barbara Kuriger has referred to them. I’ve witnessed it myself. The mining industry, no matter what they’re mining, are always generous and community contributors. So we simply want to make the best of the assets when those jobs are gone and those industries are gone. And I just ask the Minister to maybe reconsider the strictness of the provision and look to Supplementary Order Paper 91 as a potential solution to that. We don’t want the industry to exit completely with everything that they’ve invested in, because that, Minister, would be a waste of not taxpayers’ money but certainly the business’s money and the investment that they’ve made in setting up. It is an irony that we have the Government or the Minister saying on one hand that they don’t want to waste taxpayers’ money, but they’re quite happy to waste these opportunities.

If we continue to pass legislation like this in the House, I fear that this country is going to be left in a situation where no one’s going to want to come here and invest. Because when you start passing retrospective legislation, it spooks investment. It spooks business from setting up here in New Zealand. At a time when we need to be encouraging more investment into this country, as we pick up the pieces from extended lockdowns and business closures, all opportunities need to be considered for the potential that they hold for keeping our communities employed and adding to the tax contribution that they make to this country so we can pay the bills in the future. I just ask the Minister, please reconsider Supplementary Order Paper 91. Thank you, Madam Chair.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually just wanted to clarify something that the Minister said before, because I often find that the Minister makes light of comments and made some reference to the fact that I mentioned swimming pools. Well, swimming pools was one example, and the point I want to make to the Minister is that, actually, when you’re going to make an argument about an industry, there are pluses and minuses, and I’ve only heard the Minister make minuses about this industry today, and the swimming pool was just one example. It’s all very well for the Government to stand here and say, “We need to fund X, Y, Z, Z and extra, with all this money that we could have actually had because we had to clean up after Tamarind”. And, as we keep saying, no problem with decommissioning; we wouldn’t have wanted that situation to happen. But, for goodness’ sake, Minister, would you please give the industry some credit for the assets that it has built in our communities. You can’t make one side of the argument on the ledger without making the other, because if you don’t balance that equation up, the full story’s not happening. So thank you, Madam Chair.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 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.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Barbara Kuriger’s tabled amendments to Supplementary Order Paper 86, amending new sections 89M and 89T, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

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

Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Barbara Kuriger’s tabled amendments to Supplementary Order Paper 86, removing post-decommissioning fund provisions, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

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

Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister amendments to Part 2 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 86 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Barbara Kuriger’s amendment to clause 17 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 90 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Barbara Kuriger’s amendment to clause 17 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 91 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended 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.

Part 2, as amended, agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 86 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 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.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

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

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we now come to our final debate, which is on clauses 1 to 3.

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

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Dr Megan Woods’ amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 86 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 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.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Commerce Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we now come to the consideration in committee of the Commerce Amendment Bill, Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 34, amendments to the principal Act. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I’m very pleased to open proceedings on the Commerce Amendment Bill. The legislation presents us with an opportunity to improve the design and operation of the Commerce Act in a number of ways. I want to make some introductory comments, which I think are likely to be germane to the debate that we will have. I’m very much looking forward to the Hon Todd McClay’s contributions on this bill. I’m sure there’ll be a chocolate fish in the offing somewhere along the line, and a good yarn.

I would like to talk about the two main changes in the bill as we start, because they have attracted a lot of interest from other members and there have been submissions to the select committee, which have been well considered. I do want to thank the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee and representatives here from that committee for the work that they’ve done, and I also want to thank submitters from the outset for their written and oral submissions to that committee.

I want to speak about section 36. Clause 14 strengthens the prohibition against anti-competitive unilateral conduct. Section 36 of the Commerce Act is supposed to prevent firms with substantial market power from harming competition, but it has been clear for a very long time that it just simply fails to live up to that expectation. The solution proposed in the bill is not novel. It uses a test already operating in the Act to deal with anti-competitive agreements and anti-competitive mergers or acquisitions. The test requires proof a dominant firm acted unilaterally with the purpose, effect, or likely effect of being anti-competitive.

Now, some members have suggested there is conduct fitting this description which should be allowed, and I want to explain from the outset why I disagree with that proposition. First, if members want to argue that the proposed test is too broad, it is in effect to say that the very purpose of the Commerce Act is too broad. Section 1A of the Act notes its purpose “is to promote competition in markets for the long-term benefit of consumers within New Zealand.” It is not about what a firm’s intentions may be; it is about the actual state of competition in market. That is the purpose of the Act. So whether it’s intentional or not, requiring well-resourced large businesses to manage their own actions in terms of whether they are causing harm in the market and harm to competition is entirely appropriate. So I want to put that on the record from the outset.

Second, if you look at concerns raised in select committee, they reveal the tendency to overestimate the reach of the reformed prohibition. So what does it actually mean for conduct to substantially lessen competition? We’ve got existing case law on this, and the answer is perhaps a little more nuanced than some critics might suggest. The Commerce Commission or a private litigant would need to establish a number of arguably quite onerous elements to take a successful case.

So there’s five that I’d like to run through. Detriment to the competitive process has to be more than short term. There needs to be some causal connection between detriment and the firm’s conduct. The net effect needs to create a material impact on competition, and that involves comparing the state of competition to the relevant market with and without the conduct being examined, and the deterrent would have to occur in a market in which the firm is active or likely to be active. And that’s because the relevant harm to competition increases or maintains the dominant firm’s market power.

So the bill does not penalise dominant firms for out-competing their rivals in the market place. If they offer better offerings or they’re more efficient, the test does not capture them. Substantially lessening competition is also not the same as substantially lessening the effectiveness of a particular competitor. So officials who advised the select committee ran a variety of scenarios through the test and they used the ones that submitters had put in in their submissions to the committee, and none of them appeared to produce a questionable result. So I would encourage members to look at the analysis in the departmental report that was presented. It shows that the test is well targeted.

So I want to argue that the potential to penalise through this change in the test—to penalise benign or desirable conduct—is modest and far outweighed by the benefits of the reforms. If unilateral conduct is in the public interest despite being anti-competitive, the bill then further enables the Commerce Commission to authorise such behaviour. In exceptional cases, the commission will be able to authorise conduct on an interim basis. So there are, again, further protections there in the law, and the Commerce Commission will be developing guidelines in respect of section 36. I expect those guidelines will help to moderate concerns that have been expressed to date about the breadth of the prohibition.

The second main change in the bill that I want to speak to relates to the “safe harbour” provisions for some intellectual property arrangements. Now, the bill would remove three provisions that prevent scrutiny of certain conduct when it involves intellectual property. The provisions are out of date. They reflect a legacy of discredited thinking. If you want to put it in the vernacular, they cause confusion, and ultimately they prevent scrutiny of conduct, which raises genuine competition concerns. So I want to make it totally clear: I recognise the importance of providing businesses with the confidence to invest in the development of intellectual property and to actively make it available to markets. Robust intellectual property rights incentivise innovation, making them complementary, I would argue, to competition law. Therefore, it is redundant to have carve-outs for intellectual property. Most intellectual property arrangements are helpful to the competitive process, but it does not mean that they should be immune to scrutiny under competition law. The safe harbours make a universal assumption that certain practices will never be anti-competitive just because they relate to intellectual property.

So that’s where the law currently stands. It’s a very bold assumption and one that undermines the integrity of our competition law. Again, other members believe without safe harbours, the Act will over-penalise and over-deter certain conduct. We can see from the departmental report that officials have made a careful study and that challenges any such view. I would argue intellectual property arrangements should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other type of property arrangements. At the very least, I suggest we can be confident this policy will produce far fewer errors than the universal assumption that some conduct is never anti-competitive simply because it involves intellectual property.

So, again, I want to stress the importance of the guidelines that the Commerce Commission will update to support intellectual property owners to realistically assess their obligations. I expect these guidelines to be detailed and provide assurance and clarity for the business community, as indeed similar guidelines in Australia have done for the community there. I do want to thank submitters—those who’ve written to me for pointing out the benefit of those guidelines in Australia, because they have come down and taken the concern away for those who initially had it.

I’m tabling a necessary Supplementary Order Paper to address an error noticed after the bill was reported back from the select committee. The bill inserts new sections 99AA in 99AB into the Act, which would provide a legislative basis for the Commerce Commission to exchange information with other regulators and Government agencies, when necessary, for the performance of statutory functions. When these provisions were being drafted, officials overlooked the bespoke legal status of the New Zealand Police. Police are neither a Public Service agency nor a statutory entity but instead an instrument of the Crown. That means that, as currently drafted, the information-sharing provisions miss them out completely. Officials assure me this wasn’t intended; in fact, the Commerce Commission and the Police need to be able to operate and work together cooperatively. They need to work closely when they are tackling white collar crime. My Supplementary Order Paper addresses this by making explicit references to the New Zealand Police, and at the same time, the Parliamentary Counsel Office has added some minor drafting and amendments—improvements to the bill.

So, in closing, the bill contributes in some important ways to the Act’s purpose of promoting competition in markets. I do not share the concerns held by the members with how it achieves this, but, of course, I do look forward to constructive debate.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Well, we all look forward to constructive debate. That’s why the Parliament was created. It’s less easy to do so when, Minister, your officials have got it so wrong in some areas.

National supports good competition law. In fact, if I think back to the nine years we were in Government, there were times where there were very sensible changes we wanted to bring forward, but the then Labour Opposition didn’t support them. I don’t know whether that was because ideologically they were opposed or they were just in Opposition mode. But in this instance, the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that I’ve brought forward are not because we oppose everything the Government is doing. In fact, there is some good in this legislation. It will help those who are in a less strong position against dominant players in a market. But, Minister, they are minor tweaks that we are seeking through our SOPs, which would bring this as close to perfect, the legislation, as is probably possible when it comes to competition law.

I would say, however, I am very pleased that the Minister is able to be here for this so we can have—actually, it will be a constructive conversation on this. The more we talk about these things, the greater the understanding amongst the businesses, the lawyers, and others who deal with competition issues on a daily basis, and the greater the likelihood they get it right if they follow what Parliament’s intent is. But if I cast my mind back to last week, it might have been, when we were in the House and we were considering the Incorporated Societies Bill, and unfortunately Minister Little was here, and that was anything but constructive—and occasionally less than the intelligence that this place deserves. So I’m pleased the Minister is able to be here because it has been a good process so far on this legislation.

When it comes to a dominant position in the way a company acts, that is important. They shouldn’t be able to use their position to further the economic gains, or to strengthen their position even further, and harm those who are wanting to compete against them. There were some who submitted—I asked the committee this, and in fact, I think when the Minister came before us, I asked him separately about his view of Air New Zealand and whether they use a dominant position because they are dominant. They are virtually the only airline here that is servicing all of the airports bar a few that New Zealand aeroplanes can fly to.

Where there is competition, prices somehow seem to be less, as you fly around provincial or regional New Zealand. Where there isn’t competition, some have argued that as soon as the competition disappears, the pricing structure changes. The point of this is not to beat up on Air New Zealand; they provide a very important service. It’s to make the point that if the Minister won’t actually say, “Yes, we think there’s a problem with Air New Zealand.”, he is accepting the position that National has taken that New Zealand is a smaller market than Australia and smaller than most other countries, and so a perfect competition framework may not work in the best interests of the consumer.

And so the Minister desiring to make sure that, actually, a dominant player doesn’t harm a market, if we take that too far, actually, it will alter the behaviour of that business, which could also harm the consumer with or without competition.

In effect, the first SOP—I have three in Part 1; I will take time to address each of them—is around the consequences of action where there is strong market power. The Minister has changed it to say where a company has the intent, the effect, or likely effect to be anti-competitive, then actually they’re not allowed to do that. He has said that the Commerce Commission will look at this very, very carefully and create guidelines.

But, actually, for a business, when it’s taking a position and it’s a dominant player, if its intent is to act anti-competitive, that should be against the law; currently, it is. If the likely effect of their decision—the likely effect of their decision—the foreseeable consequence of their decision, is that it’s anti-competitive, that too should be against the law.

But if the effect is anti-competitive and it couldn’t be foreseen, why are we penalising them? Because although the Commerce Commission say, “Well you just have to change this.”, in New Zealand there is always a consequence, which is “Well, it’s not really your fault. I suppose you didn’t understand”—Air New Zealand or any other large player—“and just nobody has noticed.” Those who feel that they are badly treated will want compensation or they will want some sort of punitive restriction or a fine. So, therefore, if you cannot foresee an effect, a likely effect, then actually how is it we’re holding them to account? So I’m not arguing that if an effect is that something is not competitive it shouldn’t be considered, but actually the legislation holds them to a higher standard than I think is reasonable.

So my SOP says that, actually, where there is likely effect or intent, yes, it should fit within the scope of this legislation, but when there is an actual effect but it couldn’t be foreseen, and there wasn’t the consideration, wasn’t a likely effect, it shouldn’t be within the scope of the legislation. This isn’t to create a carve-out, because the Commerce Commission will take their responsibilities purposefully and seriously, and I would hope they would be reasonable in this. But pressure is always there to bear, particularly on larger companies.

I have other interventions on this; I won’t just use up the full four minutes remaining of my second intervention on this, because I’d like to hear from the Minister, but I’d like to explore why he believes, where a business cannot foresee that their actions will have an impact upon competition, that they should be held to account and they should be penalised, because they are likely to be, firstly. Secondly, he has an opportunity to share a view of Air New Zealand, because they are a dominant player, and there are situations where complaints are made. And, actually, if there is competition and Air New Zealand decide to put on extra flights by pulling them from somewhere else into a market to compete fairly, that could be seen as anti-competitive. But in the case that they can’t foresee that—sorry—and therefore it is just the effect, will Air New Zealand be held to account? Because, actually, we’re all for better service in New Zealand, and much, much cheaper airfares to regional New Zealand, but actually we also want aeroplanes flying in there, and so I’m sure Air New Zealand is as interested in the answer to the Minister’s questions on this as the committee is.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to speak on the Commerce Amendment Bill.

I actually do support my honourable colleague’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 92. I think he made an excellent point there. I think, speaking to clause 14, which amends new section 36, you know, we’re going from the take advantage test—we’re going from an intentions test to an effects test. But when we think about effects in the market, anti-competitive effects in the market, the biggest effect in the last two years in the market, for anti-competitive behaviour, has been the Government. The Government has forced everyone out of the fruit and vegetable and butcher shops into the supermarkets. That’s the most anti-competitive thing that’s happened in New Zealand, not based on any way that could be justified on health grounds—no justification whatsoever.

Then they wring their hands and say, “Oh, we better get the Commerce Commission in to have a look: are they actually any anti-competitive?” This is a Commerce Amendment Bill; it’s about competition. I’m talking about competition or the lack thereof. So the Government forces everyone into supermarkets—probably on health grounds a more dangerous option than having the other options of going into your local greengrocer or your local butcher shop, where you’d be lucky if there’s 10 people in the shop—hundreds in the supermarkets. They’ve never, ever tried to justify this on health grounds, because there is no justification. So why isn’t this also accounting for Government action? This bill should cover that. The Government should not act in an anti-competitive manner, but it has. It’s not just done it once; it’s done it twice.

It’s had a massive impact on those businesses. They’ve had to throw out stock that they had purchased. At least in 2020, there was a bit of a lead-in time; there wasn’t in 2021. Those businesses have been sent to the wall by the Government, and then the Government has the gall to call in the Commerce Commission to look at the supermarkets because they’re worried about competition in that area. It’s just laughable.

I think, look, the Minister may well be well-intentioned in this, but he hasn’t thought it through. If he really followed the logic, he would have asked his officials “What is the most anti-competitive thing that has happened in the last two years?” And that’s another question for the Minister: did the Minister actually ask officials about that? Did he think about what were the most anti-competitive actions that had happened in this market? Because I have spoken to people in tears who are going to lose their business as a result of that. I just can’t understand how those members on the other side didn’t do that. Perhaps they don’t get around their businesses. They only talk to people that are their friends, I don’t know. But I can tell you how upsetting it is for people who have lost their businesses as a result of anti-competitive behaviour coming from the Government.

Now, I think the provisions generally are pretty good, and I understand the SOP that the Hon Todd McClay has put up. He’s got several, but that first one he just spoke to earlier, that will go a long way to actually panel beating this into shape. However, it doesn’t cover all anti-competitive behaviour; that the Crown would indulge in such activity, I think, is a huge disappointment. It’s a disappointment for the businesses that that have lost money over this. Disappointment for people who’ve lost their businesses over this. But what the most disappointing thing is: what is the thought process that goes on within the Cabinet over there? Why aren’t they people that are thinking about the consequences of their actions to real people who’ve invested their livelihoods, in some cases mortgaged their homes? They’re not just losing a business, some of them; they’re losing their homes as a result of thoughtless—

Barbara Kuriger: And their health.

STUART SMITH: —and heartless acts, and their health. A very good point. I think that we’ll find the consequences of these actions will echo through the decades, actually, and I think there’s been quite a bit of work done by the Productivity Commission on this.

So I’m really concerned about this, Minister. I know you haven’t thought about it. I know you haven’t actually asked those questions—and shame on you for not thinking of it. But look, I’m helping you out now. You’ve got an opportunity to do that.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member’s time is up.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): In respect of the speech that’s just been, obviously the member didn’t address anything in the bill, so I really don’t have any response other than he mentioned a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), but I’m not sure he’d read—

Stuart Smith: Point of order. Madam Chair. The member is quite wrong, and I think that he should withdraw and apologise. I addressed clause 14, new section 36, which amends that, right at the beginning. I understand that the Minister was so busy worrying about how he’s going to dig himself out of this hole, but I think he should withdraw and apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I go to the Minister the Hon David Clark. I don’t think it’s an issue for withdrawing and apologising for, Stuart Smith.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: He did mention the prior member’s SOP but not the content of it.

I do want to come to the points, though, that the Hon Todd McClay raised, because they, I think, are germane to this debate. They were issues that I covered off in my initial contribution, but, none the less, I think they require further engagement, so I’m happy to speak to those. Really, the Hon Todd McClay—two things: first, he raised the issue of Air New Zealand; are they in a dominant market position, and arguably they are. The question, really is whether any test would show that they’d acted unilaterally with the purpose, effect, or likely effect, of being anti-competitive. So there is a test in place which could be put against any conduct if people suspected they were acting in a way that was unilaterally being anti-competitive—there is a test in place for that. It is appropriate, where there are dominant players in a market, that there is a test of their conduct. Now, the Hon Todd McClay suggests that we should weaken the test to say, “Well, what if they didn’t know they were being anti-competitive? What if that wasn’t their intention and it was a bit of an accident?”

Hon Todd McClay: No, they didn’t know they were going to.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: They didn’t know they were going to be anti-competitive. Well, what I would argue is whether it’s intentional or not, if it is anti-competitive it is anti-competitive. That is the purpose of the Act. It is stated right at the outset of the Act. Section 1A of the Act notes its purpose “is to promote competition in markets for the long-term benefit of consumers within New Zealand.” It is not about what the firm’s intentions might be. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It’s about the actual state of competition in markets. That’s what the whole Act is about.

So, from my perspective, it’s the actual conduct which matters, and the effect on the market and the subsequent effect on consumers. So I’m here as the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, with a strong eye on the impact on consumers. When the test is fair, when the Commerce Commission has laid out the guidelines so that market participants understand their responsibilities, it’s appropriate that we use the test that is already, indeed, in the Act, elsewhere used, because it’s one that can be well understood and raises the bar somewhat. The point—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to report progress on this bill.

House resumed.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE

REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2) and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Commerce Amendment Bill and reports progress.

I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill are set down for third reading next sitting day.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, no, we haven’t finished the committee stage on this one.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I’m getting to that one. The Commerce Amendment Bill is set down for further consideration next sitting day. Members, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 12.57 p.m. (Thursday)