Thursday, 18 November 2021

THURSDAY, 18 NOVEMBER 2021

THURSDAY, 18 NOVEMBER 2021

The Deputy Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

karakia/prayers

karakia/prayers

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

[Allow peace to prevail over us once again. Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the Queen, and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen]

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Next week, legislation to be considered will include the remaining stages of the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill and the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. On Thursday there will be a special debate on the report of the Environment Committee on its inquiry into the Natural and Built Environments Bill: Parliamentary Paper. I’ve notified the Business Committee that I intend to move urgency on Tuesday for a bill concerning the next stage of the response to COVID-19. If urgency finishes by 1 p.m. on Wednesday, that afternoon will be a members’ day.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Leader of the House for that update. In the Business Committee, the chair of the committee invited the Minister responsible for the traffic light bill to share a draft with the spokespeople for COVID-19 response in other parties, and I wonder if he will be taking up that invitation.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): The bill has not been finalised yet, but once we have a bill, if I’m in a position to do so I’ll certainly make sure that a copy is circulated.

Points of Order

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

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Point of order. I raise a matter of order that has some implications for the business of the House this afternoon, and it relates to an exchange and decision that was made by the committee of the whole House in the COVID-19 response bill that was being debated. During voting on Part 1 of that bill, a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of Melissa Lee was called on the voices for the Ayes. The result was not challenged, and the chair of the committee moved on to consider the next SOP. What followed was a challenge to that ruling, which led the chair to then declare the result of Melissa Lee’s SOP for the Noes, and a party vote was called for.

Now, my submission to you, Mr Speaker, is that that was an invalid process and outside of Standing Orders, particularly Standing Order 141, which says, “The Speaker asks members to answer ‘Aye’ or ‘No’ to the question and states the result of the voice vote. Any member present may then call for a further vote to be held.” That did not happen. Furthermore, in Speakers’ rulings we have a requirement, at Speaker’s ruling 66/2, that “When the Speaker declares the result on the voices, that, unless challenged, is final and may not be disputed.” Speaker’s ruling 67/1 states that “If members want a party vote, they must challenge the Speaker at the time when the result is declared. A party vote does not follow automatically because a voice is given for the Noes.” In the case that we’re discussing, I’m sure it would equally apply if the voice was for the Ayes.

This is important because my submission to you is that a vote validly cast means that Ms Lee’s SOP stands part of the bill that we will be debating after question time in its third reading. I seek your considered ruling upholding Standing Order 141 and the Speakers’ rulings 66/2 and 67/1.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Speaking to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I was in the House for that exchange. As the Speaker will be aware, having been a presiding officer in committee stage of the House on many, many occasions, it is not at all unusual after the presiding officer declares what their view on the voice vote was for there to be a challenge to that. It happens almost every day where the presiding officer will say, “The Ayes have it.”, and the Opposition will say, “No, no, the Noes have it.” The theatre of that happens in this House almost every day. In this particular case, the presiding officer indicated that perhaps she’d changed her mind on the voice vote and how the voice vote went. Either way, a party vote was then called for and a party vote was held.

Once the party vote has been held, it is the party vote that is the definitive vote, and that has always been the case except where a personal vote is then called for and the presiding officer determines that a personal vote is appropriate, and there are limited reasons for doing that. So in this case, the committee did hold a vote, the vote was conclusive, and then ultimately the bill as reported back by the committee—and the report-back motion, from memory, was a unanimous one; the report back to the House from committee was accepted unanimously by the House. It is therefore the bill as reported back by the chairperson of the committee that the House now considers.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Speaking to that point. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wasn’t in the committee at that time. However, I have watched the video of the exchange very, very closely, and I agree with the Leader of the House, with the first half of his description on what normally happens during the taking of a vote.

In respect of what happened this morning, his recollection of it is very different from mine, and that is this: a party vote was not called for. The Chair declared the result, and I draw the House’s attention back to Speakers’ rulings, which are very clear that if the members want a party vote, they must challenge the Speaker at the time when the result is declared. It is that that did not happen. And, indeed, when—regardless of the merits or otherwise of this, whether this was within the Standing Orders—the Chair then declared a Noes vote, the Government whip in the chair called Aye to this. Therefore, it was only very, very belatedly, and certainly after the result of the vote that was declared, that a party vote was taken.

In respect of the summing up of the committee of the whole House, what I would suggest to the House is that, indeed, we had two decisions that were declared by the Chair. My submission to you is that it was the first decision that was valid and not the second one, according to the Standing Orders.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Well, speaking further to the point of order, Mr Speaker—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll just take this one.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Ultimately, the pace at which the committee of the House proceeds is the sole determination of the Chair. The Chair had not moved on to any further business, therefore the vote had not been concluded. In fact, only about a moment later there was an instance where the National Party did not call for a party vote immediately and the Chair sat there for a good 15 seconds looking at the whip from the National Party in silence to see whether they were going to call for a vote. The pace at which the Chair determines a vote has been concluded is a sole matter for the Chair.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point—my final point, I hope.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Final one—Michael Woodhouse.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): That submission is not consistent with the video transcript of what occurred this morning. I wasn’t in the Chamber, but I know, because I watched that video, the business having been concluded, that the Chair went on to consider a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of David Seymour. I know that, because she had moved on to that item of business. There is no question that the result of the vote on Melissa Lee’s SOP having been declared, the Chair saw the matter having been concluded and moved on to Mr Seymour’s SOP. There is no question that a challenge was sought, and Speakers’ rulings are clear: if the House wants to challenge a vote, it has to do so at that time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Kāti rā, tēnā rā tātou. Can I thank the Hon Michael Woodhouse for raising this matter, and also the matters that the Hon Chris Hipkins has also raised. I’ve watched the video and I have read the draft Hansard. I’ve got a written response, which covers most of the things that both members have raised. Can I just say that it’s not easy being a presiding officer and getting it all perfect, nor is it easy for members either, and on a number of occasions whilst presiding I myself have gone back for a party vote that wasn’t called for, on both sides of the House.

But, to be more specific, when the presiding officer declares the result of a vote, that is almost always the end of the matter. When a vote is decided on the voices, a presiding officer can expect that, in all normal circumstances, the Government will be the majority—and that’s from McGee, page 247. However, in this instance, the Chairperson declared for the Ayes on an Opposition amendment. She subsequently admitted to the committee that she had made an error in declaring the result that way when it was drawn to her attention. A party vote then resolved the matter.

Where the presiding officer realises they have made an error, it is within their power to go back and correct it. That happens occasionally where a presiding officer declares the result of a party vote incorrectly, either because the votes were added incorrectly or because an error was made in announcing the result. In those instances, the Speaker corrects it without further reference to the House. In my view, this is a similar situation. It is my ruling that the Chairperson corrected the error by holding a party vote, and the result of that vote stands.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the ruling, and I agree with you that the role of the presiding officer is indeed an occasionally thankless and always difficult one. McGee and Speakers’ rulings also go on to say that the voice vote isn’t a contest for loudness, it’s not automatically the right of the majority to have it declared; otherwise we’re wasting our time on the consideration of various parts of a bill. My concern with the way in which the ruling is worded is it’s very difficult for members of the committee or the House to know whether a presiding officer has indeed made a mistake or whether it was his or her intention to call the way that they did. One needs to rely on the words meaning what they mean. The Standing Orders provide for this.

Firstly, if there is an error during a vote, whips or personal voters are free to change that vote before the result is declared, but, however it is arrived at, the declaration of a result is final and the House has it within its power by the leave of the House to change it. My suggestion to you, Mr Speaker, is that the committee had it within its power to consider that. If the whip, recognising her error—because I submit that she also made a mistake in not calling for the party vote—could have sought the leave of the committee for a party vote to have been held at that point, and she did. So my question is, firstly, is this a Speaker’s ruling that will go on to Speakers’ rulings in the future and how do we reconcile that with the existing powers of the House and the committee to fix its errors by leave?

Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to that point—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I don’t—

Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, it’s not really a point of order, so I’m just going to rule that I have ruled and that is the end of the matter, and we will continue on to the business of the day.

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

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

CLERK: Petition of Patrick Szetey requesting that the House pass legislation to ban any vaccine passport system in New Zealand that could restrict the movement and freedom of the population based on their personal health status.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. A paper has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: The 2020/21 annual report of Network for Learning.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Insights into local government: 2020

report of the Health Committee on the report of the Ombudsman: Oversight: an investigation into the Ministry of Health’s stewardship of hospital-level secure services for people with an intellectual disability.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The reports are set down for consideration.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Social Development and Employment

1. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the new Children’s Commissioner, Frances Eivers, that “In a country with the resources of Aotearoa every mokopuna, no matter their background, should grow up in a whānau that has what they need to thrive”?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Yes, I do agree with Judge Eivers. This is why this Government has set ambitious child poverty targets, which over a 10-year period aim to reduce the rates of measured child poverty by more than half. We have made good progress. Figures released in February showed 45,400 fewer children in low-income households were experiencing poverty. Since then, the Government has raised main benefits and increased family tax credits. These measures are estimated to lift around 33,000 more children out of poverty. We have also made progress on building more homes and put more lunches into schools throughout New Zealand. There is no silver bullet to fixing the long-term challenge that is child poverty, but we are committed to addressing it and we are making progress.

Jan Logie: Does she stand by her comment, in relation to the warrant to arrest sanctions applied to 4,000 families last year, that she would remove them today if she could, and, if so, why is it taking so long to remove the sanction?

Hon JAN TINETTI: The Government is working through the welfare advisory group report, but we can’t do everything at the same time. We have prioritised lifting incomes and resetting the foundations of the welfare system so that we can begin a much overdue overhaul. However, work on removing sanctions is our medium-term work programme and it has begun. We have already removed two sanctions, which is making a big difference to benefit recipients with children, and further policy work is happening and announcements will be made soon.

Jan Logie: Will she commit to removing the up to 13-week stand-down and non-entitlement periods for people who become unemployed for any reason, to provide the same unconditional support as people who have left their jobs because they choose not to meet the vaccination mandate?

Hon JAN TINETTI: There are always one to two weeks stand-downs when someone first applies for a main benefit. I am advised by the Ministry of Social Development that if a person was in a role before the vaccination requirement was introduced, the introduction of the vaccination requirement would be considered a significant change in conditions of employment, making the employment no longer suitable. This would generally be considered a sufficient reason for voluntary unemployment and therefore a 13-week non-entitlement period would not be imposed. Stand-downs will be reviewed as part of our long-term welfare system overhaul. But if someone does leave their main job for no valid reason or limited valid reason, then that is where a 13-week stand-down will apply.

Jan Logie: Does she think it’s fair that 30,000 low-income families are being asked to pay back $20 million in Working for Families credits, not because they did anything wrong but because of systems failures that have left them facing repayment obligations for money they no longer have on hand?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I don’t have that figure in front of me at this particular point in time. But if the member would like to put that in writing, I’m sure that the Minister will be able to answer that—for the figure.

Jan Logie: How do her responses address the concerns of the former Children’s Commissioner Becroft, who said in relation to welfare reform, “successive governments have resisted transformation, instituting only incremental change. Sadly, that has ended up serving the protection of the system rather than the needs of children and young people—especially mokopuna Māori.”?

Hon JAN TINETTI: We actually agree that the welfare system is complex and we are committed to addressing its complexity. Currently, there is work happening to update the welfare system, but it will take some time as it is an incredibly big job. Alongside this, the Government is undertaking a review of Working for Families. We’ll release more information on this in due course.

Question No. 2—Energy and Resources

2. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How is the Government supporting the creation of hydrogen refuelling stations?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): The Government is committed to New Zealand’s transition to a low-carbon economy. Hydrogen will be a key part of this transition. Green hydrogen will help reduce global emissions, reduce New Zealand’s dependence on overseas energy sources, create significant export revenue, and create new jobs. This is why we’re investing in Hiringa Energy’s plan to establish a green hydrogen refuelling network. The project will see four high-capacity green hydrogen production and refuelling stations installed in the key logistic hubs in the North Island and will provide 100 percent refuelling coverage across the North Island freight routes. We’re also funding the TR Group, one of New Zealand’s largest freight fleet operators, who will receive $6 million to purchase up to 20 heavy-freight hydrogen trucks to lease to its customers.

Tāmati Coffey: Why is the Government supporting the development of hydrogen as a fuel?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Green hydrogen is one of the platforms that can help us reduce our emissions. New Zealand has considerable renewable energy resources that could be used to produce hydrogen as a next-generation fuel in a sustainable way. Green hydrogen is a potential solution for some harder to decarbonise sectors such as long-distance and heavy transport; iron, steel, and chemical production; and the maritime and aviation sectors. We will continue to invest to support the use and availability of hydrogen while ensuring the current regulatory settings are fit for purpose as critical in facilitating the safe introduction of new hydrogen technologies in New Zealand.

Tāmati Coffey: What broader work is the Government undertaking to support the development of a hydrogen industry in New Zealand?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government is working with business to support various early stage hydrogen projects. This includes providing funding to Ports of Auckland and Auckland Transport to purchase a New Zealand - built hydrogen bus and working with Hyundai to deploy a fleet of medium-duty hydrogen trucks. We’re also investing in several hydrogen research initiatives, including working with Scion to understand how hydrogen can be produced from biomass and with First Gas to identify how hydrogen can be used as part of their gas network.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s statements and actions?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. In particular, I stand by this Government’s decision to accelerate Māori vaccination rates, which has seen the Government approve over $46 million to support efforts of the DHBs and providers to reach that 90 percent double-vaccinated target. This includes initiatives to excite and inform rangatahi Māori, in particular, through TikTok, kapa haka, and music, as well as further support to those on the ground who are knocking on the doors and helping to get vaccines administered. Solid progress has been made in the past month, with Māori vaccination rates now reaching 78 percent first dose, and double doses following close behind. We know that there’s more work to do, and we’ll continue to support that work on the ground.

Dr Shane Reti: Has she seen data from Waka Kotahi that in the month of December, State Highway 1 south of Auckland averages 60,000 cars a day, and, if so, what advice has she received about how many cars police are expecting to stop and check for vaccine certificates every day under her summer travel restrictions?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: On behalf of the Prime Minister: yes, we have seen traffic modelling around the level of movement in and out of Auckland in regular times, when there aren’t COVID-19 restrictions in place. We’ve been very clear with the police that the level of spot-checking—how many cars they choose to spot-check—is, of course, a matter for the police to determine.

Dr Shane Reti: When she said yesterday that spot checks would take place at the point of departure, does that mean that all spot checks for southbound traffic will need to take place, for example, on the road immediately south of the Auckland border?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Where spot checks take place will be a matter for the police to determine.

Dr Shane Reti: Can she confirm that Cabinet received advice that the option of random spot checks they selected could add three hours to the journey south of State Highway 1, and, if not, how many hours’ delay will it cause?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Cabinet received a range of advice on the potential disruption to travel journeys that checking vaccination could cause. It will ultimately be determined by the extent of spot-checking that takes place, and that will be an operational matter for the police to determine.

Dr Shane Reti: What was the longest number of hours that spot-check delays could cause, in the Cabinet papers he’s just described?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: From memory, if we were to check every person travelling in and out of Auckland, those delays could be very extensive—i.e., more than 12 hours. However, that is not the decision that the Cabinet has taken.

Dr Shane Reti: What advice has she received, if any, on the number of police officers who will be needed each day to implement the stop and check system she announced yesterday?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Again, that’s an operational matter for the New Zealand Police to determine.

Dr Shane Reti: When she said yesterday that the system will apply until 17 January, does that mean people will be allowed to travel in and out of Auckland freely after then?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes.

Dr Shane Reti: Is it her expectation that the announced travel arrangement over Christmas will prevent the spread of COVID out of Auckland, and, if not, what advice has she received about the average number of cases that are expected to cross the border each day under this system?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question: no. In answer to the second part of the question: it is designed to slow the rate of spread of COVID-19 out of Auckland.

Question No. 4—COVID-19 Response

4. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What steps is the Government taking to protect the South Island from COVID19?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Yesterday, we confirmed the whole country will shift to the COVID-19 Protection Framework shortly after Cabinet’s final decision on 29 November, as part of our new strategy to minimise and protect against COVID-19. The Government’s worked extremely hard to get as many people vaccinated as possible, and South Islanders have responded strongly. As a result, they’re well placed to enjoy the additional protections and freedoms offered by the traffic light system. Canterbury and Southern DHBs have both passed the 90 percent first dose threshold at 94 and 92 percent respectively, and they’ve reached 83 and 84 percent fully vaccinated. South Canterbury needs just another 417 people, as of midnight last night, to get to 90 percent first doses, while Nelson Marlborough needs 935 more doses to reach that marker. Both of those DHBs are sitting at around 81 percent of people fully vaccinated. So this is good progress, and I encourage all South Islanders to keep up the good work, and for those who are fully vaccinated to request their My Vaccine Pass.

Rachel Boyack: What protection is the Government putting in place for travel to the South Island?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We’ve given careful consideration to additional protections for entry to the South Island. Yesterday, the Prime Minister and I announced that we’ll be enabling interisland ferries to require proof of vaccination or a negative pre-departure test in order to travel between Wellington and Picton. That’ll complement Air New Zealand’s recently announced requirement of a vaccine certificate or a test before taking a domestic flight from 15 December. The combination of these measures means that all of the entry points to the South Island will be well covered by checks to help reduce that spread in the South.

Rachel Boyack: What are the best things South Islanders can do to protect themselves from COVID-19?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As we shift to the strategy of minimisation and protection, all South Islanders do need to understand that COVID-19 could soon make its way into their community. However, the traffic light system is safer than the alert level system in the context of a more highly vaccinated population. For example, currently in a region at alert level 2, everyone can go to a hospitality setting, vaccinated or not, with the level 2 restrictions of seated or separated. However, at the red level on the new framework, you’ll also have to be vaccinated. That adds an extra layer of protection. In addition, there’s plenty that people can do to protect themselves and their friends and their whānau, number one being: get vaccinated. That is the single best thing anyone can do to protect themselves and others from the virus. They can encourage others to get vaccinated, they can request their vaccine passes, and, of course, they can continue to follow those simple public health measures, like washing their hands, wearing a mask, and scanning in.

Question No. 5—Housing (Public Housing)

5. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): Does she stand by the Minister of Housing’s statement regarding healthy homes standards that “the tribunal will apply a degree of pragmatism and consideration and be reasonable”; if so, is she saying that the Tenancy Tribunal won’t enforce the law?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): In answer to the first part of the member’s question, yes. The Government acknowledges the difficulty some landlords have experienced complying with the healthy homes standards due to the impacts of COVID-19 restrictions. In the event of alleged non-compliance with healthy homes standards, I’m advised that each case will be assessed on its own merits, and the reasons for non-compliance, including disruptions caused by COVID alert levels, are taken into account by the tribunal. There is a longstanding convention that Ministers don’t comment directly on the judiciary’s decision-making process.

Brooke van Velden: Has she asked the tribunal to be lenient with landlords who will not be able to comply with healthy homes standards due to COVID restrictions, and, if not, how can she assume that they will be?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I expect that the public interest test will be applied. If a landlord’s genuine attempts to comply with the healthy homes standards in the context of the challenges caused by COVID-19 alert level restrictions—it would be unlikely to be in the public interest for enforcement action to be taken. But I just want to remind the member, it is a longstanding convention that Ministers don’t comment directly on the judiciary’s decision-making process.

Brooke van Velden: If the tribunal is going to enforce the law, why doesn’t the Government simply extend the deadlines for compliance for landlords and make the law clear for New Zealanders wanting to do the right thing?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: It’s my understanding that the vast majority of landlords have already complied, and those who haven’t yet are most likely impacted by the restrictions caused by COVID-19 alert levels. It’s my expectation that those cases will be treated by the tribunal based on the facts that are presented to the tribunal.

Brooke van Velden: Does the advice from officials on this matter, that she will not release because she doesn’t believe it’s in the public interest to do so at this time, recommend that the Minister should extend deadlines for healthy homes standards compliance by changing the law?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The advice was that it would not be possible to extend compliance deadlines in a way that assists the vast majority of landlords, and including those whose compliance deadlines have already passed. When compliance with the healthy homes standards within the deadline proves impractical due to COVID-19 restrictions, and particularly alert level 4, I’m advised that it’s unlikely to be in the public interest for enforcement action to be taken. I understand that my officials have communicated this to sector groups in recent days, and I plan on contacting them directly as well.

Question No. 6—Digital Economy and Communications

6. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications: What work is the Government doing regarding connectivity around New Zealand?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development) on behalf of the Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications: I am pleased to say the Government is making significant progress on improving connectivity for all New Zealanders. As part of the continuing ultra-fast broadband fibre roll-out, nearly 1.8 million homes and businesses have fibre available to them, across 327 cities and towns, with 66 percent uptake so far. Five hundred and sixteen marae are now connected to the internet as part of the marae connectivity initiative, over 68,000 rural homes and businesses have access to improved wireless broadband services, 902 kilometres of State highway now have mobile phone coverage under the mobile black spot initiative, and 72 tourist sites have coverage they did not have before. These initiatives are already providing better coverage around all regions of the country, but we must be realistic. There is still much more to be done, including nearly $48 million in rural capability upgrades to improve coverage to rural areas where congestion is currently an issue.

Melissa Lee: How will the Government work to ensure New Zealand households in—in the Minister’s own words—“the worst connected parts of New Zealand” can access digital and telehealth services while they continue to have congested and unsuitable internet connections during lockdown and COVID-19 reaches into rural New Zealand communities?

Hon STUART NASH: Well, that member will be aware that, in our manifesto, actually, we set aside $60 million to improve digital connectivity for some of the most hard to find regions, and I’m talking about the Manawatū, Whanganui, rural areas of Auckland, Otago, Gisborne, the Hawke’s Bay, the West Coast, Taranaki, rural areas of Wellington, and the Wairarapa. It is purely coincidence that nearly every single one of those rural areas is held by a Labour MP.

Hon Louise Upston: Does he believe it is acceptable that 90 percent of New Zealand farmers, as reported in the 2021 Dairy New Zealand The view from the cow shed, have seen no improvement to their digital connectivity; and, if not, what work is he doing to provide them with a digital future?

Hon STUART NASH: Well, we absolutely live in paradise. One of the down sides of living in paradise is that we’re a long, narrow country, where, in many parts of our countryside, there are more sheep than people. However, as mentioned, there is always more work to do, and we are doing more work and we’re coming up with innovative solutions to get wireless to the farm gate.

Hon Louise Upston: Is the Minister content that rural households like the Beswick family of Tokanui are living with no mobile reception on their property and facing worries about medical emergencies for their three daughters; and, if not, how will the Government work to get them the connectivity they and rural New Zealanders need?

Hon STUART NASH: I have no idea where that family lives. If the member wants to put that down in writing, I’m sure the Minister will reply.

Melissa Lee: Will the Government immediately work to act on all recommendations in the 2021 Dairy New Zealand The view from the cow shed report to ensure that we unlock all of the benefits that digital opportunities offer for the people of New Zealand and that rural New Zealanders can be adequately prepared for the future of COVID-19 in our country; if not, why not?

Hon STUART NASH: I think the best thing we can do to prepare rural New Zealand for COVID-19 is to make sure that they are absolutely all vaccinated. But, having said that, we consult regularly with Dairy NZ, from the Prime Minister down, and so be assured that conversations are being had.

Melissa Lee: Point of order. It is quite obvious that the Minister hasn’t actually read Dairy NZ’s The view from the cow shed. So I seek leave to table this document, because it might actually help him. Perhaps he could read it finally.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is that publicly available? I believe it is. I think the member knows very well that’s out of order.

Maureen Pugh: Will the Minister commit to investing in rural communities like Dunollie, on the West Coast, that want to use a cellphone in the event of an emergency or natural disaster but have to drive many kilometres; if so, when will he address their current mobile connectivity issue?

Hon STUART NASH: Dunollie is a very interesting case, actually. I would note that Spark, 2degrees, and Vodafone are all currently providing service coverage to the Dunollie area. I’m advised that Crown Infrastructure Partners is carrying out a drive test in Dunollie to see what the actual coverage is like on the ground. But I would just like to reiterate that we care deeply about provincial and rural New Zealand, and we continue to work with them to find solutions to their issues.

Melissa Lee: I seek leave to table an aide memoire on rural connectivity dated 11 August, released to my office yesterday under the Official Information Act (OIA), which, I don’t believe, is actually publicly available. So I thought maybe perhaps it could be helpful to all of the members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, in whose name?

Melissa Lee: Aide memoire on rural connectivity dated 11 August 2021, released to my office yesterday by the Minister under the OIA.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that document to be tabled. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It may be tabled.

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

Kieran McAnulty: Will he commit to coming to the Tararua district in the Wairarapa electorate, in which this Government has funded nine new mobile towers, significantly increasing access to rural broadband, and hearing the difference—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question has been asked.

Hon STUART NASH: It would be my absolute pleasure to come to the Tararua district, and what I’ll do when I get there is I’ll give the member a bell on my mobile and we’ll jack up a time.

Question No. 7—Police

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

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): I’ve seen reports that the joint police and customs operation, Selena, has resulted in 14 people charged with a range of drug offences and $500,000 seized while shutting the door on a large-scale methamphetamine-smuggling ring. Police and customs staff established that several baggage handlers at Auckland Airport have allegedly been involved in smuggling methamphetamine since the beginning of this year. Over the course of the year, it’s believed that the group has or have conspired to smuggle close to 500 kilograms of methamphetamine into New Zealand. This group was also allegedly involved in a failed smuggling attempt of 200 kilograms of methamphetamine that was intercepted at the Malaysian border in October, which was destined for New Zealand. I am sure all members of this House will join me in congratulating police and customs for their fantastic work keeping us safe.

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

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On Tuesday, I advised the House that Operation Mist had resulted in the seizure of more than 50 kilograms of cocaine, nine individuals arrested, and $300,000 in cash, cocaine, and cryptocurrency wallets seized, disrupting one of the major cocaine importing rings in New Zealand. Operation Freya dismantled a sophisticated drug-dealing and smuggling operation, making 12 arrests and seizing $8 million worth of drugs in the process. Police are striking real blows against organised crime and the supply of illicit drugs.

Hon Member: Oh, no one believes that.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Why do you hate police?

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

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This Government has put a record number of police on the front line, including those with a specific focus on organised crime, and the result of this investment continues to pay off. Already, the Government has seized $500 million in cash and assets from gangs and criminals in four years alone. Translated, that’s the equivalent of $1.6 billion removed from the illicit economy, an economy that profits from criminal offending and exploiting our communities.

Simeon Brown: Has the Minister seen reports of $2.75 million being spent from the proceeds of crime fund to Mongrel Mob member Harry Tam for a drug rehab programme?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: As I’ve repeatedly told that member, the lead agency on that programme was the Ministry of Health.

Question No. 8—Rural Communities

8. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister for Rural Communities: Does he believe that rural communities have been properly advocated for and listened to by the Government?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development) on behalf of the Minister for Rural Communities: Yes, this Government listens to, and advocates for, New Zealand’s rural communities. Members of this Government constantly meet with members of rural communities and their leaders, farmers, and sector leaders, and will continue to do so. I do note that the Farming Leaders Group is one of the most frequently met with groups by the Prime Minister. Rural communities are at the heart of this Government’s priorities of securing New Zealand’s economic recovery and rising to the challenge of climate change and sustainability.

Mark Cameron: Does he believe adequate consultation was undertaken with rural communities prior to the Government announcing an increased nationally determined contribution (NDC) and global methane pledge at COP26?

Hon STUART NASH: There was significant consultation right across the country with regard to the NDC, of which our rural communities were a very important part.

Mark Cameron: Has he met with the representatives of Groundswell, the movement for farmers and rural communities across New Zealand?

Hon STUART NASH: On behalf of the Minister: I’m not too sure what Groundswell stands for these days. It’s a mixture of—

Mark Cameron: If you guys listened.

Hon STUART NASH: Well, that is based on what I’ve read on their website, and it’s a mixture of racism, anti-vax, etc., etc. But we will continue to meet with farming leaders and engage in rural communities as and when appropriate.

Mark Cameron: Will he be advocating for Government Ministers to meet the representatives of Groundswell to hear their concerns about the Government policies?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Just before I call the Hon Stuart Nash, the level of speaking during the asking of questions is loud on both sides. Let’s make the next one silent.

Hon STUART NASH: My advice to that member would be when he’s at a Groundswell rally, make sure he doesn’t get a photo taken beside someone holding up an anti-vax sign.

Mark Cameron: Point of order. If I may, with respect, the question was quite clear: will he be advocating for Government Ministers to meet the representatives of Groundswell to hear their concerns about the Government’s policies?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And my understanding of what the Minister said was quite emphatic. I’m pretty sure he meant “no”.

Mark Cameron: Point of order. Respectfully, he was talking about anti-vaxxers, not about Groundswell members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Have you finished?

Question No. 9—Women

9. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister for Women: What progress has she seen on closing the gender pay gap in the Public Service?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): I’m pleased to inform the House that the Public Service gender pay gap is the lowest it’s ever been at 8.6 percent, down from 9.6 percent last year. This is a great result given that the gap was 18.6 percent when the measurement first began in 2000. When this Government came into office, we instigated the 2018 Public Service Gender Pay Gap Action Plan, and, as a direct result of this work, we have seen the gap decrease by a third in three years. This shows that with strong partnerships between Government, the Public Service, and unions positive change is achievable. As the Minister for Women, I do want to be clear, however, that no pay gap is acceptable to me, but I am very pleased to see we are heading in the right direction to close it and correct the imbalance.

Sarah Pallett: What further work is under way to continue to close the gender pay gap in the Public Service?

Hon JAN TINETTI: While the Māori, Pacific, and Asian pay gaps have also narrowed, there are still clearly great inequities for these women. The pay gap for Māori has narrowed in the last year from 9.3 percent to 8.3 percent, the pay gap for Pasifika has fallen from 19.5 percent to 17.9 percent, and the Asian pay gap has come down from 12.8 percent to 11.6 percent, but more work is needed on the ethnic imbalance to close the pay gap. This is why I’ve launched Kia Toipoto, a three-year action plan to tackle gender and ethnic pay gaps, and Te Orowaru, a new pay equity work assessment tool that helps recognise the value of cultural skills in work, including te reo Māori. These two initiatives will support the Public Service to continue to close the gender pay gap and to accelerate gains for Māori, Pacific, and ethnic communities.

Sarah Pallett: What initiatives have been progressed in the last four years that have contributed to closing the gender pay gap?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Under Labour, New Zealand has made significant progress towards gender equality. In addition to the progress we’ve made on closing the gender pay gap, we’ve passed the Equal Pay Amendment Act, enshrining in law the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. This is delivering significant pay increases for female-dominated workforces and to make sure women are paid fairly. We’ve also settled significant pay equity claims. We’ve achieved the highest ever representation of women in several important areas, including reaching our target of 50 percent of women in public sector boards and 53 percent in public sector senior leadership roles. We’ve increased paid parental leave from 22 to 26 weeks; through MP Ginny Andersen’s member’s bill, we’ve introduced miscarriage and domestic violence leave; we’ve reintroduced the training incentive allowance; and we’ve achieved the highest ever recorded rate of female employment.

Question No. 10—Housing (Public Housing)

10. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): Does she stand by her statement that Kāinga Ora “do not have a no-evictions policy”; if so, why haven’t there been any evictions for more than three and a half years?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): To the first part of the member’s question, yes. Since April 217, Kāinga Ora and its predecessor agency, Housing New Zealand, have had a sustainable tenancies policy. Kāinga Ora has a number of tools at its disposal to deal with disruptive behaviour. If an issue occurs, Kāinga Ora engages with its tenants in a household action plan, and works with them on this plan. This is focused on providing wraparound support and connecting them with other agencies. Kāinga Ora has also developed an intensive tenancy management service to provide tailored support to tenants with high and complex needs. Eviction is a last resort, and Kāinga Ora has, where necessary, relocated tenants. I’ve advised the House earlier this week that 159 households have been relocated in the past 12 months.

Nicola Willis: How can she say Kāinga Ora do not have a no-evictions policy when Kāinga Ora has provided statements to the Tenancy Tribunal that it has “purposefully chosen a policy of seeking to preserve and not terminate tenancies” and its policy “was not to issue 90-day notices, nor to terminate tenancies”?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: As I’ve already said, there is a no-evictions policy. What we do have is a sustainable tenancies policy—a policy that has been in place since the last National Government.

Nicola Willis: What steps, if any, has she taken to address a ruling by the Tenancy Tribunal that Kāinga Ora’s no-evictions policy has led Kāinga Ora to breach its obligations as a landlord under the Residential Tenancies Act, with the tribunal determining that “This is clearly a situation that cannot continue.”?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I have no knowledge of that particular case. I invite the member to put that in writing and submit it to my office.

Nicola Willis: Which does she believe Kāinga Ora should make the priority: their legal obligation as a landlord to protect its tenants from unreasonable interference from other tenants or her policy not to terminate tenancies?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I’ve always said that it is our absolute responsibility to ensure that tenants are safe and can live in safe housing. What I do know is that Kāinga Ora have a range of tools at their disposal, including something they have used this year, which is transfers, which they have used quite successfully. I encourage the member, when she has situations that occur like this, to ensure that Kāinga Ora are fully advised and encouraged to support those tenants, and, at the very outset, encouraged to use all of the mechanisms at their disposal.

Nicola Willis: Will she direct Kāinga Ora to end the policy banning State house evictions, or is she satisfied with the situation where Kāinga Ora continues to break the law by allowing its tenants to terrorise innocent New Zealanders?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: An eviction is a very specific process and it involves the Tenancy Tribunal and ending a tenancy with a court bailiff taking possession of property. This Government is committed to sustaining tenancies, the policy that has been in place since the National Government.

Question No. 11—Health

11. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent announcements has she made about contact tracing and case management?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Contact tracing and isolation remain key public health tools that can help minimise the spread of COVID-19. As we move into the next phase of our response to the pandemic, it makes sense to update our contact tracing categories and isolation rules in account of the impact of vaccination. Earlier this week, I announced changes that will mean people who are fully vaccinated will spend less time isolating if they get COVID-19 or are a close contact of a case.

Dr Tracey McLellan: What are the new isolation requirements for fully vaccinated cases?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: If you’re fully vaccinated and catch COVID-19, by day 10 of infection you’ll pose a very low risk of passing on the virus. That’s because the amount of viral genetic material declines faster in fully vaccinated people. So the isolation period for fully vaccinated COVID-19 cases in the community is reducing from 14 to 10 days and must include 72 hours symptom-free. The isolation period for partially vaccinated or unvaccinated COVID-19 cases will remain 14 days, including 72 hours symptom free. For fully vaccinated close contacts, they will need to self-isolate for seven days, while partially vaccinated or unvaccinated close contacts will be required to self-isolate for 10 days. Household contacts will isolate for 10 days regardless of vaccination status because this group is at highest risk of contracting the virus. These changes reflect the different transmission dynamics of the Delta variant.

Dr Tracey McLellan: What changes have been made to contact tracing categories?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Analysis of the Delta outbreak found very little evidence of transmission in the casual plus category. Preliminary analysis of data shows only 0.1 percent of casual plus interactions, such as being in the same supermarket as a COVID-19 case, resulted in infections. So, in the future, this category will be used in a narrow range of circumstances. Keeping the contact tracing categories as they were would’ve resulted in some people being identified as contacts when the data now tells us they’re at very, very low risk. These changes will reduce the burden on individuals, businesses, and the community while keeping people safe.

Question No. 12—Police

12. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Police: Is she satisfied with how Police resources are being allocated in response to the demand for Police services; if so, why?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): I am satisfied that this Government has invested over $450 million in our police, and, as a result of this investment, the total police workforce now surpasses 14,000, with over 1,200 additional constabulary and authorised officers on the streets. I’m also satisfied that we are well on track to deliver 1,800 new police—including 700 to be focused on organised crime—by June 2023. Ultimately, the deployment and allocation of police staff and resources is a matter for the Commissioner of Police and local district commanders. I have full confidence in them to make these decisions.

Simeon Brown: How many police officers will be allocated to do spot checks at the Auckland border over summer, and how many spot checks will they be expected to complete on a daily basis?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Any deployments of that nature are operational and a matter for the Commissioner of Police.

Simeon Brown: Has she seen reports that “Maintaining regular policing standards is not possible with so many staff on COVID-19 duties and the extra strain will not be sustainable for much longer.”; if so, how will police manage the increase in demand for services, which is common over the summer period?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: There’s no doubt that COVID-19 has had a huge impact on police services not only around the country but specifically in Auckland, and there has been significant demand. But that’s why I’m grateful that this Government has invested $450 million in our police and, as a result of this investment, we’ve increased our total police workforce. It now surpasses 14,000, with 1,200 additional constabulary and authorised officers on the streets.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Has she seen reports that moves to ensure police can access additional support from the military and from community patrols and from Māori wardens and the like to support the COVID-19 response have been vocally opposed?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Yes, I have, and notably from that side of the House.

Simeon Brown: Can the Minister guarantee that all checkpoints run by iwi this summer will have at least one police officer present?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Iwi bring valuable expertise and experience which has supported police in the past, and they play a key role in resolving and diffusing matters where people have wanted to travel between regions, especially during high stress times, and this has been evident throughout the lockdown. Only police or authorised enforcement officers acting under supervision, such as the New Zealand Defence Force or Māori wardens of police, will have enforcement powers.

Simeon Brown: Point of order. The question was quite clear in that I was asking about these checkpoints run by iwi—will there also be at least one police officer present? I don’t think she answered that part of the question.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Yes.

Simeon Brown: How many of the 700 police officers promised to tackle organised crime, which the Minister mentioned in the answer to the primary question, have so far been delivered?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: My recollection is somewhere in the region of 350, perhaps 400.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That concludes—[Banter across the Chamber] Order! That concludes oral questions. I call on Government—[Members’ banter continues]. Order! Turituri! I call on Government order of the day, No. 1.

Bills

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

Third Reading

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

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

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

This bill makes amendments to the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act to better support the Government’s continued response to the COVID-19 pandemic in a flexible and agile way as it continues to evolve over the coming months. The bill was developed—and it is important to acknowledge this—during a period in which COVID-19 was contained at New Zealand’s air and maritime borders, and it was expressly prepared in anticipation of a future shift away from the elimination strategy.

I’ll summarise the key provisions of the bill, but, first of all, a little bit about the Act that it amends. The COVID-19 Public Health Response Act was passed shortly after the global pandemic. The global pandemic—which still continues, I might add—began last year. It allows for the Government to make orders in order to contain, to control, and to manage the effects of the global pandemic.

The bill that we are now amending extends the term of the Act from May 2022 until May 2023. That’s not an unconditional extension. It will still need to be endorsed regularly by a majority vote in the House of Representatives, or it will expire. Again, that is important. I acknowledge, as I always have, that the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act does provide the Government with an unusual and quite comprehensive set of powers, and that is not a piece of legislation that we should have on the statute book any longer than we absolutely need to have it. So regular re-approval by Parliament is absolutely appropriate.

I do, however, consider the legislation is likely to be needed over the next 18 months or so, even as we step down our COVID-19 response—which I think everybody in the House is hoping we will be able to do—because we’ll still need some transitional measures. For example, only through this Act are we able to impose the requirement for people to have a negative pre-departure test before they travel to New Zealand, and only through this Act are we able to ensure that those coming into the country who aren’t New Zealand citizens have been fully vaccinated. For those reasons, to ensure that we still have access to those sorts of provisions, we want to continue the legislation that allows us to have those in place.

The bill broadens the purpose through which a COVID-19 order can be made, and it is for the reasons that I’ve just mentioned. We’re entering into a new phase in the pandemic.

Borders are currently limited in scope to only those that limit the risk of an outbreak or the spread of COVID-19. We’re expanding this scope so that orders can be made to prevent, contain, reduce, control, manage, eliminate, or limit the risk of outbreaks or the spread of COVID-19 for the purpose of avoiding, mitigating, or remedying the actual or potential adverse public health effects of the COVID-19 outbreak. This shift means we can move from a focus only on elimination to include a wider focus on minimisation and protection, which is the era that we’re now going into.

It’s important to ensure that the Act remains enforceable. As such, the maximum penalties associated with breaching the Act or breaching the order are being increased. It’s important to note that when this Act was first brought before the House and passed by the House, the level of penalties available in the original legislation were very low. It’s now clear that given the consequences of deliberate and wilful breaches of the order and the potential consequences that that has for the health and wellbeing of all New Zealanders, including for the New Zealand economy, it is appropriate that we increase the overall penalties that are provided for in the legislation.

The bill makes several improvements to the legal framework for managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) that helps to improve the transparency and accountability of that system. I do note that that is likely to change significantly in the next few months. The way we use MIQ is likely to change significantly, but there is still likely to be some form of MIQ. Even if it is not for everyone arriving in the country—which it is very unlikely to be in the medium to longer term—for those who are going into MIQ, either because there’s a particular public health risk that we’re trying to manage, because they are unvaccinated, because they have nowhere else to isolate, or because of some of those other, additional factors, we still need to make sure that that system is robust, and that is what this bill clarifies and allows us to continue to do.

So I want to thank the 15,000-odd submitters who engaged in the process, and members of the Health Committee for their work in considering the bill.

I do want to end where I began and note that the global pandemic is not yet over, much as we might all wish that to be the case, and I certainly look forward to the day when that is the case and I no longer have to wake up every morning wondering how many cases we’re going to deal with or what challenges the virus is going to throw at us on a given day. I’m very much looking forward to the day when COVID-19 is but a memory for all of us. We are not at that point yet, and we do still have to be prepared for the fact that there will continue to be public health impacts of the global pandemic, that it will continue to be unpredictable, and that we will continue to need to adapt and evolve. The changes proposed in this legislation allow for that.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The National Party opposes this bill wholeheartedly. I want to start with a comment made to me by a bar owner in Auckland on Sunday, because I think it summarises accurately the feeling of a lot of people who live in Auckland right now. She said to me, “It feels like we’re collateral damage in the Prime Minister’s personal legacy project.”—it feels like we’re collateral damage in Jacinda Ardern’s personal legacy project.

Because that’s the situation Aucklanders find themselves in right now. Stuck in the Auckland prison—90 days and counting—and still no clarity as to when they can leave. Still no clarity as to when they can go and have a beer outside in a hospitality venue with their friends over Christmas. People who work in hospitality, in fact, people who work in many businesses across Auckland—and, in fact, it’s not just Auckland; it’s Canterbury and other parts of the country—look at our Government and they say, “Yup, they did pretty well last year, actually. But now we find ourselves miles behind the rest of the world and we are the damage. We are the collateral damage. We’re the people mortgaging our houses, selling our cars, dipping into our personal savings, putting money on the credit card—just to keep paying the bills, keep paying the staff that we haven’t laid off yet. Worried about summer. Worried about the start of 2022.” Worried about how they’re going to get through the next week and actually be able to pay the bills. And worried about the tax bill that’s coming, the provisional tax, in the first quarter next year.

They don’t want a lot, actually. What they want is hope. What they want is some certainty, and they want a pathway. I’ll tell you what they don’t want: they don’t want continuous platitudes from the podium. Because that’s what they get every week. And they don’t want a Government that clearly is just making it up as they go.

So what did we learn yesterday from the Government? Well, the 90 percent target doesn’t exist any more. So the thing that was the “pathway to freedom”, to use the Prime Minister’s words three weeks ago, that’s been unceremoniously dumped; no longer the target. Righty-o. Got that. On 29 November, there’ll be another announcement. Actually, yesterday we got “Cabinet will decide.”, presupposing that they will, but, you know, I assume that’s the case. On 29 November, we’ll get another announcement about something that will happen later—date unknown—when we all enter the traffic light system. So no idea of the date. No idea of exactly when this will happen. And the traffic light framework will start some time, and Auckland will go to red straight away.

Now, the thing about red is, if you’re a hospitality venue, you can have 100 people seated, even if you’re vaccinated—even if you’re vaccinated. So Auckland will start in red. So is that a step forward? I suppose, in the most marginal sense possible, it’s a step forward. But it’s hardly progress.

In every other place, totally unclear. So, Wellington? Ninety percent double vaccination, probably be higher by the time we roll around to 7 December or whenever it is. Do they enter in green? No idea. Is it orange? No idea. Is it red? I don’t know. What about the Southern DHB? Are they orange? I think they’re 87 percent double dosed—Penny Simmonds tells me I’m broadly right. Double dosed—they’ll be 90 percent double dosed by 5 December. Are they going to enter in green? I don’t know. Is it orange? I’ve got no idea.

My colleague here Nicola Grigg, the MP for Selwyn—

Nicola Grigg: 100 percent.

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I doubt it’s 100 percent, but it wouldn’t be too far off 100 percent double dosed. Do they start in the green traffic light system? I don’t know; they probably do but let’s have some clarity. How are the good people of Selwyn or East Coast Bays or West Coast - Tasman or Invercargill—how do they make plans for December? They can’t, because they don’t know, because we’ve got no certainty about the date and no idea what system people will enter at. And so Christmas is coming down the line very quickly and people are trying to make plans and they’ve got no idea.

What’s very clear from this bill—and the Minister even accepted that the bill was drafted at a different time, when we were running on elimination strategy. What’s very clear is that the Government’s had no plan for the circumstances we find ourselves in. They literally started the plan for Delta when it turned up. It’s not just me who says that; that’s Government documents say that. There’s been articles about it. Government documents, official advice to the Minister for COVID-19 Response from the start of August saying, “We’re now starting to plan for Delta.” Well, Delta turned up in managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) in April. What were they doing for three months? What were they doing for the first six months of the year?

I’ll tell you what they were doing. They were sitting there with self-satisfied smirks on their face thinking, “Oh, we’ve nailed COVID. We eliminated it last year. We’re the best in the world, and we’re on the front cover of Time and Bloomberg and all the rest of it. Aren’t we awesome?”

Well, actually, reality caught up with them, and it turns out that that’s not the case. They started the work on the certificates in July; they only signed the contract in October. We had the world’s slowest vaccination roll-out for most of this year. Rapid tests are still banned. I can walk into a supermarket in Melbourne and buy a rapid COVID test; here I can’t and we’ve never had an explanation from the Government as to why that’s the case. They didn’t invest in ICU; they wasted the COVID response fund.

A smart Government would have taken all the borrowed money and not just spent the COVID fund on things like art therapy and three waters and food in schools and all the other things the Government spent the money on; they’d actually spend it on ICU. I mean, how is it the case, 18 months after the pandemic started, we have fewer ICU beds now than we did in April 2020? How is that the case? Literally, when you explain it to people, it’s impossible to explain or understand. Eighteen months after the pandemic, we have fewer ICU beds now than we did in April 2020—fewer. It’s just ridiculous.

This bill is a disgrace, and in the time I’ve got remaining I want to comment on three things. Firstly, it’s ridiculous and obnoxious. The first bit is the ridiculous bit. The ridiculous bit: new section 32T requires a person liable for the cost of managed isolation to provide contact details. Well, that sounds reasonable. Hang on a minute—why has there not been a power before now for people who go to MIQ to provide their contact details? Government doesn’t like to mention this, but they’re quietly slipping this through, and here’s a clue. Now we know why $36 million is owed to taxpayers through MIQ before March this year. Fourteen thousand people haven’t been invoiced yet. Seven thousand people, they don’t know if they have to pay, and, if they do have to pay, how much they have to pay—7,000 people—because the Government didn’t pass a law to collect the contact details.

Obnoxious point of this bill: MIQ. It’s a lottery of human misery. It is not kind or compassionate or fair; it is cruel, inequitable, and callous. Greg Murphy couldn’t go over to Bathurst because of MIQ. Today, we learnt the news of the New Zealand Under-19 men’s cricket team can’t go to the Under-19 Cricket World Cup in 2022. They are just the high profile examples of the misery that this stupid system causes. Five thousand people isolating in Auckland right now with COVID, or close contacts. Five thousand people. New record. Thirty-four people in MIQ with COVID.

Here’s how stupid the situation is. If you test positive in Auckland, for the most part, you isolate at home. You don’t go to MIQ where there are nurses and doctors and regular tests. If you’re fully vaccinated with no COVID you don’t go home, where you could look after yourself, you take up the space in MIQ that should be being occupied by someone with COVID. How perverse is that? How bizarre is that situation? It’s not just me who says this; Michael Baker says it, Lucy Barnard says it, and Nick Wilson says it. It’s ridiculous. Fully vaccinated Kiwis should have freedom returned to them under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The team of 5 million is not just a team of 5 million; it’s a team of 6 million.

And finally, the other obnoxious part of this bill is the Rako Science confiscation provision, because that’s what I call it. Rako Science came to the MOH—the Ministry of Health—at the start of the most recent outbreak and said, “We can do 10,000 tests a day. You’ve got people lining up for 10 to 12 hours at a time; we can do 10,000 tests a day. Let us at them.” You know what the Government said to them? They gave them the middle finger. They said, “No, no, we don’t need your help. We’ve got it under control, thanks.” Well, people lined up for 12 hours and gave up being tested. At the start of the most recent outbreak, the Government said to Rako Science, “We don’t want your help.”, and now what are they going to do? They’re going to give themselves the power to steal their property instead.

Hon Member: Disgusting.

CHRIS BISHOP: This is disgusting. It is abhorrent. It is an obnoxious piece of legislation, and we oppose it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order!

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Speaking of ridiculous and obnoxious, I love the fact that Chris Bishop and I can hear the same information in select committee, via officials, and he manages to come up with a whole other spin on it, but never mind!

This bill makes amendments to the COVID Public Health Response Act to allow the Government to simply continue to improve its response to this pandemic, as things evolve, because they do over time, and as we move more and more closely towards what needs to be a careful reopening, one that’s been afforded to us, one that we’ve actually all earned, because of our world-leading response to this global pandemic—whereas it’s just been described as some sort of legacy project. And, as far as I can see, of all the legacy projects that you might like to choose in this world, keeping our mortality rates as low as they have been and our economy as healthy as it is is a pretty damned good one. There should be a significant infringement fee and fine in place for people who are willing to purposefully and repeatedly jeopardise our safety and breach these orders.

This bill also takes seriously the need for contingency planning. Should we face a severe outbreak, one that actually threatens to overwhelm our public resources, the bill allows for the Government to make the most of—to harness—the testing capacity that we have in this country by allowing those labs to simply pitch in and focus on COVID testing, and also it allows for suitable compensation for those services. It’s temporary, it’s worst-case scenario, but testing remains one of our most important tools, and it’s too important to not make these very serious but very necessary sort of contingency plans for.

As the Minister for COVID-19 Response said just earlier, even as the border restrictions loosen over the coming months, which they will do, managed isolation and quarantine still plays a role in our response, and particularly for those who can’t safely isolate at home. So, whether they’re entering New Zealand or whether they’ve tested positive in the community, this bill also makes changes to accommodate, so to speak, that continued reality, and on that basis I commend this bill to the House.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d just like to take a moment to respond to the member who just took her seat, Tracey McLellan, who’s praising Jacinda Ardern for her world-leading response and the fact that we have such a healthy economy. Chris Bishop and I visited, on Sunday, 25 hospo and personal service businesses in Auckland. The woman who made the comments that she did has lost everything. She’s built her business up over 25 years—a business, I should say, she wanted to leave to her staff but now is so debt ridden that nobody wants it. She was in tears telling us that she’s been robbed, that she’s been lied to, and that she will never vote for this party again. That is the legacy that this Prime Minister has left for these people who have nothing left, who’ve built these businesses over their entire lifetimes, have spent all of their savings, and have lost everything.

Now, the Prime Minister came to Auckland. She visited a business that had never shut down, then she went on a casual visit to her local cafe, which is a social enterprise that’s not even required to make money. Chris Bishop and I visited 25 businesses in a day to show what can be done when you actually care about what Auckland businesses are going through, and I can tell you the anger is palpable. They are furious because they can see that there is no plan from this Government, that they are making up things as they go along, and this bill is evidence of that, as Chris Bishop said. It was drafted at a time when we probably may still have needed managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ), but things have moved on, things have changed, and here we are embedding a system that is no longer required.

Now, to answer Mr Bishop’s question—I think it was rhetorical, but I’m going to answer it. How is it possible that we have fewer ICU beds now than we did at the beginning of the pandemic? How is that possible? Well, we can see through official Government documents that we get through information requests the answer to that question, because in a briefing to the health Minister his Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials, in an October briefing, say, “Planning is under way to ensure that the entire health system is in a position to support the Delta outbreak within New Zealand.”—planning is under way, in October. That’s why we don’t have more ICU beds, because we haven’t been able to bring in the ICU workers to man them. The evidence is in the documents, that this Government is incapable of planning and has been incapable of planning for this Delta outbreak.

We oppose this bill wholeheartedly, and I want to talk about MIQ, because there was an opportunity here in this bill today to move with the times. Now, the members opposite can say, till they’re blue in the face, “Well, things in the future will move and shift.” The time to move and shift is now. There are Kiwis, a million of them overseas, many of whom desperately need to come home. They’re either in an emergency situation where their visa’s run out or they’ve got health problems or they’ve got dying loved ones in New Zealand or they just want to come home and see the family they haven’t seen in three years. They’re COVID free, they’re double vaccinated. They are not the ones who should be taking up space in MIQ.

But here we have a bill that is perpetuating a system that might’ve been good a year ago but now needs to move with the times—now; not by the end of quarter one next year but now, because now we have people in Auckland, over 2,000 of them, with COVID who are alone at home. Maybe they get an email to check if they’re OK. Maybe they get contacted after a few days of being at home. Some of them are in situations that are not fit to be isolating in, in garages or cars or tents, and some of them are dying horrible deaths at home when they should be in either the hospital or an MIQ hotel being looked after by healthcare workers, by nurses and doctors. We had the ability in this bill for the MIQ system to be changed and shifted to look after those people, not to take fully vaccinated Kiwis who pose very little risk to us, even the cumulative risk that this Minister talks about—the cumulative risk we have is the outbreak in Auckland and around the rest of the country, because we’re not testing people properly, and I’ll get into that in a little bit.

But there is a totally perverse effect by having fully vaccinated people who do not have COVID sitting in a place where they could possibly receive healthcare when we need COVID-positive Kiwis in those facilities. It is an absolutely ridiculous thing that we are passing a bill that perpetuates the same MIQ system that we’ve had, when we need to be nimble, we need to move, we need to look at the science and the evidence, which this Government always say that they need to do but are refusing to do in this case.

We also had the opportunity in this bill to bring in things like rapid antigen testing, which is still for the most part illegal in this country. One of the best things we can do to have a mass surveillance of our country to see where COVID is popping up, and we know from tweets by the Associate Minister of Health, Ayesha Verrall, that she’s vehemently opposed it for months. I know there are some sensible Ministers across the other side of the House who know that rapid antigen testing is good, but they have listened to her, and we are now in a situation where every other country in the world has a system where you can go to your local pharmacy and, in some cases, pick up for free a box of rapid antigen tests, which you can take every day before you go somewhere, which is a wonderful tool of mass surveillance of a population to check where COVID is possibly popping up. Yet here in New Zealand, we don’t have it. We had an opportunity in this bill to allow this to happen, but nothing. We’re perpetuating a ridiculous MIQ system. We’re not allowing MIQ to change with the times.

Then the last thing I want to talk about is the stealing of laboratories, of equipment, and, actually, of staff of private businesses. The reason for this—well, members opposite will say it’s for the contingency planning. There is no reason why this Government in that contingency planning couldn’t be working with business, sitting down with them and saying, “Hey, Delta’s upon us, it’s coming. We need to employ your services. We need to rapidly push out 10,000 tests a day.”—thank you very much, Rako Science—“Can you work with us?” This Government is so estranged from business, is so offside with business, that that’s not possible any more, and I’m not surprised by the reception that we had in Auckland when we were talking to Auckland businesses. They’re so offside with businesses that that’s not possible.

So we get a bill today that says because we can’t sit down with business, we’re going to forcefully, in part of our contingency plans, give ourselves the ability to take your laboratory, to take your equipment, and to take your stuff and centralise it and use it ourselves. Well, let’s see how that goes. We wholeheartedly oppose this bill. It had the opportunity to move with the times, but, unfortunately, it was drafted such a long time ago that it is wedded to something that was required a long time ago. We opposed it first and second reading, and we will oppose it again today. Thank you.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Speaker; I appreciate it. I’m not entirely sure where to start here, so I think probably what I’ll do is I’d like to, actually, in the consideration of this bill, basically present a short review of the presentation and questions that the Health Committee had with the COVID19 Testing Technical Advisory Group, which was led by Professor Murdoch, from memory—forgive me if I have the name incorrect.

So to address the diatribe of the member opposite about rapid antigen testing, I’d just like to point out that Professor Murdoch highlighted that rapid antigen testing does indeed have its place, but the reason why it’s not been rolled out in New Zealand so far is that it has a 30 percent sensitivity rate, and what that means is that we can miss seven out of 10 positive tests—that’s what’s called a false negative; so, basically, 30 percent sensitivity. So when you’re in a period of time where it’s absolutely critical, with low case numbers, to pick up every single positive test, rapid antigen testing is not the way forward. However, I do argue that it has its place—its place, Professor Murdoch said, if you can hear me over the barracking from the other side of the House, is in a community where we have high levels of cases. And we are hoping not to be there, but we may, and we are reviewing this constantly.

The speaker opposite also seems unaware of a thing called incubation period, a time where somebody may actually be incubating a virus, not actually showing a positive test, and that’s why we’ve had the requirement for people to stay in isolation even though they may be fully vaccinated, because although it’s unusual, it happens occasionally that we do have people become infected even though they are fully immunised.

According to my calculation, 12,353 New Zealanders, from adjusted population figures, are alive today because of this Government, and I commend this bill to the House.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora. I rise on behalf of the Greens to support this bill at its final reading. In the Health Committee we were keen to maintain the health focus of the COVID response and reiterate that the Director-General of Health ensures that COVID orders are consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Delta has taught us that the old way of doing things is not cutting it now. So we accept that the new approach requires new orders, new laws, and new systems. We have to try and keep up with that. I suspect there will be many, many more orders, many more such amendments to legislation.

In terms of managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities, I’ve come to look at this as an issue of manaaki manuhiri. It is a tikanga of looking after your guest but also how those guests behave. That this tikanga plays not just at marae but at any time someone is looking after someone else speaks of generosity, thoughtfulness, and care. Thousands and thousands of New Zealanders and other visitors have come through those MIQ facilities. We want to acknowledge the border workers that are still there doing that hard work on behalf of all of us to protect that border. We, with many other people in this country, look forward to the time when those stays are much, much shorter and when we get to a point when we don’t need those facilities at all. However, for as long as they are there, however people may chafe at the restrictions they represent, that is the current way of doing this and there are certain rules associated with this. We hope that with this bill we enable the staff there to do their job properly, always with the intention that, hopefully, we will be able to phase this out sooner rather than later.

I’m willing to speak on the issue about Māori, Pasifika, iwi, and community wardens. This has been a hot topic this morning in the committee of the whole House and at question time. The nature of supervision by police of people doing those roles has been questioned at length. We note that the Minister responded to that by saying that the police have often called in other support to do their work, including the army and a range of these wardens. We’re not sure how it operates in other areas, but our wardens work very, very closely with Gisborne police. In fact, they’ve had an office in the police station for many, many years. They’re valued members of the community because they provide a really valuable service. I acknowledge all of the wardens who have given up their time over many years. They are at all of our main events. They’re often at our tangi, and just knowing they’re there helps us feel safer.

As I understand supervision, it’s not about having a police officer looking over your shoulder while you’re doing everything; it’s that the police can get on with their other work because those wardens have been trained and have been proven to be reliable. They have earned the trust of the police, and the police realise that in some cases it’s much, much better to send in the wardens, because sometimes, actually, having the police there inflames the situation and escalates the tension, and the wardens, who are part of the community and represent the community, will often calm things down. The fact is that once the border around Auckland is relaxed, and we understand that the wish is that only people who are vaccinated or who have got proof of a negative result will be travelling, we know that there’s not going to be a check of every single car leaving the region. We absolutely support people being able to catch up with their family and go out and do the things they’ve not been able to do for a long, long time. But we are very, very conscious that in places like Tai Rāwhiti, which has low vaccination rates, we are in great danger of all the other people who will be on the road and are not vaccinated, some of whom will be anti-vaxxers and will take great pleasure in exercising their ability to travel. It’s entirely possible that there will be iwi check points around Tai Rāwhiti and other parts of this country, and that’s actually a good place for the wardens to be. With these delegated authorities they can help keep things calm, make sure that things are done properly, and people can just get on with things.

As we stated in this House, the main issue for the Greens around this legislation was the imposition of greater penalties. We discussed this at length and we thank the officials who kept going back and forward to get extra information for us to make decisions around this. We support a graduated penalty setting so that the scale of the penalty is based on the scale of the breach. The justice system is, of course, quite famous for sentencing processes that disadvantage Māori and we would certainly hope that this does not happen in this case.

Finally, privacy is a key issue for the Greens. I’ve had many members of the public contact me concerned that their personal information that is being collected for contact tracing will be used for other purposes, especially by police and the justice system. The Minister has assured us it will only be used for this purpose and any breach will be an offence. I don’t know how many people were sentenced and convicted with the latest breach of the ACC information, but I’m not entirely confident that privacy is secure across all Government departments. So while we agree that anyone breaching that confidentiality should be held accountable in whatever form that is, we hope that every safeguard that is possible is in place to protect the personal information of our citizenry, because this is all of us and millions of bits of contact information are being collected every single day.

In conclusion, we support this bill and we commend it to the House. Kia ora.

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

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2), and I do so, on behalf of the ACT Party, because this bill is a sad indictment on the Government’s COVID response.

If we think of New Zealand and our position in the world, we have one of the best natural advantages against COVID-19: we’re a small island in the Pacific, but we also have low population density. We have people who, by and large, want to do the right thing and work together to stamp out COVID. We have everything working for us, but, unfortunately, the Government has been slow. It hasn’t taken a wellbeing approach to COVID, and it hasn’t tried to be forward-thinking, and it’s imposed a lot of costs on a lot of people and not taken that into consideration in wanting to progress and do the right thing.

Now, if we go back to the original bill, this is a continuation of that. Back in March last year, we had COVID come into our community, and we put in place lockdown restrictions—alert levels—to make sure that we could keep COVID out. And, by and large, most people were wanting to do the right thing, because that was the only thing we could do at the time. We had a long summer, we managed to stamp out COVID, a lot of people managed to get a lot of their freedom back and a lot of that livelihood that had been lost for many in months under a lockdown, but then, once again, we saw COVID come back into our community. And once again, everybody did the right thing. We locked down again, and we stamped it out, but the Government just got complacent. The people did the right thing and the Government didn’t.

We had about 18 months when we knew that Delta was circling us. We were hearing stories from overseas, from family members and friends living with Delta in their communities who told us that it was different to the COVID that we had initially experienced and that we needed to be ready for it. But the Government didn’t do anything. We saw no increase in ICU bed capacity. That’s a sad indictment on this Government. And, when the Government answered my written parliamentary question in October, when I asked “Has the Government heard of pulse oximeters or received any advice on them?”, the Minister said, “No, I haven’t had any advice on those.” And what’s happened now? It’s one of our greatest strategies for home care and self-isolation in the community, and it was only after this current lockdown started that the Government even started to receive advice about that. In Ontario, in Canada, they had this self-isolation method in their community for months. Other countries had picked up on that model months ago, and our Government just sat there complacently, thinking that the rules that were still in place from last year would be adequate this time round.

They didn’t think of getting vaccines in time. They thought, “Oh well, it’s all pretty lovely here. We haven’t had COVID for a while. Maybe this will just continue for us.” They didn’t actively plan, to think how they could help New Zealanders in the long term, and when vaccines finally did come, they never even thought, “Well, how can we make sure that people have access electronically to a record that says they’ve even had one?” They were so far behind the ball. But they didn’t even think of planning and preparing for the future: new technologies, rapid antigen testing. Unfortunately, Delta did get through our managed isolation and quarantine—it was only a matter of time; we couldn’t keep it out for ever—but the vaccines weren’t rolled out in time. And so what did we have to do? We had to lock down again. Businesses suffered. Families have suffered. It is a tragedy that we are still looking at that same piece of legislation and wanting to update it.

What the Government should have been doing is putting into this bill a better plan and a better way forward—things like how we incentivise people to make sure that we get our vaccine right up there. Incentives, partnerships, thinking about new ways to get those last few thousand New Zealanders vaccinated—there’s nothing about that in here. It could be about new technologies, but it’s not. There’s nothing here about rapid antigen testing and making sure that people can actually go about with a bit more freedom. This bill is about reinforcing the Government’s command and control over the people of New Zealand. And it’s extraordinary power. If you take one example, which is the ability for the Government to take over private property; I mean, that’s incredible. They’re saying that it’s important for New Zealand to be able to have testing. When you’ve got companies that have invested their time and their money and their energy, why would another company in the future decide that they want to invest their time, money, and energy in New Zealand when the Government can pass legislation to say that they’ll just take it? Where is the ambition there? Where is any faith in business? This is all about the Government commanding and controlling, and it’s outrageous. If testing is so important, then they would allow for rapid antigen testing to be in the community.

The ACT Party opposes this bill because the Government should be more ambitious. It should be more future focused, but instead it’s kind of happy with the status quo, and I think that’s heartbreaking. I’ve had people writing in to me who have been locked out of this country—people who are pregnant, who are so worried about the country that they are in that they’re beside themselves wondering when they’ll actually hear back from someone to know if they can get through the border, or will they just have to go this alone? It’s horrible. We’ve got pregnant women in New Zealand whose partners are locked out overseas, and it’s only until they take the Government to the High Court that the Government actually lets their partners through the border. I mean, that’s crazy. We have people who are missing the funerals of their family members, and they’ll never be able to get over that, because they haven’t been able to see their family members pass in peace, and I think that’s a tragedy. We have tourism businesses that are hurting. We have businesses up and down New Zealand that are hurting with COVID restrictions. We have businesses that are wanting to take on new staff and they can’t get the people that they’re wanting to recruit through the border. We have forgotten that we are a team of 6 million and not a team of 5 million, and we should allow our family members home.

This bill doesn’t allow for new technology, and we oppose the lack of planning and forward-thinking of this Government in general but, in particular, in this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Happy to take a call to follow on from what really are scare tactics and scaremongering coming from the other side of the House. This really is just an opportunity to signal to the rest of the country a continuation, in a positive sense, of the protection methods that have been put in place, because this, effectively, is a framework that will allow for things to continue to be put in place in what are clearly changing and dynamic circumstances.

This legislation before the House today authorises or gives ability to the relevant Minister to make the orders that many in this House will be familiar with: orders around border entry requirements, quarantine and isolation, testing, vaccination, and others. And so to suggest that members may not support this bill suggests that we should simply do away with any opportunity to have any of those orders, do away with any opportunity to put in place some support and some safety for our community.

I’ve noticed that often members opposite, they tend to pick and choose what it is that they want to talk about. So when I have a look at new section 32R—let’s take a look at that. If we were to look at this bill, which is, quite simply, that new section 32R seeks to remove the word “seize” in relation to possessions that are in places of managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities. That means that there would be no power of search or surveillance. In not supporting this bill, one could think that members opposite actually are quite happy for people who are going about their business, who happen to be in MIQ facilities, to be simply not subject to the protections and freedoms that others might expect in other circumstances.

So we can all pick and choose particular aspects of bills and legislation. But when we look at this as one whole, I’m delighted to be able to support it and commend it to the House.

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

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will actually begin by responding to the member who just took his seat, Tangi Utikere. Perhaps he should open his eyes and open his ears and listen to New Zealanders who are actually overseas who are stuck or can’t come back to New Zealand.

I’ll give you one example. Last year, when we went into lockdown, I had been contacted by a constituent who was actually doing business in Palau Island. He thought he would go to Palau, do exporting from New Zealand to Palau, develop businesses over there, and then COVID happened. He got stuck. Palau Island did not have any commercial flights out of Palau; he could not leave Palau. So he contacted me and I actually wrote to the Minister, thinking that, perhaps, there were some contingency plans for people, New Zealand citizens who were stuck overseas, to be able to come back to New Zealand.

Without a commercial flight out of a particular country, he could not even book a managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) slot. So the answer from that Minister, who really, obviously, cares about New Zealanders who are stuck, was “Oh, in July there are plenty of slots. He could just go and click ever single date and he could book.”! He could not get out of Palau Island, he could not go to New Zealand, for no MIQ slots were available to him. He eventually managed to get to the United States, and he’s been couch surfing at his relative’s house ever since. Every time the MIQ slot opens, he’s number 17,000, he’s number 20,000. He managed to get to the lowest number, which was actually number 8,000, I believe. I am really concerned about his mental health, his wellbeing. For the Government who apparently cares about people, New Zealanders, this Government is putting this bill—and I completely oppose it, because they have utterly shamed us all by failing in their duty to protect all New Zealanders. There should be 6 million New Zealanders, not just 5 million, and they claim to care.

I’d like to acknowledge Dr Elizabeth Kerekere, who has actually spoken about their concern, the Green Party’s concern, about data security. During the course of the committee stage, I have raised quite a lot of questions in this Chamber regarding that particular issue. There were many more questions, and I have to state that I was rather surprised and quite disappointed in the rush of the Government to shut down the debate. I was genuinely doing my bit. I wasn’t doing speeches; I was actually standing up and asking specific questions about data security, and things like: can the Minister actually explain why, when new digital vaccine certifications and past systems are actually coming up, he did not actually specifically include that in the legislation? I mean, you know, there is no forward-thinking. There is also another question: why are there no references to how the data collected is going to be destroyed? There are many questions that I wanted to ask but I didn’t get an opportunity, so I just wanted to get that on the Hansard.

I’d also like to thank my colleagues who actually stood up—the Hon Louise Upston, as well as the Hon Michael Woodhouse, who spoke in terms of the procedures, and they actually backed me up regarding my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP).

I’d also like to thank my staff. Officials get thanked, but often people in our offices don’t get thanked, and I just want to thank my assistant, who has helped me tremendously, my digital policy specialist, Matthew Stephens, who helped me draft the SOP, and I just want to say thank you to him, because he’s worked really, really hard to make sure that we actually plug the gap that the Government isn’t doing. The legislation does not go far enough to protect the digital data that is available through the COVID-19 tracer app, and I am afraid that when we look back and actually see what the Government has done, we’ll probably have to come back and fix the problem that they’re creating with this legislation.

There are many, many more examples, and, you know, one of the things that I would actually like to raise is that a young woman came up to me on the street—came up to some of us who were doing visits. She was diagnosed with cancer, she was going through chemo, and when the lockdown hit, her treatment was actually postponed. This is a cancer patient. How cruel can people actually be, and, you know, priority for people who have COVID-19 is actually prioritised over a young woman who has got cancer and was going through treatment, but she was postponed because COVID took precedence. I think that is a really, really cruel indictment of how this Government prioritises health. I completely and utterly reject this bill.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. A couple of months ago, the president of the UN General Assembly opened the annual general debate reflecting on the darkest days of the pandemic. He spoke of when cities were shuttered and vaccines still a dream, and how the world’s people came together as never before. These have been entirely unprecedented times, and here in New Zealand, we have come together. While our COVID response has its foundations in law—the Act, and soon the amendments—what we’ve achieved is something New Zealanders have done together, demonstrating the strength of our social contract. These are unusual powers being legislated for in unusual times, and they are entirely in sync with the duty of a responsible Government to weave into legislation time-bound laws of exception, to address unprecedented circumstances.

The last speaker, Melissa Lee, referred to the committee stage, where several questions were asked, and the Minister provided robust responses to those questions. He explained the overarching authority of the police in terms of the power to stop. He spoke about the existing Privacy Act protections that apply, but also the provisions of the bill, which make it clear that the data collected for contact tracing is only used for contact tracing.

He also highlighted the fact that our response hasn’t been a static one; it’s an evolving one that actively looks to what are reasonable limitations, to ensure a proportionate response as the circumstances evolve. It is why there have been changes to the managed isolation and quarantine requirements. I’m proud of our continued collective COVID response, and I commend this bill to the House.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, I think it’s an incredibly sad day that we are here debating this COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2). It’s a sad day for New Zealand that we should be looking at an extension of extraordinary powers of control which enable this Government to control people, to control businesses, to impact on our lives, to impact on the economy, and to create divisiveness in our community.

We are debating a bill that when we got it at the select committee it was out of date. It is a bill based on an elimination strategy; an extension that will carry the powers for this Government out for a further 18 months. The pessimism of that thinking is, without doubt, of enormous concern to people. There is the extension of the managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) requirements, when we should be looking at how we can have less MIQ and the ability for this Government, having not wanted to get into any partnership discussions with private laboratories, to now be able to requisition private property from those same laboratories that they ignored when they offered help.

A lot has been said by my colleagues about the MIQ situation, about there being thousands of people with COVID now isolating at home, while at the same time in MIQ we have 34 people with COVID. We have thousands of people wanting to use our MIQ facilities and not being able to. Some of the speakers have talked about the opinions from professors on these MIQ facilities, but actually, I just want to talk about ordinary people like me who judge things on common sense and reasonableness and logic. I want to look at three examples that I have talked about previously, but they are really important examples.

In August this year, our head of obstetrics at Invercargill hospital had to return to the States, because his mother had sadly died and his father was very terminally ill. So the district health board allowed him leave to go home, thinking that, as a talented senior clinician who was absolutely critical to the care of our expectant mothers, he would be allowed back in through the critical worker MIQ allocations. It took three applications and Joseph Mooney and myself embarrassing the Minister publicly with an open letter in the media for him to get a place to be able to return to his work after gaining an MIQ place.

I look at our GPs, our rural GPs and our wonderful nurse practitioners out trying to keep rural practices going, looking after and caring for our people out in the rural areas who cannot get a locum to come in and support their work because they cannot get them through the MIQ process.

I look at an ICU nurse in Invercargill, a recent migrant, who we were very keen to keep in Invercargill. Her partner was an engineer in Sydney and was keen to come over and join her, so we were going to get two for the price of one: a wonderfully valuable ICU nurse and a much-needed engineer. He couldn’t get through the MIQ system, so she has gone to Sydney to join him.

Now, I want to apply the common sense and reasonableness and logic situation there. Let’s look: that incredibly talented, incredibly important senior clinician who runs the head of obstetrics in Invercargill, was he capable of being able to self-isolate at home? Let’s compare him to the gang member with COVID self-isolating at home. The senior clinician who was double-vaccinated, who had tested negative—weigh him up against the member who may not have always followed the rules and regulations of New Zealand society. He was enabled to isolate at home but not that senior clinician.

So I think that the Government is over-reaching with this amendment bill. I think people are sick of being told what to do and when to do it. They are sick of announcements about announcements. They are tired of being treated as though each of us are unable or incapable of thinking and acting in a responsible manner; that only the Government knows best. And we have seen so much of this from this Government: that only the Government should control things, that only the Government knows best.

Before I became a politician, I used to say to politicians that the trouble is politicians surround themselves with people who tell them what they want to hear, not what they need to hear, and I think this Government has been listening to people telling them what they want to hear. They haven’t been out listening to the people running hospitality businesses in Auckland. They haven’t been down in Te Ānau or Queenstown, listening to the people running tourism businesses, or rather, the very few of them that did come down didn’t listen; they just told our business people to pivot. One day we’ll ask what they mean about that. So I think that the people of New Zealand are tired of being treated like children. They are tired of this Government thinking they will tell them what they must do and when they must do it.

We heard that businesses in Auckland feel like they are not being listened to. We heard of the Auckland businesswoman who is losing everything: has lost the reserves that she has built up, has lost the ability to be able to hand her business eventually on to her staff, has lost her will to carry on running a business. She said she feels like she is just collateral damage from the Prime Minister’s legacy project. Well, much as I sympathise with that Auckland business owner, and I do genuinely sympathise with that Auckland business owner because I’ve had enough hospitality business people coming to me, saying how heartbreaking their situation is, I actually think that she’s wrong. I don’t think that it is just her that is the collateral damage from the Prime Minister’s legacy project. I think that it is the whole of New Zealand that is suffering as collateral damage. I think it is the generations to come that are going to have to pay for the vanity of this Government that did not do its work, that did not play its role in getting the vaccinations out, in getting the ICU beds ready, in getting our country prepared for this Delta outbreak, and therefore they must take total and complete responsibility for the huge amount of debt that they are handing on as a legacy to the generations of New Zealanders who are going to have to continue paying this off for their lifetime because of the vanity of this Government and the Prime Minister’s legacy project. Thank you, Madam Speaker. This party opposes the amendment bill.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): That was rich—that was rich—for the Opposition to stand there and tell us that this is a legacy project of the Prime Minister. I’ll tell you what this is: this is a public health response to a global pandemic. And if there’s one thing that I’ve heard time and time again, it is, “Thank God the National Party aren’t running this country.” Thank God they haven’t taken over the reins, because they would have tightened their belts. They would have made sure that everybody was walking in misery, that we would have had that record high unemployment that was predicted at the start of this pandemic. We were talking about 25 percent unemployment rates, but we’ve completely turned that around because we’ve taken a people-first approach. We’ve taken a public health approach.

The previous speaker, Penny Simmonds, got up and talked about how the Government thinks that it knows best, and do you know what? There’s a little bit of that that’s true, but what we need to point out is that the Government is elected to lead, and that’s exactly what we’ve been doing. I’m pretty sure that the Prime Minister would prefer not to be going through a global pandemic right now. I’m pretty sure that the Minister of the COVID response would prefer not to be inundated with COVID-19 issues. I’m pretty sure that he’d like to focus on education, which is actually a huge thing in New Zealand and needs lots of support. But we’ve been landed with this, so we as a Government must lead and that’s why the people voted for us last year. That’s why they continue to have faith in our approach, which is a people-first approach.

We have to make those tough decisions—that’s right—because there’s no playbook. We didn’t know that this was happening, but what we’ve done is we’ve trusted our instincts, we’ve gone out there, we’ve spoken to the people on the ground, and we’ve had to make some tough decisions. Of course, we’ve had to make some tough decisions. And I congratulate all of our Ministers who have put their shoulders to the wheel to make sure that this bill, in particular, is an extension of the good work that we’ve gone and done. So on behalf of all of the rational people out there across New Zealand, I completely support this bill.

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 45

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2)

Third Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I present a legislative statement on the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2).

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

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.

This is a drug harm reduction bill. It is about people being kept safe. People who might use substances—even illicit substances—and they’re not sure of the true nature of that substance will now have the opportunity to have that substance checked without putting themselves at legal risk, without putting the host of the event they’re at at legal risk, and without putting any drug-testing service at legal risk.

We know that there are people in our community, a lot of young people, who may experiment with drugs and illicit substances—they do that; that is a fact of life—and many are taking a risk in doing so. Many purchase those substances from sources, the integrity of which cannot be assured. Therefore, it is important that if they are experimenting and if they are taking these substances, we do what we can to keep them safe. So this bill sets up a regime now. It’s sort of a continuation, but a refined and an improved version, of what we legislated for, roughly a year ago, on an interim basis. So that will now become permanent.

The regime is that the Director-General of Health can now issue licences for services who meet certain conditions to receive a licence to offer drug-checking services. Once a licence is granted and one of those licence holders runs a drug-checking service, there are conditions that they have to meet, and one of those conditions was actually usefully inserted through the select committee process, and that is that they are required to provide harm reduction information—educative material—at a time that a person surrenders substances to be tested and/or when those substances are handed back. So this addresses a need that is in the community.

When we set this up on a temporary basis about a year ago, it was very much targeted at the summer music festival sort of market and the orientation week sort of market, but the reality is that these services needed to be available to some members of the community who are users of substances, but who are not attenders of music festivals and orientation weeks—people who might live on the streets or people who live in constrained or deprived circumstances, but who are users of these substances. So we needed to make sure—and this legislation will allow it—that services are to be available to those people.

There will be members in this House who will remember the synthetic cannabis crisis, or crises, that we’ve experienced, where there were substances parading as cannabis, but sprayed with other substances. People were consuming them not knowing what they were consuming and in some cases dying, but in many cases putting their health severely at risk. So this gives us a chance to prevent that sort of harm from happening once these sorts of services are set up.

By doing this, we are joining a number of countries around the world. There are some countries in Europe who have been doing this for decades. We join that group of countries who focus, not on some sort of a moral judgment about a person who uses illicit substances, but on what it takes to keep them safe, and also on what it takes to create an opportunity to educate somebody who would use these substances and otherwise put themselves in harm’s way. So this allows that sort of regime to be put in place.

Now, it was interesting in the debates in the House how some members—particularly opposite—try to inveigh these kinds of moral concerns, as in “Isn’t this just a licence for gangs?” and “Won’t these services be set up in front of schools?” Of course, the answer to both those questions is no, but, you know, we can predict it’ll be trotted out this afternoon because they don’t have much to go on at the moment, and trying to beat those old, moralistic drums to try and stir up some old-fashioned sentiment, I suppose, goes down well in some tearooms for some folks. But, actually, most of New Zealand wants to know that young people going through the ordinary vicissitudes of life—which includes, for some young people, experimenting with drugs and substances—can be kept safe. That’s what New Zealanders mainly want, and they want a regime to do that and this will allow that to happen.

The Government has indicated that it will provide some financial support—$800,000—for those organisations offering these sorts of services. That $800,000 will be used for training people who would be carrying out these services, and also for the creation and preparation of some educative material to go with it.

So this is an important step. It’s an important part of the panoply of protective measures that you would expect in a health system that thinks beyond just rescuing people when they are sick or unwell or harmed, but is actually trying to prevent un-wellness and trying to prevent harm in the first place, and that’s what this bill does. So, on that note, I commend the bill to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Isn’t it funny that the Minister rolls out—and I’ve heard this phrase used many, many times before, and I enjoyed it when I had the justice portfolio and I marked off the Minister. I want to acknowledge him, because he is bringing this bill to the House because he does have a genuine desire, without a doubt, like we all do, to make young people and people that use drugs—if they are going to use them, let’s try to make it as safe as possible. I get that. But he has to come out with a statement like, you know, “You’re going to hear from the National Party the same old moralistic, tough on crime - type rhetoric.” Well, the last time I heard that was when we were debating the huge increase in gang numbers in this country about three years ago. And we got told the same thing—the “moralistic National Party, tough on crime. Boring! Rolling out the same old story.”

Hon Andrew Little: I wasn’t referring to that member.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, actually, if we fast forward to today, we’ve got a massive problem with gang numbers and firearm violence on the streets, so maybe it’d be a good idea just sometimes to listen to this side of the House. We’ve actually given you a lot of guidance and pointed you in the right direction, but you never seem to be very open to actually taking their advice.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Not the Speaker. Order! Not the Speaker. The member will not bring the Speaker into the debate.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, you’re right. Sorry, Madam Speaker. So, look, I haven’t sat on the committee that’s been dealing with this bill, the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2), but I was aware of it. Certainly, I hold a very privileged position of being the MP for Whangaparāoa, and what that means is that I’m heavily involved in my community. Very proud to be the patron of our local surf club, the Ōrewa Surf Club, involved in the training of some of our youth there, and my kids, of course, patrol and compete. So I get to talk to a lot of young people, and I’ll tell you one event that the young people of my electorate love going to, and that’s Rhythm and Vines—very, very popular with them.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I wonder if it’s going to happen this year.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah, well, that’s right. There’s not a high level of confidence amongst them that it will, because they’ve figured out very quickly—Mr Woodhouse brings up a very good point. They’ve figured out very quickly that this Government’s let them down and they’re not going to get to the Rhythm and Vines.

But the feedback that I get from them around this is because they rolled this out—he’s right. They rolled this out last year and it was at Rhythm and Vines. And the one thing that I would have liked to have heard from the Minister is some science and some data and some stats around just how successful this policy was last year, because that is lacking in this debate. When you lean back into it and you say, “Well, we’re going to roll this out, because, scientifically, the data shows that it’s going to reduce harm and it’s going to stop deaths.”, then you’ve got to be able to come to this House and back it up. The Government has failed to do that.

But the feedback from the young people was this: you know, we sort of come to this House and we’ve got phrases that we use, we’re very parliamentary, and we kind of operate and live in our own bubble down here. That’s important. We pay a lot of attention to the detail around legislation. That’s important; that’s our job. But actually, we’re legislating here for a bunch of people that—are we actually talking to them? Are we getting their feedback? Because I can tell you right now the feedback from the young people in my electorate is, quite simply, this, on the face of it: “Oh, yeah, you know, doesn’t sound like a bad idea. It’s a bit of a laugh.” They think that the pollies are endorsing the use of party pills and drugs. So, you know, that sort of diminishes the seriousness around it and the fact that, actually, they’re breaking the law and that we don’t want them using drugs, we don’t want them taking drugs.

Kieran McAnulty was in the House, and I thought he made a very good contribution around drugs a couple of weeks ago, where he was very clear. He got up and he said, “I have not taken drugs, I will not take drugs, and I don’t want my friends taking drugs because I know the harm that they do.” He was right and he took a principled stand on that. So what we should be saying in this House is exactly the same thing. The signal that we should be sending from this Parliament and this House is exactly that message: you shouldn’t be taking drugs, your friends shouldn’t be taking drugs—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Could that member put their mask back on, thank you.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: And that should be a very clear and succinct message that comes from this House. Instead, we’re sending a confused and a muddled message.

And, by the way, this legislation, from what I’ve read, it’s confused and it’s muddled. The Minister says that he wants to prevent harm, that we want to stop young people from taking drugs when they don’t know what’s in them. Well, let me, first of all, be very clear. MDMA, whether or not there’s a bit of rat poison in there or not, is a dangerous, harmful drug that can kill, right? So that’s where we’re starting from. But then what they do, and correct me if I’m wrong; the next speaker can stand up and correct me. Like I said to you, I admit I’m not completely across the detail of this bill. Correct me if I’m wrong: a young person or any person actually attending Rhythm and Vines—by the way, I don’t know how you de-conflict the fact that the promoters and the runners of Rhythm and Vines say that this is a drug-free concert or event, and then you have people testing drugs for people that are attending. I’m not sure how you de-conflict that.

But the people come up, they hand their drugs over, they get tested. They may have rat poison in them. Rat poison can be harmful, I’m sure, especially in large quantities. But the MDMA present in there is even more harmful. And so what do they do? They don’t take them off them, Minister, because if you want to stop the harm at that point, you should confiscate the drugs. Would that be right? If we’re being logical about this and you want to legislate for it, and you want to do it—if you want to prevent harm to those people, then we should take the drugs off them. We should say, “These are harmful. You could die. You could overdose. We’re going to take them off you.” What do we do? We give them back to the people.

And do you know what? There was a joke down at Rhythm and Vines amongst the young people, the ones that we’re trying to target, they were laughing and joking about it, that the people that could be bothered queuing—because, apparently, there were big queues because they were curious. There was a curiosity factor. They wanted to know what they’d paid for, what was in it. But they were all comparing. They were excited. They wanted to see what the additives were and what was there. The reason why the Minister hasn’t stood up and given us any data or science on how effective it’s been is because they’re taking the pills back. They’re using them.

Hon Andrew Little: Three-quarters changed their conduct.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Three-quarters changed their conduct.

Hon Andrew Little: Changed their behaviour.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I’d like to see the data. I’d like to see the data sitting behind that, Minister.

Simeon Brown: Seventy percent said they’d still take it.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: That’s right, and that’s what’s happening, Minister. What you guys have inadvertently done is, number one, you’ve sent a message out to young people and concert-goers and festival-goers that, actually, the Parliament thinks that it’s OK. And the reason why they see that, young people see that, is because we’re putting laws in place that allow them to test their drugs. So they think the pollies—they think we’re saying and the leaders of the country are saying, “Actually, there’s a soft endorsement for that. You take your drugs. We’ll test them. Go into the festival and you can take them.” Then they’re arriving to have these drugs tested because we’re trying to prevent the harm, and then getting them tested because they’re curious—predominately curious to know what’s in them—and then they’re taking the pills back and they’re going into the festival and they’re using them.

So, Minister, stand up and show us. I can tell you one thing: the feedback that I got, and I had lots—I had my nephews and nieces, I had my kids, I had guys’ kids from the first XV that I help coach, I had kids from the Ōrewa Surf Club, all right through my electorate, they all descended on the festivals, whether it be up in Mangawhai or down in Gisborne. All of them—all of them—were not talking about the fact that this measure had stopped young people taking drugs or it had flagged up how dangerous they were and they shouldn’t be using them, and they shouldn’t be buying them. It didn’t have that impact at all, Minister. In fact, what they were talking about is the deaths and the kids that disappeared and couldn’t be found because of the drug use, and the increased levels of harm and violence because of drug use.

If we want to get serious about it as a Parliament, if we want to try and stop that—I agree with you, Minister, education is a big part of it—actually, what we should be doing as a Parliament is we should be sending a very clear and succinct message in saying, “These drugs are illegal, they are harmful, they will kill, and you should not be taking them.” Mr McAnulty, in a very powerful speech a few weeks ago, said, “I will not take them. I do not want my friends taking them. They kill. They’re harmful. They hurt.” And if we stand—

Kieran McAnulty: Let’s test them.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: So let’s test them. For what point, Mr McAnulty? Stand up and take a call and give me the data, give me the evidence, and show me, because the feedback that I’ve had is that young people are laughing at it. They’re not bothering queuing. If they are, they’re curious. They want to see what’s in their drugs. That’s great. They’re taking them back. They’re going into the concerts, they’re having a bit of a laugh about it—“Mine’s got … ”—and they’re using the pills. So if you’re genuine about stopping harm, then you should be actually at that point taking the pills off them.

Kieran McAnulty: Sure, and it’s their fault, then, is it?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Answer me one question. Why are they giving them back?

Kieran McAnulty: Will the member yield?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Why are they getting them back?

Kieran McAnulty: Will the member yield, and I’ll ask a question.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! [Interruption] Order! Order! With apologies to the member—

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Take a call—sorry, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): This is a—[Interruption] No. This is a robust debate, but I would ask members if they wish to make a point of order or take a call, they rise to their feet and seek one. This across the House exchange is not benefiting the quality of this debate at all.

Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. I 100 percent agree with you. However, in this particular instance, I was asking the member if he would yield, which is allowed in the Standing Orders. I can’t do that on my feet, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): OK, thank you. Thank you for that.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would have been happy to yield, but, sadly, I’ve come to the end of my time. But this is bad legislation. It shouldn’t have been brought into the House and we oppose it.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Gosh, where to start? The member who’s just resumed his seat, Mark Mitchell, said, on several occasions, to correct him if he’s wrong. He most certainly is, and it’s a shame that he didn’t pay attention to—this is the third reading of this bill. It’s a shame he didn’t pay attention throughout the process, and he may have been able to educate himself a little bit more about the data, although I do note that the information that he offered in exchange was all anecdotal from his extended family, so good on him.

He might like to reconcile that with the fact that—you know, as has already been discussed in the various iterations of these readings—three quarters of people do change their behaviour when they’re presented with the fact that their MDMA has rat poison in it. In fact, I would defy anybody to say it’s completely illogical for people to, you know, consume and to carry on in their way.

Anyhow, summer is fast approaching, and it’s probably going to be rather an unusual summer in so far as it follows a period of lockdown and two years of global uncertainty. But, across the country, there’s going to be an array of music festivals, celebrations, and events planned. Although we absolutely do not condone recreational drug use, it would be completely naive to think that this broad reopening isn’t going to result in young people, in particular, taking these drugs. All good legislation should try and identify a problem and address something that’s an important issue, and this does. Increasingly punitive measures simply don’t work and all of the research shows that. When it comes to recreational drug use, a move towards a health-based approach, providing information—which this bill makes explicit; the need to be able to provide people with the correct information and offering support—is the key to actual harm reduction. This is an extremely sensible piece of legislation, and it’s fantastic that it has been progressed with speed and without complication to its third reading stage. It’s been a real privilege to consider, debate, and now, for the final time, I commend this bill to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the third reading of this Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2). I just want to start by reminding people in the House, and those listening at home, that this bill started last year, after the election, and we first had the piece of legislation which temporarily allowed for these drug-checking services to be provided over summer—because it was all just about “We would like to have the opportunity for young New Zealanders who go to music festivals to have their drugs checked at music festivals.” Well, that’s not what we’re talking about here today. This is a much, much wider piece of legislation. It’s a piece of legislation which allows for these services to operate at a much wider variety of places—in fact, with very few limitations—and I think that is a point which many New Zealanders would be very, very concerned about. And it sends the wrong message. It sends a very wrong message about what this Parliament considers in regards to illicit drug use in New Zealand.

We’ve heard my very good colleague Mark Mitchell talk about the evidence, which is very clear, around what this legislation will do—and the false hope that it will give to young people around what is in the substances that are being checked. The only one piece of evidence—the only one piece of evidence—which the Government members have been able to point to, to try and argue the fact that this will make things safer for young people using drugs, is a self-selected study put out by the University of Victoria, where they asked people to fill out a survey. They literally went and put a survey on Facebook and said, “If you’ve used substances recently, we’d love you to fill out this survey.” And then the University of Victoria has put out a self-selected survey, which has come up with some so-called evidence, which they’re basing all of the arguments on, all of the arguments about how this is going to make things safer for young people. But, when you actually dig into the detail of that survey, firstly, you can disregard it for the fact that it’s not scientific; it’s, basically, junk science with a self-selected bias. But, if you dig into it and you look at the questions which were asked around whether or not people would continue to use the drugs even if they were found to have substances in it that they didn’t expect, about 80 to 90 percent of people said they’d still use them—80 to 90 percent of people would still use those substances even if they went through the drug-checking service and were told, “Look, yep, your MDMA has also been mixed with some rat poison. And here it is. We’ll hand it back.”—80 to 90 percent. So, if you think you’re actually solving a problem here, all you’re doing is you’re giving false hope to young people.

If this legislation was actually about creating a safer environment for those people who choose to use those drugs, why does the legislation not require the drug-checking service people, if there’s a substance, if some young person comes along and says, “Look, I’ve got these pills. I was told they’re MDMA. I just want to have them checked to make sure before I take them.”—put them through the machine and it comes out and says, “Actually, you’ve got a dud. It’s a bit of MDMA; it’s a bit of rat poison.”—shouldn’t the bill say that those drugs should be confiscated? If it’s about reducing harm, wouldn’t it make sense to actually say, “Hey, hey, hey, we’re taking those back off you because of the fact they’re not what you expected of them.” And, actually, the safest thing to do, particularly in light of the fact there’s an 80 percent chance that person is going to go and use them anyway, is you take them off that young person. But this piece of legislation does not do that.

And the other fact that this piece of legislation ignores is that, in the vast majority of cases where people have lost their lives tragically because of use of MDMA substances, it’s not because of some rat poison. When the coroner goes and does the investigation, it’s actually the MDMA which is doing the killing. And there’s a study done by the University of New South Wales which looked across 16 years, I think it was, of cases in New South Wales, coronial examinations of the cause of death, and found what the cause of death was in a drug overdose case, and it was not some impurity in those substances; it was actually the use of those substances. And so, again, we’re giving false hope to our young people about the use of these drugs, which I think is very, very concerning.

As I said earlier, it’s not just now about music festivals, which was where this all started; it’s now about whether it’s at your university campus, or whether it’s K Road—I think that example was used in one of the debates—but it doesn’t limit it. There’s no limitation to say, “Actually, we know young people, you know, hang out around the school gate at high schools quite often, and drug dealers come.” If you talk to principals at a number of schools, this is quite a big deal. Well, there’s nothing to say that this service couldn’t be offered outside the school as well. That’s something that I know many, many parents would be incredibly concerned about.

But there’s other problems in this piece of legislation too. There’s no restrictions on who can be doing the drug-checking service. And my colleague Penny Simmonds, the MP for Invercargill, asked a very good question of the Minister earlier this week, and a very simple question, which was: can a gang member get the licence to undertake drug-checking services? And he couldn’t answer the question because the answer is: a gang member can. We know gang members are peddling drugs and peddling misery up and down New Zealand.

Hon Andrew Little: The member should have read the bill.

SIMEON BROWN: Well, the Minister didn’t even answer the question—the Minister didn’t answer the question. They are not explicitly excluded under this piece of legislation from being able to operate a drug-checking service. If the Minister was concerned about it, he would make it crystal clear that someone who is a gang member cannot be operating a drug-checking service under this piece of legislation.

What about people who’ve got convictions under the legislation regarding drugs in New Zealand as well? There’s no restriction on them as well. This is something which is of significant concern to New Zealanders, and if the Minister wanted to be clear about those facts, he would have put it in his initial statement. He would have put it in the legislation. He would have answered the question last week which he failed to answer for Penny Simmonds.

There’s other issues in regards to how this operates as well. I’ve talked about where these operations can happen. I’ve talked about who can operate these operations, but also it’s in terms of the whole process and the regulations. There’s a whole lot of regulations which will have to come from this legislation, and I’m assuming that’s where the Minister’s suggesting a whole lot of these regulations will actually happen. If it’s so important, put it in the primary legislation—if it’s actually that important, put it in the primary legislation. Don’t hope it ends up in the regulation. If something is as important as that, it needs to be in the actual legislation, in the letter of the law that this Parliament is sending, and making it very, very crystal clear.

The other point I’d like to raise in regards to this is around the process through which these drug-checking services—so if a gang member wants to get their drugs checked, there’s no restriction on him then going out there and saying, “Oh, look, I’ve checked my substances with the KnowYourStuff people down the road at K Road. So if you buy from me, you can know I’m selling the good stuff.” Well, that’s not exactly what we want to see in New Zealand either, because, actually, we’ve got a situation where we know we’ve got gangs peddling misery and peddling drugs. They’re the ones who are often the supply chain for these substances, and this piece of legislation doesn’t put any limitations in place and this opens up significant risk around how they are going to be marketing their substances and using their substances out there in the community.

So, in conclusion, this piece of legislation does not leave our young people any safer. It will be giving them a very false sense of security, a false sense of hope. If this legislation was really about protecting young people, it would be sending a much clearer message and it would at least—at least—be saying, “If there was a contaminant in those substances, those drugs should be confiscated.” But that’s not on this piece of legislation. The National Party cannot support legislation which sends a soft-on-drugs message. The soft peddling of illicit substances in New Zealand is something we cannot support. We do not commend this bill to the House.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to stand for the third reading for this excellent bill. Before I go any further, I just wanted to say that, whilst I hold Mr Mitchell in high esteem, he and I probably would count among the members of this House who may possibly not be as connected with young people as we’d like to think. And I say that because the young people that Mr Mitchell was talking about have actually shown confidence in this Government to the point where the December 31 festival pass is sold out. So maybe not quite as connected as you hope.

But I just wanted to say that our starting point is, here on this side of the House, and our end point is that the safest option is always, always not to take the substance. But the reality is that some people will, and, like our excellent needle exchange programmes which did actually visit quite a few of the pearl-clutching opposition arguments that we’re hearing today, this is a pragmatic piece of legislation that will substantially reduce harm. I highly commend it to the House.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora. Today, I rise to speak on behalf of my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick, who has actively worked with community and in the Health Committee to progress this bill to this point. With great disappointment that she is not here, I would like to thank some people on her behalf—and I quote—“Holly Donald; Ralph Hall; Wendy Allison; Jez Weston; KnowYourStuff volunteers; Fiona Hudson and her post-grad field students; the brains behind Splore Festival; Ross Bell; Kali”—aroha mai if that’s incorrect—“Mercer; Sarah Helm; Gary, who without COVID restrictions would be sitting up there in the gallery in his weed suit; Dakta; the 6,000 people who signed our petition; and Ministers Nash, Little, and Clark, who used their political will to make this happen. There’s so much more to do, but this is a crucial victory for drug harm reduction.”

We note this omnibus bill amends several of our current laws and it allows the Director-General of Health to allow certain providers to be gazetted. So not an ad hoc system; a very organised system to operate these drug-checking services legally so they can operate with legal certainty and they cannot be prosecuted. It enables them to maintain the privacy of those who check, because in the same way that people will not line up for a very, very long time to have their drugs taken off them, they also don’t want their personal details being used anywhere else.

Importantly, it is funded. We note that any investment in prevention, in this and all other manner of health measures, it not only supports that harm reduction approach—but it saves money—but it reduces the pressure on our already overwhelmed health and mental health systems.

The Greens have a long whakapapa of campaigning to improve the laws around drug and substance use in this country, including to legalise cannabis for medicinal and recreational purposes, and in supporting the Government last year addressing the synthetic crisis. We acknowledge the work of Green MPs: the legendary Nandor Tanczos, Metiria Turei, Kevin Hague, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, and, of course, Chlöe Swarbrick herself.

The Greens policy commits us to supporting measures to enhance people’s capacity for informed choice, which is what drug checking does. It also says that we make decisions and we build our policies on evidence and science, actual research that’s beyond asking people’s opinions or refuting the finds of peer reviewed reports from universities. We know from the research, then, including from KnowYourStuff and the Drug Foundation, that, consistently, people will change their drug behaviours and be less risky when they know what that substance is. That’s the core of the bill, that we support making sure that these predominantly young people make good decisions based on good information without being judged or penalised, because this bill is not about whether young people will take drugs or not—they will.

I am also a person who has never taken drugs. I’ve never smoked anything, and I understand that I’m an unusual person in that regard. I’m not going to judge our whānau or any other person for their choices. I want to help, though. I want to make sure they have the information they need to make good choices and make sure we have a health system that’s going to look after them no matter what. I agree that this focus on just our summer festivals and the things that are happening is not enough. It doesn’t address the more problematic drug issues that are happening in, particularly, our lower-income communities of colour. But we always look for solutions, then, that look at health, education, housing, and social issues that affect our communities and look for solutions based, again, on evidence but on local community insight. There are many organisations out there who are very, very skilled, very knowledgeable, in these areas, and they’re working hard in their local communities. We welcome the recommendations of He Ara Oranga that recommended decriminalising users, and Turuki! Turuki!, which went even further and suggested legally regulating certain substances.

I was very heartened to hear my colleague Dr McLellan just before say that the punitive approach doesn’t always work. I look forward to having further conversations on that, because that’s certainly a Green way of looking at things.

To conclude, this is a world-class framework for drug checking. It needs to be applied to more places than festivals. We hope to see this compassionate, non-judgmental nature applied in other circumstances, especially where there are young people and regardless of where they come from or whether they can afford to go to these festivals or not—along with a complete restructure of our health and mental health systems. We look forward to the overhaul of the Misuse of Drugs Act. We see this as a springboard to decriminalise, starting with cannabis and then moving into more detail for other things. But for now, thank you. We commend this bill to the House.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party this afternoon in support of the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2). There are two clear arguments that have been made about this particular legislation—one that’s for it, and one that’s against it. The first argument is that changing the status quo will increase risk and increase harm to our young New Zealanders. The alternative view is that the status quo isn’t acceptable, and by changing it, we will reduce harm and reduce risk for our young population.

Now, there are credible arguments on both sides, but the ACT Party takes the view that we should ask a simple question, and that is: should Parliament prohibit people voluntarily wanting to help each other in New Zealand? We say that we shouldn’t prohibit that. That’s what this bill is about—it’s about volunteer organisations wanting to create a safer country for each other. So when you take those two arguments, we fall on the side that informed choice is better, that the status quo is not acceptable and that it could be better.

That’s because we understand the reality that young people, every summer, do go off to festivals. There are young people who take risks, and we don’t believe that one episode in someone’s life of maybe wanting to rebel from their parents and have fun for a summer should impact their entire lives. We believe that if they are going to make a choice that their parents might not agree with that they should have informed choice, because that is a safer reality for our young New Zealanders. We know, every summer, that people do go off to festivals, and parents want to provide their children with support and advice from a young age about what is the right thing to do.

You know, we tell kids, “Don’t take things from strangers.” I’ve had this imprinted on my mind since I was a little girl that if anybody offered me something, I shouldn’t take it, but people do. You know, people grow up and they think, “I’m invincible. I’m just going to take this thing. It can’t possibly be me that will be adversely affected by this.” I think we should allow for people to have an informed choice so that they don’t ruin the rest of their lives by taking something that they didn’t expect to be taking.

We also know that there are parents out there that instil in their children that they shouldn’t take drugs, and it doesn’t really matter to a child growing up whether or not they’ve been given as much advice as possible about the adverse effects of drugs. Some kids do just grow up thinking, “This summer, I’m going off with my friends and I’m wanting to be an adult and I’m wanting to have fun.”, and they might make a decision that would not be supported by their parents. But people do have to acknowledge that that is a reality.

We want to make New Zealand a safer place for our young people. So the ACT Party is supporting this bill, because we know that young people go off to festivals every summer. We want to make sure that adverse effects, that risks and harm are minimised as much as possible for the people who might be taking those drugs. This bill is about allowing volunteers to help New Zealanders keep other New Zealanders safe. For that reason, we commend it to the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Madam Speaker. I’m happy to follow the member, Brooke van Velden, and her party in support of this bill. At second reading, I indicated that I joined the Health Committee at the tail end of this consideration, but the number of changes that have emerged through the committee of the whole House process has made this particular bill, I think, better than at the start of the process, given the conversations that have taken place.

I have read the bill, and I did wonder whether Mr Brown had taken the opportunity to read the bill, because there seemed to be a lot of conversation and monologue—which turns out, I suggest, to be absolute nonsense—around the suggestion that the gangs would suddenly set up and head down to the local service provider and, effectively, make use of that. If Mr Brown had looked at the bill, I would draw his attention to the new section that’s proposed to be inserted, which is 35DA, and it says there: “The Director-General of Health may licence drug and substance checking service providers under Schedule 6.”, which outlines the criteria.

So it’s very clear that there is a requirement for the director-general to provide the authorisation in terms of the licensing capacity and ability for those that would undertake the service. So if Mr Brown had looked at the bill, he wouldn’t have had to waste the House’s time, actually, hypothesising around that particular question.

What’s really important, I think, in terms of this legislation, is that it acknowledges the level of service of those who would be providing this particular service to members of the community. It does, in terms of timing, flow on from the temporary regime and approach to the 2020-21 summer period. As we’ve heard, the empirical data indicates that 75 percent of people who have availed themselves of this opportunity have changed their mind, and that alone is a great basis to be able to support this bill. I commend it to the House.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): Look, it’s a pleasure to take a short call on this third reading of the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2). I want to rise and say that we continue to oppose the bill for the reasons that have been outlined by my colleagues over previous debates. And I have to say upfront that I agree with my colleagues that Andrew Little is, in fact, a very well-intentioned person and Minister. I personally respect him a lot. I think he’s a good person. I also appreciate the work of the select committee. I haven’t been a member of that committee but obviously there’s been work that’s gone on to make a bad bill slightly better, and that’s probably a good thing as a parliamentarian. But, ultimately, as we’ve talked about, we are opposing it really for several reasons. I think my colleagues have spoken very well about that. I think it’s been very unfair the way the other side have picked on Mark Mitchell in particular. He is actually quite cool. He’s actually down with the kids, and I just thought that was a bit mean if I’m really honest with you. But anyway, we’ll get into that.

Chris Bishop: You’re not allowed to mislead the House! That’s against the Standing Orders.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Ha, ha! Sorry, I withdraw and apologise. I have misled the House! And I’ll get back, as you said.

The first real reason I’d like to say is that it’s actually a little bit too broad. I mean the thought going into this process was that it was going to be limited to summer music festivals; that was all the go, that was what we were being led to believe. But, in some ways, we’ve sort of been a bit misled, it feels, because we’re now legalising pills everywhere and anywhere, and with very few limitations, fundamentally. And you’ve got mobile checking services roaming around, going to playgrounds and small rural towns and bars near you anywhere across the country. We need to probably specify what exactly the purpose was for festivals and maybe some other locations in this legislation, but that actually hasn’t happened here. So what started off as a very narrow scope has ended up being, I think, just way too broad.

The second thing, and a lot of colleagues have spoken about this before from our side of the House, talking about just the inconclusive evidence that exists. The evidence that it contributes to harm reduction is inconclusive. I mean, the one study using the self-selected sample is a real problem. And, I guess, the question for me is: why wouldn’t the Government take the time to get the evidence that it needs to make the case to the New Zealand people that there is, in fact, going to be reassurance that it won’t, in fact, drive consumption? I think that’s been really important. And it’s a good thing to be able to do, to be able to find the evidence, make the case, take people with you, and get them on board with what they’re doing.

Meanwhile, Government says it’s about people making smart—we’ll get to that in a minute, because Government says it’s about people making much smarter choices, but let’s be really clear: there’s no smart choices when you’re deciding to partake of MDMA; that’s a really dumb decision, and it leads to, actually, this false confidence to take MDMA and it kills people. And that’s the bottom line of this. It’s not the additives, it’s actually the drug itself that’s the problem, and it causes some serious issues. And the medical folk on the other side will understand it: it causes respiratory depression, it causes cardiac arrhythmia, it causes coma, and it increases the risk of sudden death.

I think there were some comments made by my colleagues Mark Mitchell, firstly, and Simeon Brown, which I thought they made two good points in their recent discussions. Mr Mitchell’s point was really about not making sure that we don’t give the drugs back. If they’ve been tested and they’ve got bad stuff in them, why do we hand them back? If we’re really serious about avoiding those deaths that we just talked about, then why do we actually give them back? And, in many ways, the risk that KnowYourStuff actually becomes a marketing endorsement for criminal activity, and then those results cannot be used or are inadmissible in court, I think is a big, big problem. I used to work at a place called Unilever in Pētone, and we used to go get endorsements for Persil laundry detergent from Fisher & Paykel washing machines, and said, “These things will be really good for you.” In many ways, that’s the same kind of process here: it’s a marketing endorsement. I’m sure that good people like Greg O’Connor, a very well respected police officer, must know that this isn’t a good part of the process—not a good part of the bill.

The other piece I’d say is that what became very obvious to us is that now the taxpayer’s paying for all of this testing. It’s not user-pays, it’s actually the taxpayers paying for it. It’s publicly funded. And we said that it would be about $800,000—I think the Minister said. You know that’s going to go up when it’s being tested anywhere and everywhere all across the country. So if you want it tested, you pay for it, but don’t make others who don’t want to pay for it pay for it. There are lots of alternatives for those taxpayers’ funds. At the end of the day, it’s not the Government’s money; it’s the taxpayers’ money, and why do they have to fund something that they don’t want tested?

So I think, in closing, it’s way too broad. It’s now everywhere and anywhere; testing pills can’t be guaranteed as safe, it’s going to build false confidence, and MDMA is what’s the killer. The taxpayers, frankly, shouldn’t be paying for it—make it user-pays—and that’s why National opposes this bill.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): As members of Parliament, we bring our life’s experience to this place and when we are discussing bills and hearing bills discussed, we dig back in for an innate understanding. I go back to the early 1980s, when I was attending the Sweetwaters Music Festival as an undercover police officer. I went to that festival with a group of—no other police officers knew I was there. I went there with a group of people who were quite heavy drug takers. As I’ve been listening to this debate today and hearing some fairly naive comments from across the aisle, I recall that at that festival, there was a drug that was going around—my memory of it, it was LSD and it was purple Popeyes, and it was a particularly bad drug. It had people throwing up. It had one young man going for a swim in the Waikato River and drowning. It had ambulances coming and taking people away. People behaving in all sorts of manners. I remember sitting with this group of experienced drug users who were very afraid of the substances they were taking. Now, those Opposite will say, “Well, they just didn’t need to take them.” Well, they didn’t need to take them. However, they were going to take them and other people there were taking this substance.

As I have heard this debate unfold, they were actually bringing people in to check their substances so that they could discuss about whether they were safe to take or not. And I couldn’t help but think that if what we are proposing here in this legislation was available, how sensible it would have been for this group of experienced drug users—these weren’t even kids—to have had somewhere to take and test this substance. They wouldn’t have gone there if they were going to lose the substance, whatever, they just wouldn’t have bothered. They’d have taken it anyway. So leave the levity out. We all come—there are politics. The National Party have chosen to oppose this legislation, which I really can’t understand why. I see Chris Bishop there shaking his head. I can imagine the debates that would have taken place in the caucus room around this. It’s a silly thing to do, guys, because your kids, your grandkids are going to be the ones that are affected by it.

Mr Mitchell, you sit there and say, “What does Greg O’Connor thinking about this?” Well, I think this is actually one of the most sensible things that has come through this House. People shouldn’t take drugs. We will, as Mr McAnulty said, discourage them at every level from taking these drugs, but they will. So let’s at least give them the opportunity to stay alive and not be affected by it, because it is real, it is not politics. You know, play politics on all sorts of other things, but don’t play politics on things like this. This just makes sense.

The ACT Party, who are further to the right than the National Party are, they’ve seen the sense in this. So, please, play politics with something else, but don’t play it with something that is so eminently sensible as this piece of legislation. So when your kids and grandkids do go to the music festival, do things that, of course, they shouldn’t do, of course, you advise them not to do, but at least give them some chance of making sure they know what they are putting into their body.

Whenever I stand up here and speak about this, there’s two names that always come to my head: Sally Anne Enoka and Alistair Te Korumariri. Two people who took heroin and died of heroin overdoses in Wellington in 1977. Both of them I had arrested earlier in the week, and both them died of overdoses. They were heroin users. There was a lot of heroin came into town that was extremely potent and a lot stronger than the usual heroin they took. They were two of the people that I knew that died of it. And, OK, that wouldn’t have been relevant to this, but they didn’t know what they were taking. At least give them the opportunity to know what they’re taking. I actually commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. With thanks to the Chamber team and also to the Clerk’s team, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. Tuesday, 23 November.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 4.59 p.m.