Tuesday, 7 December 2021

TUESDAY, 7 DECEMBER 2021

TUESDAY, 7 DECEMBER 2021

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

karakia/prayers

karakia/prayers

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Deputy Speaker): 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. Āmene.

[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.]

Motions

Black Caps—Ajaz Patel’s Success

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Sport and Recreation): I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to celebrate the achievement of Black Cap Ajaz Patel.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I move, That this House congratulate Black Cap spinner Ajaz Patel on claiming all ten wickets in the first innings of the recent test against India, becoming only the third bowler in the history of men’s test cricket to achieve the feat; that this House further acknowledge that this remarkable achievement was made all the more special in that it happened in Mumbai, the city of his birth, on a ground that he had dreamt of playing on; and that the House acknowledge him, his family, and all those who have supported him to get this far and note our enormous pride in his achievement and his newly acquired place in cricket history.

Motion agreed to.

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

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

SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK: Petition of Peter Ruffell, requesting that the House investigate Nelson City Council’s removal from its Coastal Plan, on the Bishops Peninsula boat launch site at Delaware Bay Estuary.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee.

Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

Annual reports 2021

Climate Change Commission

Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa

New Zealand Defence Force

Ministry of Health

Fire and Emergency New Zealand

Diversity Works

Statement of performance expectations 2021-22

Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa

Strategic intentions 2021 to 2025

Ministry of Health

Vote Health Report in relation to selected non-departmental appropriations for the year ended 30 June 2021

Annual report 2020-21 erratum

Ministry of Social Development

Government response to Report of Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the Inquiry into Congestion Pricing in Auckland

Government response to referral of a petition requesting entry for sibling and parent on humanitarian grounds

Government response to referral of a petition urging Immigration New Zealand to revisit its decision about the Parent Resident Visa category.

SPEAKER: I present the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament, summary of amendments to annual returns and initial returns from newly elected members, December 2021. Those papers are published under the authority of the House.

Select committees reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the petition of Amanda Drumm

Report of the Environment Committee on the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Reports of the Petitions Committee on the petitions of Alexander Woods, Linzee McCutcheon, Luke Chandler, Richard Stein, Santiago Gonzalez Novillo

Report of the Primary Production Committee on the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill

Reports of the Regulations Review Committee on a briefing about orders made under section 70 of the Health Act 1956

Complaint about the Coroners (Pathologists Fees) Regulations 2007, on COVID-19 public health response orders, and on the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The reports of the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration.

The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

CLERK:

Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2), introduction.

Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, introduction.

Maniapoto Claims Settlement Bill, introduction.

CLERK: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The National Construction Pipeline Report 2021 was released yesterday, and it highlighted the resilience of the construction sector during COVID-19 and noted that the outlook looks positive. Construction activity is forecast to grow steadily to about $48.3 billion in 2024, driven largely by the residential sector. The report shows residential construction has seen unprecedented interest in the past year despite these changing economic conditions, with more than 265,000 new dwellings forecast to be consented over the next six years, at an average of 44,000 dwellings a year. The construction sector is now our fourth-largest employer, with over 281,400 people for the year to the end of September, and the Government’s investments in apprenticeships and trade training have supported this, with 171,000 people taking up the opportunity, including 81,000 apprentices.

Barbara Edmonds: How is activity in the infrastructure sector contributing to the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the report also forecast an increase in infrastructure activity, which reflects the Government’s $57.3 billion investment in infrastructure over five years to create jobs and lift productivity. Annual infrastructure expenditure will grow steadily to reach $11.2 billion in 2026, with growth expected to be particularly strong in the Auckland and Waikato - Bay of Plenty areas. The Government’s swift actions to invest in infrastructure at the start of the pandemic have meant the sector has been able to retain and attract talent at a critical time, and the sector is now in a robust position to build back better and continue to deliver on this strong pipeline of work.

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the latest set of Crown accounts shows the—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m only going to do this once: members must not pull their masks down in order to interject.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —continued strength of the New Zealand economy despite the challenges of COVID-19—[Interruption] It won’t make more sense if you pull it down, Mr Bridges; it’ll be the same. The accounts for the four months to the end of—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I made a ruling which did not relate to Mr Bridges, and I don’t want references made to my rulings.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The accounts for the four months to the end of October factor in the improved starting position for the new financial year. Core Crown tax revenue was $2.5 billion above the Budget 2021 forecast, coming in at $31.8 billion. This was largely driven by better than expected corporate profits and more people being in work. The operating balance before gains and losses was a deficit of $7.8 billion, $1.8 billion higher than forecast, as restrictions triggered by the pandemic meant that Government had to put in place more financial support to protect jobs and livelihoods. Net core Crown debt stood at 34.2 percent of GDP, below the 36.7 percent forecast by the Treasury and significantly below most countries that we compare ourselves with. It continues to be appropriate for the Government to take a balanced approach and invest in supporting the recovery and dealing with the longstanding challenges that we have.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the recent announcement that Pharmac has signed an agreement for 60,000 courses of Pfizer’s oral antiviral treatment. Clinical studies have shown this treatment is highly promising, with an 89 percent reduction in hospitalisations and deaths. Taken orally at the first sign of symptoms, it can significantly prevent people from getting really unwell and requiring hospitalisation. The Government’s decision to ring-fence $300 million for Pharmac to purchase COVID-19 therapeutics, on top of an existing $175 million for medicines and supply chain costs, means New Zealanders will have access to six world-leading therapeutics. Three of these are already in use in our hospitals, and we’re seeing the impact of that. Pending Medsafe approval, the remainder is scheduled to arrive in New Zealand early next year.

David Seymour: Why did the Government employ Pharmac to negotiate and sign the agreement for molnupiravir, when the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) was tasked with the vaccine procurement for COVID-19; is the Government unhappy with MBIE’s performance at procuring vaccines at all?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

David Seymour: Does she stand by Ashley Bloomfield’s statement six days ago that “Our hospitalisations have very much levelled off across Tāmaki-makau-rau”; and, if so, why is Auckland at red when the COVID-19 website says red means the health system is facing “an unsustainable number of hospitalisations.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Happy to address that question in two parts. Obviously, Dr Bloomfield was referring to the fact that, indeed, as we see a decline in cases, which I know we all welcome in Tāmaki-makau-rau, we are seeing, at the same time, a decline in hospitalisations—as of today, 66 current hospitalisations across our hospital network. The reason that that’s heartening is because it demonstrates that it’s not just the case that we aren’t picking up cases in the community. If we were, we would see those rates higher. To answer the second part of the member’s question, we said right at the outset—you might recall at the time that we announced that first set of settings for the country—that this set of decisions early on in the transition would be different. We’ve established criteria for the traffic light framework that will hold us in good stead for the management of the pandemic going forward. But as we move into it, we’ve said we’ll deliberately take a cautious approach, because we’ve learnt from overseas: if you move too fast, you run the risk of those cases getting out of control, and no one wants that.

David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister give New Zealanders a date when they’ll be able to look at Government websites such as the Unite against COVID-19 website and actually believe what it says instead of having the Prime Minister say, “Well, this is just a start. We’ll follow those rules later.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I don’t think, as we transition into an entirely different way of doing things, that New Zealanders have an issue with us being cautious as we do that, because they want caution so that we maintain low case rates. Those countries who have given certain dates, like Denmark, who lifted the use of their vaccine passes in August, put them back in November; Israel, who lifted all their restrictions, brought their vaccine pass back; and Norway lifted in September, only to tell their people that they needed to bring them back in November. We’re moving carefully so that we don’t have to yo-yo in the way we’ve seen other countries, who saw an explosion of cases because they moved too fast.

David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister then saying it doesn’t matter if New Zealand is the last country to emerge from COVID, so long as she never has to admit a mistake?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I don’t call the lowest case rates in the OECD, the lowest hospitalisations, and the lowest death rate a mistake. I call them a plan which New Zealanders have stood firmly behind.

Christopher Luxon: What is the point of the criteria if it’s not being followed?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We will absolutely use the criteria to inform our decisions. But from the very beginning we said for that first set of decisions as we transition we would act carefully because we have an outbreak we need to maintain control over and we need to assess the impact of the outbreak. The member wasn’t here for the alert level transition, but we did take similar steps as we transitioned into that as well.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm that on 1 December when some were arguing—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! I don’t know where that’s coming from, but it’s to stop.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm that on 1 December, when some were arguing that all restrictions should be lifted and the international borders should be reopened, there were just 130 cases reported in New Zealand as opposed to the 129,000 cases in the United States, the 48,000 cases in the United Kingdom, the 1,400 cases in Australia, or the 3,146 cases in Canada?

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] The member will resume his seat. I mean, we do have a new shadow Leader of the House—again.

Chris Bishop: Not that new.

SPEAKER: And if he wants to stay here he won’t interject while I’m on my feet, and he certainly will not deliberately breach the rules. He’s meant to show leadership and an example and not interject during questions. [Interruption] No, the member was as well. It’s no good just blaming Mr Bridges. Chris Hipkins—oh, the Prime Minister. [Interruption]

David Seymour: Who will propose the times, locations, and protocols for checkpoints on public roads when iwi representatives are acting as enforcement officers under the COVID-19 public health Act amendments made last month; will these checkpoints be initiated by iwi, police, or the Director-General of Health?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The police and the member will be obviously familiar with the elements of that bill, because it went to a select committee he sat on.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister agree with Treasury that New Zealand had the second-largest fiscal response to COVID-19 in the developed world even before the latest lockdown, and can she understand how borrowing and spending a hundred billion bucks might lead to 4.9 percent inflation and rising interest rates on Kiwis’ mortgages?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Firstly, we stand by the investment we made to keep New Zealanders connected to the labour market, because that has resulted in some of the lowest unemployment that New Zealand has seen, despite the fact we’re in an economic crisis. At the same time, we went into this pandemic in this crisis with some of the lowest levels of debt relative to GDP in the OECD as well. And so that’s stood us in good stead and allowed us to invest in our people. We stand by this investment. It’s been the right thing to do. The member’s assertion that that therefore has resulted in the inflationary pressures we’ve seen—around the world we’re seeing it. The OECD has just revised up their inflation estimates to over 4 percent because of Omicron. It’s very much pandemic related.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister stand by her finance Minister’s statement from the 2021 Budget speech he gave, that “Wage growth … will outpace inflation, meaning more money in Kiwis’ back pockets.”, in light of ANZ’s comment last week that real wages are now falling; and, if so, when will wages start to outpace cost increases as the Minister of Finance promised just six months ago?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, it has, with wage growth being at around 3.5 percent and inflation around 2 percent. And at the time that the member made that statement, that was Treasury’s future forecasting as well. What we see around the world, though, in the likes of the United States and others, is that we have seen inflation increase as we’ve seen pressures on supply chain and increase in demand from consumers as our economies have recovered. We are not alone in experiencing that.

Question No. 3—Housing

3. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Housing: How has the Government’s public house build programme supported young people into skilled jobs?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): The Government is committed to addressing New Zealand’s housing crisis by increasing the supply of houses across the country, including our own booming Government-led build programme. Recently, I announced that over 500 apprentices and cadets have been placed in work across the country through Government house-building projects. This represents hundreds more builders, carpenters, electricians, painters, drainlayers, and scaffolders who are part of building, upgrading, and maintaining the nearly 70,000 public houses across New Zealand. Our investment in apprenticeships is about creating jobs and opportunities for young people, stimulating local economies, and creating an ongoing pipeline of work that is building more houses than any Government since the 1970s.

Glen Bennett: How is the Kāinga Ora cadet and apprenticeship programme supporting young people into work?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Through its cadet and apprenticeship programme, Kāinga Ora works with training and pastoral care providers, build partners, and subcontractors to help budding tradespeople into apprenticeships. Employers of Kāinga Ora apprentices are eligible for the Government’s Apprenticeship Boost subsidy of up to $12,000 for first-year apprentices and $6,000 for second-year apprentices. Apprentices also receive a $1,500 tool kit grant to get them started. While these apprentices and cadets have been part of the Government’s build programme, they have helped deliver over 6,800 newly built public homes in the past 3½ years. The skills and trades learnt will benefit the wider building sector as they carve out a career in this sector.

Glen Bennett: How is Kāinga Ora changing its procurement approach to support employment for apprentices and cadets?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Kāinga Ora is changing the way it contracts with build partners to provide more opportunities for apprentices and cadets. New multi-year agreements, which will replace most project-by-project build contracts, require that at least 5 percent of skilled work has to be undertaken by apprentices and trainees within the first six months of training. This increases to more than 15 percent of skilled work in year two of the agreement. This is just another way that we are supporting young people into skilled jobs while delivering a record number of public houses.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): May I begin by congratulating the member on his new role. Yes; in particular, I stand by this Government’s ongoing successful response to the COVID-19 pandemic that for the past two years has seen New Zealand have the lowest cumulative number of cases, hospitalisations, and deaths per capita in the OECD, and now we can add extraordinarily high vaccination rates as well. At the same time, our economy has continued to perform with record levels of unemployment, high economic growth, and some of the longest stretches without restrictions of any comparable country. Over the past two years, this Government and New Zealand have provided a strong response to a global pandemic that continues. It, of course, hasn’t been easy, but the results tell the country’s story. That is why I proudly stand by this Government’s statements and actions.

Christopher Luxon: Why did her Government spend more than $50 billion from its COVID fund before announcing any funding for extra ICU beds?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, I reject that question. What we know: one of the most important things that need to be provided are not just the beds but the staffing of the beds. Five nurses are required for every ICU—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Five ICU nurses are required per bed, so not only have we got 300 ICU or high dependency unit beds and the ability to surge to 500, we put aside funding in the Budget to ensure that we could train the staff required for the additional beds that we have.

Christopher Luxon: Does she agree with—sorry. At any—sorry. Why did her Government choose to prioritise things like eradicating wallabies including a pandemic over increasing the number of fully staffed ICU beds?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I reject the premise of the member’s question. So not only did we increase the amount of money that went into training our ICU staff, because that is the critical piece of the puzzle, we also have, of course, put in capital expenditure for ICU physical space as well: $10 million into the expansion of Tauranga’s ICU space; a new ICU facility at Waitakere; 12 additional beds in Canterbury; and, in addition to the training that we’ve provided for ICU nurses, $544 million for the operational spending of staffing for those new beds. But the one thing I would say: our focus has been ensuring people don’t end up in ICU in the first place. We want to save lives, not have a situation where people are critically unwell.

David Seymour: If the problem with staffing more ICU beds was getting the nurses, why did it take until 20 October for the Government to set aside managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) space for nurses coming to look after those Kiwis she cares so much about?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is not true, first of all. Second of all, as I said, the funding for the additional staff was right at the beginning of the pandemic. Second point: if you only rely on surge capacity—that is what happened in the UK. When you have ICU staff who come in to support a surge—an overwhelming of a health workforce—the death rate in ICU increases. Our goal has always been to stop that from occurring. If you are overwhelmed in a pandemic, people die, no matter how many staff you have.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific about MIQ, not about funding, and not about the nature of staff, whether they were organised as surge staff, but about MIQ capacity and when it was announced. She did not address that at all.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member started his question that way. Unfortunately, it had a tail which opened it up for the answer.

Christopher Luxon: So why did Wellington ICU specialist Dr Paul Young say recently, “I challenge you to visit any ICU in the country and find one clinician—just one—who can show you their newly staffed ICU beds.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said, we have increased the support and funding for ICU staff. We’ve put an extra $100 million into capital funding for ICU beds. But ultimately, our goal has been not to put pressure on that part of the system. At the peak of this outbreak, my recollection is that we’ve had 11 people in ICU. We have had capacity throughout the pandemic in our ICUs. We’ve had surge capacity of an additional 200 beds. But if the member’s goal is to simply have capacity, open up, and flood the ICU, we have a very different view of pandemic management.

Christopher Luxon: At any point in the first 12 months of the pandemic, did she actually pick up the phone and instruct her health Minister to increase the number of fully staffed ICU beds; if so, when?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve said multiple times now that part of our pandemic response, of course, has been about enabling not just physical beds but the capability and capacity to properly staff them. You can convert a ward, but you need the qualified staff in order to operate it in a way that people do not die. We have funded that. Again, though, I come back to the point that, throughout this pandemic, our issue has not been pressure on our ICU; our focus has been on making sure we don’t have outbreaks that overwhelm our ICUs. If we at any point got to that level, it would mean contact tracing would have fallen over, it would have meant our public health units would be overwhelmed, it would have meant that we would have been like many other countries, and we have not been.

Christopher Luxon: Why did it take her 21 months to announce additional funding for ICU beds when, during the same time, New South Wales was able to double their ICU capacity?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member wishes to compare us to a state that had 75,000 cases and when the state of Victoria was setting up infrastructure in its car parks, that is the member’s prerogative. I think what it demonstrates is that, no matter what your surge capacity or your ICU beds is, if you are overwhelmed, you are overwhelmed. No country in the world had capacity that allowed themselves to save people’s lives if their ICUs were overwhelmed. That has never been our goal. We had a different strategy.

Christopher Luxon: What does she say to the Viaduct business owners I spoke with last week who are utterly confused by her traffic light framework, which suggests that they should already be at green; and when will she finally tell them what actually is the criteria for a colour change?

SPEAKER: Before that happens, I’ve asked this side; it’s same for the other side. Can you just leave it while questions are being asked?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Firstly, I’d say I’m very pleased that we can see them open now. And what I’m also pleased about is that people can go out with confidence, knowing we have an outbreak that is contained and that they can enjoy hospitality services again. I would also say that we very carefully designed the new framework so that it protects people’s health but gives them certainty that, at every level, they can stay open. And, finally, what I would say is what I have said all the way through: this transition point is different. We are easing in at a point where we already have an active outbreak; that’s different from the rest of the times we’ve managed a framework before, and that’s why we will be cautious about it.

Christopher Luxon: So, again, what is the criteria to go to orange?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I have said in this House many times before, and on the podium many times before, of course vaccination is only one issue; outbreak is another. Auckland is the epicentre of an outbreak in New Zealand that the rest of the country continues to be concerned about. On the one hand, we of course have Auckland businesses that are pleased to be open; in other parts of country, we have concern about the spread of COVID. We have to manage all of those interests.

Christopher Luxon: Does she agree the failure to increase ICU beds during a pandemic is quite simply another illustration of her Government’s ongoing failure to deliver and to actually get things done?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My view of delivery—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order—both sides!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —is the lowest case numbers in the OECD, the lowest level of hospitalisation, the lowest death rate, record low unemployment, growth in our economy, and debt rates relative to other countries in the OECD that are still far lower. I measure our success in the wellbeing of our people, and through joint efforts, we have helped to keep them alive.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What does the Prime Minister say to a nation whose tangata w’enua now make up the highest hospitalised, doubling in the last month?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That we have a duty of care for everyone; that we do need to make sure that we’re extending the protections that are available to us, particularly through vaccinations, to everyone; and that we need to work alongside iwi and hauora providers to make sure we’re reaching those who currently don’t have that level of protection. And what I would also say is that despite the urging of the Opposition to open our international borders, to remove the protections of the COVID protection framework, which they don’t believe in, we will not do that, because we know it is protecting our people.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What does the Prime Minister say, even against the warnings of Māori health experts, to the nation on why Māori are now making up more than 50 percent of the Delta cases?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: There I would say that I am heartened by the rates of vaccination in the area that has been most affected by the outbreak. So, in Tāmaki-makau-rau, we now have first-dose rates at 90 percent, and we’re up to 84 percent first-dose rates across the country. The job is not done. So long as there is anyone that is unprotected by being unvaccinated, we have a job to do. We will not just rely on vaccines, though. Those countries who have had to quickly reimpose lockdowns and restrictions, and that’s why we have the protection framework.

SPEAKER: Before I call the next question, I’m going to just remind new members to the front bench who are very close to my microphone that when you—yes, the two of you—interject, it comes through my microphone and is—[Interruption] No—earlier it was, I think. Not just recently, but through the question time. And, therefore, when you are sitting where you are now—and I sat there for far too long in my political career; it took me a while to learn the lessons—can you just try and turn your volume down a little bit. Thank you.

Chris Penk: We’ll try.

SPEAKER: You’ll try?

Question No. 5—Economic and Regional Development

5. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What announcements has he made on resources to support reactivating Tāmaki Makaurau/Auckland?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): Last week, along with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Development, I announced a new support package to help provide economic, social, and cultural activities in Auckland over summer. The Auckland region has been hit hard by COVID-19 alert level restrictions, families need a break, and businesses need new customers. That’s why I’ve worked closely with the Auckland Council and economic development agency Auckland Unlimited to make 100,000 vouchers available for families and individuals for Auckland attractions, as well as discounts for free access to Auckland Council facilities to help get Aucklanders out and experience the city while providing much-needed foot traffic in the CBD. The package also includes a contestable fund for businesses or community organisations to organise events that are free for the public, bringing neighbourhoods and town centres back to life.

Shanan Halbert: Why is the Government encouraging Aucklanders to rediscover Tāmaki-makau-rau?

Hon STUART NASH: We want to encourage Auckland to rediscover the best local businesses and visitor attractions. The new funding will encourage whānau to reengage with special qualities that make Auckland vibrant, modern, and exciting. This support will reach a wide range of communities and neighbourhoods through activities like Christmas markets, new year cultural activities, and council-run sports and leisure facilities. This package builds on the Government’s support for Auckland, revitalising households, businesses, and community groups to get out and enjoy the best that the city has to offer through a targeted boost to the regional economy. It builds on other support already paid to date to Auckland workers and businesses, including $1.8 billion in wage subsidies and a further billion for Auckland businesses’ fixed costs through the Resurgence Support Payment. A further transition payment for Auckland, Waikato, and Northland will also pay up to $490 million to businesses.

Shanan Halbert: What feedback has the Minister seen on this package?

Hon STUART NASH: I’ve seen great feedback on this package, including Mayor Phil Goff, who said that—and I quote—“This funding, which is in addition to the significant financial support already provided to Auckland businesses, recognises the sacrifices Aucklanders have made throughout the COVID-19 response to contain the virus”. Auckland Unlimited chief executive Nick Hill said that they welcome and appreciate the package that will—and I quote—“support Aucklanders who have felt the emotional, wellbeing and financial impacts of the latest lockdown.” And, finally, Auckland Business Chamber commerce chief Michael Barnett said the spend was great initiative by the Government and Auckland Council—and I quote—“The scheme shows that central and our local council are thinking laterally, beyond the critical resurgence, transition and wage subsidy support packages to look ahead to stimulate economic recovery and vitality in the city over summer”.

Question No. 6—Housing

6. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Housing: Is she confident Kāinga Ora is delivering value for money, and what concerns, if any, have been raised with her about Kāinga Ora’s approach to public expenditure?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): In reference to the first part of the question, yes, this Government is committed to addressing New Zealand’s housing crisis, and Kāinga Ora are key part of our booming Government-led house build programme. Kāinga Ora have delivered an extra 8,000 warm, dry public housing places since November 2017, and 6,503 are brand new build homes. This Government is building more homes than any Government since the 1970s. In reference to the second part of the question, the inevitable concerns from private developers have been raised now that under this Government, Kāinga Ora is an active participant in the housing market—rather than just a bystander—through its land programme. However, our Government does realise that simply leaving the market to provide affordable houses for New Zealanders is exactly the type of thinking that delivered us a housing crisis.

Nicola Willis: Why did Kāinga Ora pay more than $70 million for Ferncliffe Farm in Tauranga, out-competing as many as 10 other prospective buyers who were ready to build houses on that land?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Because when we established the $2 billion fund for Kāinga Ora to go out and buy land, it had very clear criteria around what needed to be there. Increasing their supply of affordable housing and social housing were a key part of it. And I do note that on 1 July, one of those bidders for the land wrote to me, telling me that the Ferncliffe Farm—the development of this precinct—would result in the creation of the most prestigious residential enclave in the Tauranga region, and further went on to say that it was in no way suited to the development of affordable housing. So, the reason why our Government paid $70 million for that land is because Tauranga has a housing crisis and it needs affordable houses, and on this side of the House we stand on the side of people wanting to provide those, not those standing for the most prestigious residential enclaves.

Nicola Willis: Why should taxpayers have confidence that the Government agency which oversees KiwiBuild will get houses built on that land faster than a proven private developer would?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I go back to the stats that I gave in the answer to the primary question: that as a Government, since November 2017, we have delivered 6,503 new build public houses. But where taxpayers can have some comfort is that we are a developer, through Kāinga Ora, that is committed to the provision of affordable and social housing. Other private developers who wanted to develop the land wanted to create the most prestigious residential enclave in Tauranga, and informed us it was in no way suitable for social housing.

Nicola Willis: Has she received complaints from major housing developers warning that Kāinga Ora’s use of taxpayer funds to over-bid for land is stopping those developers from getting houses built, and is she concerned the Government’s use of taxpayer money is pumping up the price of land?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In relation to this particular parcel of land, there were two valuations, as per our policy, one of which was $68 million, the other was a range between $72.2 million and $74.8 million. We paid $70.4 million, so it was at the lower end of the valuations. We can say with absolute surety to private developers that we won’t be competing with them to build the most prestigious residential enclaves in the country; we will be looking to build affordable and social housing. But I know that member is a member of a party that thought market participation in housing was flogging off social housing. We are one that thinks actual market participation is building houses.

Nicola Willis: Why has Kāinga Ora spent more than $800 million on her Government’s watch, purchasing homes on the private market in direct competition with first-home buyers, and does she think that’s a good use of taxpayer money?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We have been over this many times in this House, around what the rate of buy-in by Kāinga Ora is. Under our Government, it has been trending down. It is currently this year somewhere around 21 percent, although I will need to check that number. I would put that against the buy-in rate from the private market of the previous National Government that got into the high 60 percent number. We represent something like less than 1 percent of all real estate transitions. That member should come up with some ideas of how it is we’re going to solve the housing crisis rather than flirting around the edges like this.

Brooke van Velden: How can she ensure that Kāinga Ora will always build more affordable homes than would have already been built to make up for bidding up the price of land?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: When Kāinga Ora comes to Ministers and to Cabinet with a business case for the purchase of land, it has to have a break-down of what the plan for the building of houses through this fund will be. As a Government, we will always require Kāinga Ora to set aside affordable and public housing as part of that mix. That is why there is a case for public intervention and what differentiates us from private developers who want to use similar or the same parcels of land, in the case that has been brought up by the National Party, to develop the most prestigious residential enclave in Tauranga.

Nicola Willis: How can taxpayers be confident that Kāinga Ora is achieving value for the $2 billion Kāinga Ora land programme when documents released to me under the Official Information Act show Treasury has raised extensive concerns about the role of the programme, including coordination, decision making, and consultation issues?

Hon Grant Robertson: That’s not unusual.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As the Minister of Finance said, that is not an unusual situation. But how taxpayers can have confidence is that we have in place a clear process around what needs to be in a business case when it is being considered, what needs to be put in place, and, of course, there is external scrutiny of these as well.

Question No. 7—Women

7. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister for Women: What progress has she seen on the $2 million COVID-19 community fund for women and girls?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): Funding from the $2 million COVID19 Community Fund for women and girls has now been allocated to 160 successful applicants. Funding will support organisations helping wāhine and kōtiro in Aotearoa New Zealand affected by the pandemic. This is the second time we have run this highly successful fund, and it is a proven model to reach our most vulnerable.

Ginny Andersen: How will this funding make a difference in the lives of women and girls?

Hon JAN TINETTI: This fund is supporting grassroots organisations that work with women and girls who have been detrimentally affected by the pandemic. This fund can help safeguard women’s wellbeing. Successful applicants from this fund range from support for mental health services, safe houses for women and children experiencing family violence, support for retraining and upskilling for women who have lost their jobs, as well as increased support for volunteers that support women and girls, and essential supplies such as food, nappies, and sanitary products for marginalised women and girls.

Ginny Andersen: What other work is under way to support women and girls following the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown?

Hon JAN TINETTI: We have a large number of projects under way that will help support women and girls following the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown. First, we are identifying and minimising barriers for women in employment through our Women’s Employment Action Plan. We have seen welfare reforms ranging from lifting incomes for families and reducing sanctions on mothers. We’ve seen a reduction in both the unemployment rates for women and the Public Service gender pay gap, and we continue to see the free period products roll out across New Zealand for all students. But I would like to make a special mention of Minister Davidson and her launch this morning of Te Aorerekura, the country’s first national strategy to eliminate family violence and sexual violence.

Question No. 8—Finance

8. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement in his Budget speech earlier this year that wage growth “will outpace inflation, meaning more money in Kiwis’ back pockets”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Can I first congratulate the member on his new role. I stand by my statement in the context that those were the Treasury’s Budget forecast at the time. But as the member might appreciate more than most, sometimes events can move quickly and numbers can shift around.

Hon Simon Bridges: Very good. Does he accept the Government has failed to deliver on his Budget promise, considering inflation is now nearly 5 percent, more than double wage inflation of just 2.4 percent?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Those were the forecasts at the time and I can assure the member that wage growth continues to be forecast to be strong, as it is at the moment around 3.5 percent. Inflation has risen, but the member will be aware that is a global phenomenon.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, does he accept that if wages are growing at 2.4 percent, inflation is growing at 5 percent, and house prices are growing at 30 percent, then New Zealanders are going backwards, in real terms, under this Government’s watch?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. What I do accept is, on this side of the House, we have had an economy that has grown faster than most others in the world through the COVID pandemic, that has unemployment at 3.4 percent, and that Standard & Poor’s lifted our credit rating on. Yes, of course, a high inflation environment is challenging, and I look forward to the member’s support for things like a minimum wage increase.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he accept the view of ANZ economists who said last week that “All households are seeing cost increases, but for low-income Kiwis who spend the bulk of their income on essential goods and services, it’s particularly hard to make ends meet right now; and for low income houses in this environment, the choice quickly becomes ‘Do I have lunch this week or pay the rent?’ ”

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I do accept is that, yes, low-income households are affected more by inflation increases, which is why it’s so disappointing that the National Party has opposed the benefit increases that this Government has put in place.

Hon Simon Bridges: Isn’t it now becoming obvious that this Government’s economic management is failing New Zealanders because the cost of living is outstripping wage growth $2 to $1?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. What is obvious is that this Government has invested in making sure that New Zealanders keep their jobs; has seen an unemployment rate of 3.4 percent; and that Standard & Poor’s, an international rating agency, gave us a credit uplift. I’ll tend to listen to them.

Question No. 9—Health

9. Dr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West) to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent announcements has she made about testing for COVID-19?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Testing remains one of the key public health measures underpinning our response to COVID-19 and our successful transition to the COVID-19 Protection Framework. Last week, I announced we had passed a milestone of more than 5 million PCR tests processed. New Zealand’s test positivity rate, a key measure of the effectiveness of our testing system, has consistently been one of the lowest in the world. That gives us confidence that we’re missing very few cases in the community. I want to thank the thousands of skilled and dedicated workers who collect and process tests every day, as well as the team of 5 million who have now all been tested.

Dr Gaurav Sharma: What work is under way to ensure we continue to have sufficient testing capacity?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Last month, I announced a new testing strategy to support the transition to the new framework and to help minimise the spread of COVID19. A key part of that plan was expanding our PCR testing capacity. By the end of the year, we are on track to have a standing capacity for 40,000 PCR tests per day, and that will build to 60,000 in the first quarter of next year. Nasopharyngeal PCR tests will continue to be used as the primary diagnostic test, but this will be supplemented by saliva-based PCR testing, rapid antigen testing, and rapid PCR tests.

Dr Gaurav Sharma: What role do rapid antigen tests play in the new testing strategy?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The health advice is to continue to have a PCR test if you have COVID-19 symptoms. However, with more and more New Zealanders gaining protection through vaccinations, we can now introduce a wider range of routine testing options.

Chris Bishop: What a great idea!

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Rapid antigen tests can provide a result in 15 minutes, but require a high viral load and are more effective in the early stages of an individual’s infectious period. The member opposite might want to listen—he might learn something. They perform well when there is COVID in the community. These tests are now available to all businesses and healthcare settings in New Zealand, and, from 15 December, they will be available to the general public at pharmacies, with tests to be administered under the supervision of pharmacy staff. For asymptomatic surveillance testing, two or three times a week is recommended, and a PCR test will be required to confirm any positive results.

Question No. 10—COVID-19 Response

10. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Is he satisfied with the implementation of the COVID-19 Protection Framework, and what criteria, if any, exist for Auckland to move from Red to Orange in this framework?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Absolutely yes, and I’m incredibly proud of New Zealanders who have stepped up to be vaccinated, allowing us to move to that new framework: 94 percent of the eligible population have now had at least one dose of the vaccine, and 88 percent of the country have had two doses. As the Prime Minister set out yesterday and today, New Zealanders have shifted to the new framework relatively smoothly, and it’s a testament to the adaptability and pragmatism of New Zealanders who just want to get the job done. With any significant transition like this, there will inevitably be a few issues that we’ll continue to work through as they arise. In response to the second part of the member’s question, we have outlined a number of health- and non - health-related criteria that will guide Cabinet’s decision on how regions may move colours in the future. Given the majority of the country’s cases are still coming from Auckland, being at red at this point helps to minimise the number of new cases ahead of the 15 December removal of the boundary around Auckland and, therefore, reduce the risk to the rest of New Zealand. As we settle into the new traffic light framework, people will see that our COVID response remains one where we push forward cautiously with fewer restrictions, more careful travel around the country, and family and friends united.

Chris Bishop: Has Cabinet settled on a number for vaccination and hospitalisations that would allow a region to move from red to orange and from orange to green, and, if so, what is the number?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, in answer to the first part of the question. As with our alert level system—the one that we have just transitioned away from—there is a need to consider a balance of factors. We did not have hard and fast rules as to exactly the trigger points for moving between level 1 and level 2, level 2 and level 3, and level 3 and level 4. We made those decisions based on a balance of facts presented at the time.

Chris Bishop: How can he be satisfied with the traffic light system when on Friday night the official food and drink service guidelines were changed to state that it wasn’t mandatory for workers to be vaccinated—a complete contradiction from what was announced two weeks earlier?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The main change that happened on Friday night was greater clarity for those businesses who were trying to figure out whether they would count as a food service or a retail service, and so the guidelines were—basically, greater clarity was provided so that for those businesses that, effectively, operate on a retail basis rather than people coming and dining in, they had greater clarity.

Question No. 11—Education (School Operations)

11. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): Is she confident that education is accessible for disabled and high-needs tamariki across Aotearoa?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Associate Minister of Education (School Operations)): Our Government is committed to barrier-free access to education for all students, but we know that there is work to do to address the fact that some students aren’t getting the right support they need when they need it. This is why in October, we announced a review into the support for students who are considered the highest needs for learning support intervention. This review will ensure that the tamariki of Aotearoa are receiving the education they deserve.

Teanau Tuiono: What is her response to reports that, on average, tamariki are waiting 80 days to access an early intervention service and that one-third of Ongoing Resourcing Scheme (ORS) funding applications are being rejected?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Reducing the time that children wait for support continues to be a priority. The ministry has made progress with reducing wait times, and there’s been significant increases in funding since 2018, but more work is needed in this area, and we do need to look at different ways that we can reduce those wait times by working with whānau in a variety of different ways. What I would say for those people who are waiting or putting in ORS funding applications: these are the sorts of stories and the sorts of experiences that I want people to be able to tell in the high-needs review, so I ask and plead with those people who have had those experiences to please tell those stories to the high-needs reviews. I will also say that the wait times are in scope of the high-needs review.

Teanau Tuiono: Does she think learning support is adequately funded when parents are often paying for teacher-aides out of pocket or are making large donations so their tamariki can have support?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Teacher-aides are incredible and do an amazing job of supporting our learners who have the highest needs within our schooling system, and conversations regarding funding mechanisms for teacher-aides are ongoing.

Teanau Tuiono: Does she agree that a dedicated learning support coordinator or Special Education Needs Coordinator in every school and early childhood education centre would make schools more accessible for disabled tamariki, and, if not, why not?

Hon JAN TINETTI: We currently have evaluations that are in place around learning support coordinators that were implemented by this Government into about 620, 630 schools in this country. So we are waiting to see the final of that evaluation coming through. What I am very aware of is that I don’t want to see a system that is bits and pieces here and there. One of the issues that we have seen in this country is that we have had a system that is not joined up and does not adequately meet the needs of our young people. I am really looking forward to the third tranche of that evaluation coming through.

Teanau Tuiono: What is she doing to increase the number of specialists such as psychologists, physiotherapists, and resource teachers to meet student need?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Another group that are critically important for our tamariki in this country who have those high needs—and I was a principal under the last National Government where that funding for those people was frozen due to the staffing freeze at that time. I know how important those people are, which is why this Government has put more funding in for those specialist people, including Budget 2021, with the intensive wraparound service support that we were able to get funding for that saw more psychologists go into place. But, clearly, there is more work to do.

Teanau Tuiono: Will she commit to ensuring that disabled children are not discriminated against in the education system and that all necessary steps are taken to ensure disabled children can thrive as learners in our schools?

Hon JAN TINETTI: That is exactly the intent of the high-needs review. We need a system that is responsive to the needs of our learner. We need that system to be able to move around the child rather than the child having to change for the needs of the system. That is exactly what I want to hear coming through from that high-needs review.

Question No. 12—Health

12. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: When will the first of the new ICU beds that he announced last week be operational, and why was this investment not made 21 months ago, when COVID-19 first reached our shores?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): The additional ICU beds are planned to be operational in Canterbury, Waitematā, and Bay of Plenty DHBs by June 2022. These additional beds are funded out of an additional $100 million allocated for ICU infrastructure and supported by $544 million of operational funding available to fund ongoing costs like staffing, and this continues our trend of significant investment in the health system. In answer to the second part of the member’s question: 21 months ago, the country was facing a significant period of uncertainty because of COVID-19. Our immediate focus, other than implementing a world-leading elimination strategy was on preparing existing facilities to surge up their capacity and to train staff to meet demand. This included purchasing more ventilators and improving oxygen in ventilation systems. In parallel, DHBs and the Ministry of Health started planning last year for permanent ICU capacity increases, using existing buildings and capability to meet any surge needs we might require. This worked successfully as we continued to eliminate COVID-19. Now as we continue to transition to the next stage of our response, DHBs have worked with the Ministry of Health to identify subcapital projects to physically expand designated ICU capacity and to resource these through workforce development and recruitment. This work has resulted in our ability to significantly increase baseline resourced ICU capacity by June 2022. It should be remembered that the New Zealand hospital system, even before the arrival of COVID, was widely regarded as being light in ICU capacity, a state which followed a significant increase in population from 2009 to 2017, accompanied by a significant under-investment in the public health system during that time.

Dr Shane Reti: Does he accept, then, any responsibility for what Sir Brian Roche’s independent COVID review found as, “the very poor level of preparedness of hospitals for Delta.”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I think the performance of our hospital system in response to Delta, particularly in Auckland and more recently in Waikato, has been absolutely exemplary. You only have to look at the treatment that COVID patients have been given that has meant that, on average, their stays in hospital have been shorter than comparable cases around the world, and the stays in ICU have been shorter than have been necessary. That is entirely due to the clinical treatment of our COVID patients in our hospital system.

Dr Shane Reti: Why are DHBs with high Māori and low vaccination rates not part of the very first ICU announcement?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The reality is the $100 million fund is available to all DHBs to present propositions for ICU expanded capacity. But the other point I would make is this: as the system has geared up to respond to COVID-19, as we enter the protection framework, as we remove the Auckland boundary over the next couple of weeks, and as people move around the country, and more DHBs and more hospitals will be picking up COVID patients, those hospitals have been setting themselves up to operate as regional networks of hospitals so that hospitals are supporting each other to make sure that they can afford the care and treatment that COVID patients need in the weeks and months ahead.

Dr Shane Reti: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! That concludes oral questions. Nice try!

Urgent Debates

COVID-19 Response—Report into Deaths in Self-Isolation

SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Brooke van Velden seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the findings of the independent review panel into two COVID-19 deaths in self-isolation. This is a particular matter of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The report was presented during the last adjournment. The matter is an important one. The report found that the deaths were potentially preventable. There is no other foreseeable opportunity to debate it.

Before I call Brooke van Velden to move that the House takes note of this matter of urgent public importance, I do want to note that we have, within the precinct, a very large group of people who are here to view on screens Government order of the day No. 3, and, therefore, I seek the leave of the House for the urgent debate to take place after the conclusion of order of the day No. 3. Is there any objection to that occurring? There appears to be none. I’ll now call, therefore, Chris Hipkins, for Government notice of motion No. 1.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Before I do that, a point of order, Mr Speaker. In making your decision on the urgent debate, I just wanted to check you were aware that that matter is still subject of a coroner’s investigation.

SPEAKER: It might well be, but the Government, through its agency, has responded.

Offices of Parliament

Address to Governor-General

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That a respectful Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General, commending to Her Excellency the alteration to the appropriation for the 2021/22 financial year in respect of Vote Audit.

Motion agreed to.

SPEAKER: The proposed Address is available on the Table of the House.

Address adopted.

Motions

Parliamentary Precincts—Addition and Exclusion of Premises

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That under section 25(1) and (2) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 and effective on 25 November 2021, this House—

revoke the Parliamentary Service (Additional Parliamentary Precincts) Resolution 2006, and

exclude from the parliamentary precincts the land and premises that are subject to the Bowen House lease, and

add the following land or premises to the parliamentary precincts:

the land and buildings at 147 Lambton Quay, Wellington contained in record of title WN53A/210 and leased by the Parliamentary Corporation as at the date of this resolution, comprising levels 1 - 14 of the building, being 8,129.30m2 more or less, and the bike cage and 11 carparks in the basement of the building:

the land or premises known in the Bowen House lease as the Executive Wing Link, being the underground tunnel under Bowen Street linking Bowen House and the Executive Wing:

that part of the ground level of the building known in the Bowen House lease as Bowen House required for the purposes of maintaining access through to the Executive Wing Link:

the land and buildings at No. 1 The Terrace and No. 3 The Terrace in Certificate of Title WN 41C/804 and Certificate of Title WN 41C/805 and leased by the Parliamentary Corporation as at the date of this resolution, comprising:

the Sub-Basement (Viewing Gallery) at No. 3 The Terrace, being an area of 567.3m2, and

(ii) the Sub-SubBasement (Debating Chamber) at No. 3 The Terrace, being an area of 770.6m2:

the land or premises on the ground floor of the building at No. 1 The Terrace, Wellington contained in record of title 583197 and record of title 264739 and leased by the Parliamentary Corporation as at the date of this resolution, having a net lettable area of 327.3m2.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary, No. No amendment for the Backbencher? The Ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill.

Bills

Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill

In Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, the House is in committee for the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. We come first to Part 1.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I seek leave for all questions to be taken as one.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Therefore, the question is that Parts 1 to 4, Schedules 1 to 5, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Parts 1 to 4, Schedules 1 to 5, and clauses 1 and 2

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): This is an opportunity for the House in committee to deal with a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that deals with some technical matters. It amends the bill so that it is consistent with the most recent Trusts Act—the Trusts Act 2019—and so that those things line up. Nothing material changes in relation to the rest of the bill and the settlement, and therefore the deed. So this just makes sure that those things are consistent. The SOP has been prepared in consultation with the relevant agencies and the Mana Ahuriri Trust, and everybody has agreed with the proposed changes, and on that basis I commend the bill to the House.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I stand as the National Party representative for this committee of the whole House stage, and concur with the Minister in the address to the committee this afternoon that the report on the bill, reported back by the Māori Affairs Committee, dated 10 August 2020, indicated that the recommendations were for proposed amendments which are minor and technical, and that the committee does not recommend any amendments to the bill as a result of the submissions that have been written and also heard. There were 34 submissions from interested groups and individuals, and oral evidence from nine submitters.

There was some contention in relation to the process around ratification and mandated authorities. It was deemed appropriate by the select committee after hearing those submissions that the matter was not something that was addressed within the bill’s provisions, and, therefore, the committee deemed it appropriate that the recommendations regarding the elections were not something to be duly considered.

The only other aspect in relation to the submissions—there were three submissions that were heard by the committee in relation to the summary of the historical account, and, as is often the case with many of these Treaty settlement bills, there are variable accounts based on whakapapa and based on the history that is recorded and passed down. The committee was of the view that in terms of addressing and resolving some of those recordings or differing perspectives as to what the hapū’s version as has been recorded in the bill, it was agreed that those differences in perspectives would be published on Te Arawhiti’s website. And, accordingly, the committee came to the view that there was no need for any further amendments to the bill’s provisions. So, accordingly, at this committee of the whole House stage, I commend the bill to the House for the third reading passage.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 60 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Parts 1 to 4, Schedules 1 to 5, and clauses 1 and 2, as amended, stand part.

Parts 1 to 4, Schedules 1 to 5, and clauses 1 and 2, as amended, agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

SPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, this bill is set down for third reading forthwith.

Third Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move that the—

SPEAKER: No. You’re presenting a legislative statement.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Sorry, I present a legislative statement to the House on the Mana Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill.

SPEAKER: The legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. The Hon Andrew Little.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.

I would like to acknowledge that on the precincts of Parliament there are representatives of Mana Ahuriri who are here to mark this historic occasion. That is to say, the third reading of their bill. I know they are watching and I extend a very warm welcome to them. Many have travelled here today to be part of this occasion and to see and to witness for themselves this very important occasion. Ko aku mihi atu ki a koutou, ngā uri o Ahuriri Hapū, nau mai haere mai ki tēnei Whare.

[I greet you, the tribal descendants of the Ahuriri Hapū, welcome to this House.]

I, again, say welcome. This day marks the final stage in progressing the Mana Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill by giving effect to their Treaty settlement. In doing this, it begins a process of healing and building a new, positive, and enduring relationship between the Crown and Ahuriri Hapū. I acknowledge the patience and fortitude that Ahuriri Hapū have shown over the many years that they have waited for this settlement. The Ahuriri Hapū journey to settlement started in 1988, with their first claim filed with the Waitangi Tribunal. On 13 June 1995, the Waitangi Tribunal published its report on Te Whanganui-a-Orotu, recommending the Crown consider the return of the Landcorp farm, Roro o Kuri, and the Ahuriri Estuary. Negotiations began with the granting of mandate in February 2010. Six years of negotiations led to the Ahuriri Hapū deed of settlement being signed on 2 November 2016.

Following the deed of settlement signing, the Waitangi Tribunal heard an urgent claim regarding the mandate of Mana Ahuriri Incorporated. The tribunal recommended that full elections for all post settlement governance entity trustees be held prior to the legislation being passed. Following an agreement with the Mana Ahuriri Trust to hold trustee elections, this bill was introduced on 20 December 2019 and full elections were completed early this year. In addition to these challenges, since introduction the settlement legislation has also been delayed by the COVID-19 outbreak. Most recently, this third reading was scheduled for August this year, but was then delayed due to the country moving to alert level 4 lockdown in response to community transmission of the Delta variant of COVID-19.

It’s important to mention these challenges, if only to highlight the strength and persistence of Mana Ahuriri to reach this final milestone. It is finally time for the Crown to make redress to the people of Ahuriri for its breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I’m saddened that Ahuriri Hapū cannot be here physically in this session today, but it is nevertheless a great privilege and an honour to stand here today in this House to support enactment of the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill as they watch from the banquet hall. I acknowledge the seven hapū of Ahuriri Hapū: Ngāti Hinepare, Ngāti Māhu, Ngāti Matepū, Ngāti Paarau, Ngāi Tāwhao, Ngāi Te Ruruku, and Ngāti Tū. I wish to acknowledge those who are not with us today to witness the outcome of years of hard work, courage, and commitment. We cannot and do not forget those who have suffered the grievances and those who initiated and carried the claims process for the seven hapū of Ahuriri. They are in our thoughts today. I particularly wish to acknowledge the leadership and work of Piri Prentice, Heitia Hiha, Barry Wilson, Joinella Maihi-Carroll, and Tania Eden, who have all completed a long and difficult task with a clear purpose and have done an excellent job for Ahuriri Hapū.

On the Crown side, this long overdue settlement has been the work of successive Governments and numerous officials, and, in particular, I acknowledge and thank the Hon Paul Swain for his role as chief Crown negotiator; Tā John Clarke for his role in assisting to bring Ahuriri Hapū closer together; my predecessors, the late Hon Dr Sir Michael Cullen and the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who both worked closely with the Ahuriri Hapū negotiation team; and officials from across agencies who have led and supported negotiations.

The Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill gives effect to the settlement package set out in the Ahuriri Hapū deed of settlement, and acknowledges all the historic Te Tiriti o Waitangi claims of Ahuriri Hapū. The bill, like the deed, acknowledges the Crown’s historic breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, but also seeks to go some way in providing Ahuriri Hapū with a strong foundation for their future social, cultural, and economic development. The historical account records that Ahuriri Hapū sought to establish an ongoing and mutually beneficial relationship with the Crown after 1840. Ahuriri Hapū, as Treaty partners, have fulfilled their obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, something that the Crown has not done.

Ahuriri Hapū have suffered severe and lasting prejudice as a result of the Crown’s breaches. The interests of Ahuriri Hapū were not protected by the Crown when it purchased land or by the native land laws when they provided for a small number of individuals to dispossess hapū and members of their lands. Not only have the hapū been left virtually landless, but environmental change and urban development in the rohe of Ahuriri Hapū, including Te Whanganui-a-Orotu, have been sources of great distress for the hapū. The socioeconomic consequences of the Crown’s breaches have been dire.

A particular grievance addressed through the settlement relates to the Crown’s 1866 attacks on Ōmarunui and Herepoho during the New Zealand Wars. The Crown resorted to force to settle a crisis that should have been resolved peacefully. Some members of the hapū were killed defending themselves against the Crown’s attacks, while others were captured by Crown forces and detained without trial in harsh conditions on the Chatham Islands. These events caused deep and long-lasting divisions amongst the hapū, some of whom exercised their rangatiratanga to fight at the Crown’s side. Some members of Ahuriri Hapū made claims in the Waitangi Tribunal regarding the historical redress and the Ahuriri Hapū deed of settlement, including in relation to Ōmarunui. To address those claims, the Crown agreed to record the perspectives of those claimants regarding the Battle of Ōmarunui. I’m pleased to note that this work is currently under way, and I hope those agreements can be completed as soon as possible.

No settlement package can ever truly fully compensate for the loss Ahuriri Hapū have suffered for generations. In spite of this, Ahuriri Hapū have graciously accepted a package of redress to acknowledge their connections to land and resources of significance. Due to the delay of years between signing the deed of settlement and today, it is appropriate to record for the Hansard some of that redress given effect to by this bill. A key piece of redress relates to Te Whanganui-a-Orotu, or the Ahuriri Estuary. The Crown acknowledges that Te Whanganui-a-Orotu and the islands in it are prized taonga and recognises the role of Ahuriri Hapū as kaitiaki. The settlement provides for the establishment of a permanent multiparty statutory committee to promote the protection and enhancement of the environmental, economic, social, spiritual, historical, and cultural values of Te Muriwai o Te Whanga for present and future generations of the entire Napier community. In addition, Ahuriri Hapū will receive cultural, commercial, and financial redress, including a kaitiaki fund to assist the work of the Estuary Management Committee; a right to purchase Ahuriri Station, as the tribunal recommended in 1995; a right to purchase the Crown’s shares in Hawke’s Bay Airport; the Crown’s gift to Ahuriri Hapū of Heipipi pā at the head Whanganui-ā-Orotu; the gift of Conservation House in Napier and land at Pakake; $19.5 million in financial redress; and shares in the Kaweka Gwavas Forestry Company.

While nothing can compensate Ahuriri Hapū for the harm the Crown caused them and their tipuna, through this settlement the Crown acknowledges and finally takes responsibility for the harm it has caused. It’s my hope that this Treaty settlement will provide a platform from which Ahuriri Hapū can design a new future for themselves and their mokopuna, in true Treaty partnership with the Crown. This is the time for reconciliation and for celebration for Ahuriri Hapū, and the important step of restoring the relationship between the Crown and Ahuriri Hapū. Nō reira, I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ko te pātai kia whakaaetia te mōtini.

[The question is that the motion be agreed to.]

HARETE HIPANGO (National): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā karangatanga, tēnei te pānuitanga tuatoru o Te Pire Whakataunga Kerēme o ngā Hapū o Ahuriri. Takitimu te waka. Ki ngā uri o ngā hapū o Mana Ahuriri, nau mai haere mai ki tēnei Pāremata, te wāhi Pāremata.

Ko Harete Hipango taku ingoa. Ko uri nō Whanganui ahau. Ko au he mema nō te Pāti Nahinara.

[To the authorities, to all the voices and all those involved, this is the third reading of the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. Takitimu is the ancestral canoe. To all the descendants of the hapū of the Mana Ahuriri Trust, welcome to Parliament, to the seat of Government.

My name is Harete Hipango. I am a descendant of Whanganui. I am a member of the National Party.]

It’s my privilege to stand to address the House and also the people, the hapū of Mana Ahuriri, who have gathered in the precincts of Parliament and, regrettably, are not able to be in the House today. However, the message that we convey: we are also connected with our whakarua and our wairua wherever you are placed within the precinct. It’s a privilege always, but particularly today, to stand to address the people, the hapū, the uri of Ahuriri who have gathered here today for the passage of their bill into law.

The Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill is comprised of 140 clauses—soon to be sections—four parts, and five schedules. And the process, as is well known by the people who have gathered in the precinct—those of you who have travelled afar to be here today in Te Whanganui-a-Tara—is that this journey has progressed over a period of generations. Minister Little mentioned that the recent journey commenced with the Waitangi Tribunal claim filed in 1988. The report was issued by the tribunal on 13 June 1995, and it advanced to an agreement in principle on 19 December 2013, through to a deed of settlement, signed on 2 November 2016. The Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill was introduced to the House on 12 March 2020, and I was privileged, along with other members of the Māori Affairs Committee, to receive that at the committee, to receive and read 34 submissions, and to listen to nine of those oral submissions; to arrive at a determination, with a report filed and sent back to the House, dated 10 August 2020, with some minor amendments to the bill, to refine and fine-tune it, for it to advance to the second reading on 29 June of this year. And here I stand today, along with all of us in this precinct, on 14 December 2021, a historic moment for the people, the descendants, the hapū of Ahuriri with the passage of this bill soon into law.

The Minister has addressed the elements of the bill. And, in summary, clause 8, the historical account—and I always harken to the listeners, the members of the public, New Zealanders who do not know the story. Receiving the deeds of settlement, receiving these bills into this House of Representatives, is traversing a significant part of history, and it’s the history that comes from the mouths of our tūpuna, conveyed by their descendants, and it’s enshrined and scripted into law. The summary of the historical account is detailed in clause 8. Time does not permit me to give this due significance and relevance in my mention. I invite people to read the bill—the Act. It is captured there. Also, the sentiment of the history is the mamae that has been carried by generations.

Today, in moving forward, we don’t forget that mamae, we don’t forget the burdens and the grievance, but today is a day to whakanui—to celebrate—because it is moving forward. It is moving forward with the acknowledgment, which is detailed at clause 9. And, again, the Crown is acknowledging all the wrongdoings, the harm, the mamae, the grievances, and the damage, and then, at clause 10, the apology, moving forward to remedy and ensure that, in moving forward, addressing the wrongdoings and the grievances of the past, the hapū of Ahuriri move to a better place.

Clause 10: “The Crown makes this apology to Ahuriri Hapū, to their tipuna, and to their mokopuna”—our time in the present is a gift to move forward. “The Crown profoundly regrets its many failures … is deeply remorseful for the prejudice created … solemnly apologises for its policies, acts, and omissions that have left Ahuriri Hapū virtually landless … [and] Through this settlement and this apology the Crown seeks to atone”—to atone—“for its past wrongs and begin the process of healing.” And, with that, “The Crown looks forward to building a new, positive, and enduring relationship with Ahuriri Hapū that fulfils the expectations of their tipuna and mokopuna, a relationship”—relationship—“based on mutual trust, partnership, and respect for the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.” Moving forward, those relationships that have been fraught in the past, the mamae that is still carried—we live in hope, and these Treaty settlements are the opportunity, to remedy, to address, and to redress. Part 2 of the bill details the cultural redress, and Part 3 also looks into the implementation of how that cultural redress is effected. Part 4 is the commercial redress.

In summary, this is a bill that is dealing with and addressing those approximately 1,505 registered members of the Ahuriri Hapū, seven of which the Minister has detailed and outlined. The area of interest, as is well known by those who are from Ahuriri, but for the benefit of New Zealanders—and again I say these are history lessons, but these are lessons in the essence of our present and the presence. The area of interest is bounded by the sea, to the east; the Kaweka Ranges, to the west; the Ngaruroro River, to the south; and the Esk River, to the north. Ahuriri Hapū is one of six large natural groups which has negotiated this settlement and historic Treaty of Waitangi claims of Ngāti Kahungunu—Ngāti Kahungunu being the third-largest tribal group in New Zealand. The bill will record and encapsulate and also capture the history, but also the opportunity in moving forward. In the opportunity in moving forward, I reference the cultural redress. I move to Part 3, which is specific to Te Muriwai o Te Whanga and the importance of those relationships, with the establishment of the committee, the engagement and recognition that the Komiti Muriwai o Te Whanga is an authority representing the interests of the Ahuriri peoples and hapū. That is outlined in terms of the functions, at clause 85. And then Part 4 details the commercial redress.

The importance of these bills is so significant, and we each have the privilege and the opportunity to acknowledge and to address—it is recorded in the Hansard. But what is of most significance and importance is that the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill is celebrated by the uri, the descendants here today, on this occasion, to whakanui you all, but your tūpuna and the passage of this bill into law, going forward with the aspiration, the future, the hope to make a better difference in the world for your generations here and now and those to come. With privilege and in honour, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Tuatahi, e tika ana ki te mihi ki taku whanaunga a Neville. Nō reira, e te whanaunga, i maumahara tō mahi i te kōkiri i ngā kaupapa Māori mō tātou te iwi Māori i roto i Pōneke, i roto i Aotearoa, nō reira e te whanaunga moe mai, moe mai, moe mai e koe ki ngā ringaringa o ngā matua tūpuna kua riro ki te pō rā.

Ka nui tēnā. Ki a koutou, ngā hapū o Ahuriri, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou, kua tae tēnei mai nei i tēnei wā ki te tautoko, ki te whakanui i tēnei kaupapa. He Hōnore nui ki te tū, ki te tautoko te kaupapa ataahua i tēnei wā. Nō reira, ki a koutou e mātakitaki mai i tēnei wā, tēnā te mihi ki a koutou. Haramai, haramai, nau mai tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[Firstly, it is appropriate that I acknowledge my relative Neville. Therefore, to my relative, I remember your work championing Māori issues for us Māori in Wellington, in New Zealand. Therefore, my relative, may you rest in peace in the hands of the ancestors who have passed.

I move on. To you, to the hapū of Ahuriri, I greet you. You have come here today to support and celebrate this initiative. It is a great honour to stand and to support this beautiful initiative at this time. Therefore, to those of you watching now, that is my greeting to you. Welcome, welcome, welcome one and all.]

I just started off by giving a little mihi poroporoaki to one of our whanaunga who died a few weeks ago, known to everyone: Neville Baker, a person who advanced kaupapa like this all the time—controversial kaupapa—and as there for every Māori, and Pākehā, actually; one of the great bureaucrats of Aotearoa. He passed away a few weeks ago. I wanted to mention his name in the House because he’s a man who deserves to have his name mentioned in the House. He would have supported this kaupapa. I’m not sure which side. He was pretty controversial, Neville, with his Shelly Bay experiences, and his history, but much loved by people of all sides—Labour, National, and Māori Party supporters. I remember that whanaunga very well.

I want to welcome our people here today. It’s a shame they couldn’t be here in the gallery with us, coming all this way. You know, I give our apologies that they can’t be here in the House. A long way to come to be sitting watching this on screen—e mihi ana ki a koutou. I hope you enjoy this day and celebrate this day.

Can I support our Minister Andrew Little with his kōrero and congratulate Ahuriri Hapū, who have waited many years for this settlement. As you heard, their journey started in 1988 when they first filed with the Waitangi Tribunal. So it’s been a long, long road, and we’ve reached this time in terms of redress and compensation.

In terms of breaches of the Treaty, I have to be clear, as I always am with these types of settlements, that compensation can never ever justify the loss, the pain, and the injustices that our people endure. Yes, the Treaty settlement process can never properly compensate our people, but it’s an opportunity to acknowledge, to reflect, and to admit the sins of past Governments. It’s a process that I hope will provide opportunity for our people. I hope that Ahuriri people will be looking at this $19.5 million and thinking, “Well, what can we do with this?” It’s hardly going to make them rich or billionaires, but it could make some differences over the over the next decade or so. For example, who would have ever thought that Tainui and Ngāi Tahu would be worth $1.5 billion today after settling for $170 million in 1996? So the settlement can work, and if managed well, could do wonders for rangatahi and the people of Ahuriri.

So well done to the leadership. I want to thank those people for their mahi, as Minister Little did: Piri Prentice, Heitia Hiha, Barry Wilson, Joinella Maihi-Carroll, and my long-time friend Tania Eden, who has shown all her bureaucratic experience, I think, particularly over the last few months as she’s navigated her way through this settlement. It’s important also to acknowledge the Crown side, as the Hon Andrew Little did: the work done by the brilliant Sir Michael Cullen, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, chief negotiator Paul Swain, and mine and Meka Whaitiri and Rawiri Waititi’s whanaunga, Tā John Clarke.

It’s important to reiterate how this hapū has been left landless. The social and economic consequences have been catastrophic. It’s always important, I think, to make that observation. I want to acknowledge Ōmarunui, because that was mentioned also by the Minister today. When the Crown attacked Ōmarunui a crime was committed—a terrible crime. People were killed, and a number of our people were shipped off to the Chatham Islands. It’s caused huge division between members and hapū and whānau. So I think it’s important too, as, again, Minister Little did, to acknowledge the Wai 2573 claimants who are addressing outstanding historical claims with the Crown at Ōmarunui. I encourage officials to conclude this agreement as quickly and as sympathetically as possible.

I am pleased that along with the $19.5 million we have an agreement that the Ahuriri Hapū will be kaitiaki for Te Whanganui-ā-Orotu and the islands. They are prized taonga—an appropriate recognition. Also, Ahuriri Hapū will receive cultural, commercial, and financial redress, including a kaitiaki fund to assist the work of the estuary management committee, a right to purchase Ahuriri Station, a right to purchase the Crown shares in Hawke’s Bay Airport, the Crown’s gift to Ahuriri Hapū, the gift of Conservation House in Napier, and land at Pakake, and shares in the Kaweka Gwavas Forestry Company.

Of course, as I said earlier, this still cannot compensate for the loss, but it is a start, and it is a beginning. The real test, I suppose, is: can we pull together to forge an opportunity together? Like all settlements, there are people who have opposed this one, and we, as members, have been lobbied strongly by people who don’t want to settle, who don’t think that is the way to go. That is one of the things, I suppose, that happens in terms of the Treaty settlement process all the time. Whether it was Tainui, whether it was Ngāi Tahu, there were always people who said no. Eva Rickard was one of them in Tainui. Sandra Lee was one of them in terms of Ngāi Tahu. So these are the pressures that our negotiators have to work with.

In this case, we have my old mate and Minister Meka Whaitiri’s old mate Denis O’Reilly, who’s been lobbying us so strongly it’s not funny. Good on Denis, in terms of his mahi. He’s been a huge advocate against us, and his wife, Taape, and Hinewai Ormsby. We understand that there is some opposition to this, as there always is with settlements. But we can only work with the mandated group. That’s always the strategy that we have to follow. That’s always the way we have to go, and that has been the case with this particular settlement.

So I say to those people, the challenge will be to see if you can work with your whanaunga and find a way, navigate a way. It ain’t easy; we’ve seen that. We see that all the time. But this is the process that we’re in, unless we want to abandon the whole settlement process and start from scratch again. That’s not the case, I don’t think, so I’ll say to those people that I think they’re coming to terms with this. There were two or three—or might have only been one, was it? Was it only Dennis, I think, at the select committee? It doesn’t matter. I respect where they’re going, but I also respect where our negotiators went, and where our leadership went, led by the people who I talked about today, with Tania Eden now as the chair, and they have settled on a process. So I ask those people: can you work it out? Perhaps that is the biggest challenge. And I ask them: kia whakakotahi mō te kaupapa [come together for this initiative].

I’m sure you can all work it out. But it’s an honour here today to talk about this, to talk about the history, to talk about the background, to talk about the fight, and to talk about the challenges ahead. I mihi to all our whanaunga who’ve come here today. Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou. Tēnā nō tātou katoa.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. E rau rangatira mā, kia ora mai tātou. It is a privilege to speak to a Treaty bill at any time, but particularly the third reading, which is indeed a momentous occasion. I want to acknowledge the hapū and all the hard work they’ve done over many, many years to bring us to this point today. I also want to acknowledge officials, including the Hon Chris Finlayson for his diligence and preservice. I’d also like to very much thank the Māori Affairs Committee for their commitment to this cause, for shepherding it along, for being thoughtful in what they do, that brings this to the third reading, the last time this comes before the House, before these enabling provisions are passed to Ahuriri Hapū.

In brief, the provisions by this bill include an historical account, which I’ll come back to in just a moment; acknowledgments and apology from the Crown; the settlement for historical claims, which, again, I’ll come back to; Ahuriri Hapū are acknowledged as tangata whenua for the rohe; and the Heipipi Pa is established as a historic reserve; and the conservation and management of the Ahuriri Estuary is also part of this bill. The settlement package, I will come back to.

For broadness and context—and certainly I was more knowledgeable once I had looked into this—Ahuriri Hapū comprised about 1,505 registered members. The seven Ahuriri Hapū are: Ngāti Hinepare, Ngāti Māhu, Ngāti Matepū, Ngāti Paarau, Ngāi Tāwhao, Ngāti Tū and Ngāi Te Ruruku. It is that hapū based around Napier and the Hawke’s Bay, as has been commented, bounded by the sea to the east, the Kaweka Ranges to the west, the Ngaruroro River to the south, and the Esk River to the north.

The historical account gives us some purpose to why we’re here and why we’re actually going through this settlement process, as has been commented by my whanaunga, as much as one can do, in modern terms, for redress of the past, acknowledging that it can never fully meet those claims and that mamae that has been done, but seeking, in modern terms, some redress as far as possible. The historical account talks about the late 1840s with the Ahuriri Hapū around Te Whanganui-ā-Orotu, and around the time they were considering how they might incorporate and promote and establish a relationship with Pākehā settlements. The Crown, in 1850, opened negotiations with Ahuriri Māori to purchase large blocks of land, and the Crown led them to believe that they’d derive considerable benefit from this relationship when they purchased the Ahuriri block for £1,500. It’s long been contested that Te Whanganui-ā-Orotu, a place of high spiritual and cultural significance, was not included in the Ahuriri purchase. This has been a point of contention. There have been other points of difficulty; most Treaty settlements actually have some divergence of views that eventually come to the middle and eventually get us to a third reading, like we are here today. There were discussions around the mandate and some changes that needed to be made, and officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements were eventually able to reach an accommodation that did establish that the mandate was valid.

I want to just very briefly describe the settlement package. It is the acknowledgment and apology by the Crown for the Crown’s acts and omissions. It is cultural redress of the historical account, including natural resources redress, $500,000 to engage with the natural resources, $15,000 for the funding of powhenua, and the gifting of three cultural redress properties; financial and commercial redress of $19.5 million, including the purchase of Kaweka and Gwavas Crown forest land with Heretaunga and Tamatea, and the right to purchase a number of Crown properties, plus interest accrued on the financial commitments.

A Treaty settlement like this is an enabler, and, as it’s been pointed out, it is not something that will immediately derive wealth for that particular hapū. But it does become an enabler for what it might become in the future. We’ve looked back collectively in the past and said, “We could do better, we need to do better.” This is our effort today, in today’s terms, to do exactly that, to enable, to capacity build that whānau, that iwi, that hapū so that they might be able to live and maximise their expectations of what a good life looks like.

So it’s always a privilege to be in the third reading of a bill. Again, I just acknowledge those who have got it to this point—many, many people; some named, some not. But this is a really important piece of work and I commend this bill to the House and thank everyone who’s brought it here today. Kia ora mai tātou.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I join in the rest of the House in acknowledging that this is the third reading of this bill. I acknowledge our whānau from Ahuriri, who have travelled a long way to be here today. It’s unfortunate that they couldn’t be here, but I know that they are listening to every word that we’re saying, and this is the end of a very long road. As they say, one door closes; another one opens, and I know that they are keen to get the show on the road and actually to be able to embark on the future that they want for their people. So to ngā hapū o Ahuriri, we acknowledge you at this time.

The select committees had a—and I say “select committees” because there wasn’t just one. This has been around for a wee while now and members have come and gone from the Māori Affairs Committee, and it’s landed with us to be able to deliver it over the line here today for the third reading. But the select committees and the select committee members that have been part of this have all sat there and understood the depth of this. This is not an easy Treaty settlement; it has not been a straightforward process. This has been, as many Treaty settlements are, sometimes a complicating and frustrating process on both sides, but can I acknowledge the patience and the tenacity of ngā hapū o Ahuriri for actually getting to this point today.

One of the main things that determines a Treaty settlement piece of legislation from any other bill is that it contains statutory acknowledgments, acknowledgments of the Crown for historical acts gone wrong, and it puts into ink and into the historical records of this House the way that the Crown treated Māori in days gone by. This is another settlement that will add some pages to that awful book of history where the Crown acted way outside of its remit, at a different place and time, but it sought to—it had very different policies in the past to the policies that we have now. So the statutory acknowledgments are one part of a Treaty settlement legislation.

But the other big thing is also the apology, and I know that many of the people that will be here listening to it from within the halls of Parliament, but also those whānau back home, will be hanging out to hear the apology. Not enough do I hear the apology said in this House. It often goes unsaid. It often is something that is documented in their bill and sometimes read on the marae back home, but never usually in this House. So I’m going to take my time today to be able to verbalise the apology that we the Crown give to the hapū of Ahuriri. I want them to hear this and I want them to feel the sentiment behind it, because it’s something that has been worked on from both sides. It’s a point where both sides have landed on what that apology should look like, should sound like. I know that they scrutinise every single word in those apologies too. So to the whānau and the hapū of Ahuriri, this apology is for you.

And I read: “The Crown makes this apology to Ahuriri Hapū, to their tipuna, and to their mokopuna. (a) For generations the relationship between the Crown and Ahuriri Hapū has not fulfilled Ahuriri Hapū expectations of a mutually beneficial partnership. Crown acts and omissions have hurt Ahuriri Hapū and caused long-held and deeply felt grievances. Ahuriri Hapū have pursued their claims for justice and redress from the Crown over many decades, but the Crown has failed, until now, to find an appropriate way to respond to them.

“(b) The Crown profoundly regrets its many failures to live up to its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi in its dealings with Ahuriri Hapū, and unreservedly apologises for the immense damage caused by its breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

“(c) The Crown is deeply remorseful for the prejudice it created by purchasing so much Ahuriri Hapū land in the 1850s, and for using divisive purchasing methods that involved Ahuriri Hapū in conflict. The Crown deeply regrets that many Ahuriri Hapū were dispossessed by the operation of the 10-owner rule. The Crown solemnly apologises for its policies, acts, and omissions that have left Ahuriri Hapū virtually landless, and for the severe impacts the loss of ancestral lands and resources has had on the capacity of Ahuriri Hapū for economic and social development, and physical, cultural, and spiritual well-being.

“(d) For too long, the Crown has failed to recognise the special relationship between Ahuriri Hapū and their taonga, Te Whanganui-ā-Orotu. The Crown profoundly regrets the distress and anguish [that] generations of Ahuriri Hapū have endured due to the Crown’s acts and omissions in relation to Te Whanganui-ā-Orotu.

“(e) Through this settlement and this apology the Crown seeks to atone for its past wrongs and begin the process of healing. The Crown looks forward to building a new, positive, and enduring relationship with Ahuriri Hapū that fulfils the expectations of their tipuna and mokopuna, a relationship based on mutual trust, [on] partnership, and [on] respect for the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.”

I was able to go to the small pō’hiri that we had for the Ahuriri Hapū just prior to coming into question time, and in that, from their paepae, the koroua got up and talked about the long road that it’s taken to get them here. Can I acknowledge their pae today. Can I acknowledge their people. Can I acknowledge the whānau back home that are looking forward to the next chapter in their journey. May the Crown for once be a partner with the Ahuriri Hapū and walk hand in hand with them and really showcase the partnership that was signed up to under Te Tiriti o Waitangi all of those years ago. I commend this bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise as the Green Party’s Te Tiriti spokesperson to offer our support at this third reading of the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. I speak on most but not all of the settlement bills for the Greens as our tangata Tiriti spokesperson, and this is because the Green Party acknowledges Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the founding document of our country and recognises that colonisation severed Māori from land and waters that sustained them—were them—and denied Māori tino rangatiratanga. This has brutalised whānau Māori and resulted in many lives lost, and, as part of this process, white supremacy has denied settlers and all too many Māori access to matauranga Māori that could have provided warm, dry homes, ecological balance, multilingual communities, models of women’s leadership, and shared parenting, to name just a few things.

Tangata Tiriti have lost through breaches of the Treaty the legitimacy of our place to stand on this land, and this means from our perspective that the work that needs to be done to de-imperialise our Government and society needs to be primarily done by non-Māori. So the Green Party encourages non-Māori to speak to these breaches and these bills and to be an active part of the work to repair these breaches, as we believe the model is needed for the country.

So that is the context that we bring to all settlement bills, and I want to acknowledge the Ahuriri Hapū today who are present and watching this settlement debate in the third reading: specifically, Ngāti Hinepare; Ngāti Māhu; Ngāti Matepū; Ngati Paarau, including Ngāi Tahu Ahi; Ngāi Tāwhao; Ngāti Tū; and Ngāi Te Ruruku.

I also add our acknowledgment, along with other speakers in the House today, around the long process to get here. It has been a struggle from the point of the Crown recognising the mandate in 2010, and then that being, in effect, sought again at a later date and there being intervention from the Waitangi Tribunal to call for further elections to ensure the integrity of the process for trustees to have that full confidence of the hapū. I’d like to acknowledge Minister Little for listening and working with hapū through this process and, of course, acknowledge all of the people of the Ahuriri Hapū, who have kept going and are holding things together for the future.

Eleven years on from the initial Crown mandate, 170 years - plus since breaches began—it’s a long time to be gaslit, abused, and wronged, and, more recently, a long time to be negotiating. So this settlement, which will be implemented following the passage of this legislation today, is significant.

Today is a big, big day. I want to acknowledge some of the specifics of this settlement on that note of looking forward and specifically point to, I think, and acknowledge some of the role of hapū that is reflected in the detail of the settlement, where the Crown acknowledges that Te Whanganui-ā-Orotu and the islands in it were prize taonga for Ahuriri Hapū, and now, in this settlement, it recognises the role of hapū as kaitiaki of Te Muriwai o Te Whanga, known by others in the area as the Ahuriri estuary and catchment.

I think it’s really important to acknowledge again—this comes up so often in settlements—that so often we’re dealing with restoring the role of hapū as kaitiaki that was removed, to the detriment of our environment and our people. If only that role of kaitiaki had been able to be maintained, we would not see the widespread degradation of our lands that we see around us now and that we are struggling desperately to be able to repair. This settlement establishes a permanent statutory committee, Te Komiti Muriwai o Te Whanga, to ensure the protection and the enhancement of the environmental, economic, social, cultural, spiritual, historical, and cultural values of the area.

Within the settlement, there’s also statutory acknowledgment for 11 specific areas and deeds of recognition for another 11 areas, and this is just about ensuring that hapū are alerted to resource consent applications in areas where they have that connection, or that the Crown are obligated to consult and have regard to their views and work on those areas. It seems to me that if we acknowledge kaitiaki, then to require us to alert hapū around resource consents seems a very small step towards actually acknowledging kaitiaki and the power and the meaning of that. I think, to be honest, if we are to truly acknowledge the power and the meaning of that, then more is required of us, but I acknowledge the achievement of getting these areas in the settlement.

There is the vesting or, as the Minister referred to it, the gifting—or, as the Greens might refer to it, the returning of stolen goods—of Pakake and Conservation House and Heipipi Pa Historic Reserve, and then there’s the enabling of the right of first refusal over several properties and areas. Again, for the Greens, we always acknowledge that it’s an achievement to get that into settlements, but it’s still sits deeply uncomfortably to steal somebody’s land and then say, “Oh, you can buy it back off us.” That’s not really my understanding of justice.

There’s the acknowledgment for name changes of six areas, and this is really important because, as we know, the power to name is the power over places. To change Bluff Hill, Hospital Hill, Napier Hill, and Scinde Island will now be, again, known as Mataruahou, there’s a very different story that is told with that returning of that name, and this applies to five other places.

Also within the bill is relationships—it’s actually an acknowledgment specifically in writing around the importance of a relationship between conservation, environment, and Te Papa Tongarewa, and Ahuriri Hapū. That should be inherent in Te Tiriti o Waitangi anyway, but it sets up formal processes to ensure what the Greens would argue is inherent in Te Tiriti o Waitangi anyway. Then there is the settlement of $19.5 million, which is just a token. But, for us, it’s not about property rights, but about that ongoing relationship between iwi and hapū, and the Government, and Te Tiriti cannot be settled—it is not something that can be done.

We really do want to acknowledge the sacrifice made by the hapū to get to this point and to gather their histories, and we acknowledge those who have worked to achieve this settlement but who have died before being able to see it completed. They contain powerful stories of our collective history. They are historical archives, but we must remember that history is never one story. We often learn history through stories that are told from one perspective, with a clear beginning, middle, and end. The saying “History is written by victors” absolutely has a resonance in this country with the failure to teach in truth or detail our collective history, and this has perpetuated Crown hegemony and power and has fed a disconnect and distrust between Māori and the Crown.

We acknowledge that the settlement process and the forcing together of large natural groupings does not make sense, and, actually, I do want to acknowledge the Wai 2573 claimants on behalf of Ngāti Parau, who are addressing outstanding historical matters with the Crown concerning events at Ōmarunui—

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

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. It’s always a great source of amusement for me to follow Jan Logie from the Greens, who has just, on behalf of a party that wants to tax and regulate every aspect of your life—from what you learn at school to how you get around—been railing against Crown hegemony and excess State power. But that’s the Green Party for you.

ACT supports these Treaty settlements, because they are an icon of New Zealand exceptionalism. Every country can look to its past and see things that it would rather not have to see—it can see things that violated people’s right over their body, over their property, over their dignity—and a lot of countries get into a spiral of resentment and conflict that is impossible to prevent. Countries go through all sorts of truth and reconciliation commissions and all sorts of efforts to make good their past. I don’t think that any country has done it as sincerely or successfully as New Zealand with its Treaty settlement process.

It will never be perfect, because when you start with such grave imperfections, you can’t achieve perfection, but if you compare it with what other countries have done, I think we should be very proud. That’s not to take away from remaining grievances. That’s not to say that everything is right. But I think it is a point of pride for New Zealand, what we’ve achieved and are achieving with our Treaty settlement process, and that’s why the ACT Party always stands in favour of Treaty settlements—because we believe in the rule of law, we believe in property rights, and we believe in restraining the role of the State and the Crown.

So I say on behalf of Parliament, our House of Representatives—not the Crown, as some have said—to those people in the Ahuriri Hapū who have journeyed to Wellington today, who are unfortunately not able to be physically present in the gallery due to the COVID restrictions but have journeyed to be part of this historic moment for their people: welcome and I hope that this is a very special and pivotal point in the history of your people and your place.

I also want to say that this bill has a minor personal connection for me. While my own original, or oldest connections with New Zealand are from the Far North, Ngāpuhi; Ngāti Rereahu, to be precise, I do have a connection with Ahuriri—New Zealand being a very small place. One of my old flatmates from just down in Taranaki Street, when I was a slightly more wayward youth compared with now, here in the city of Wellington was actually a member of Ngāti Pārau, and Jan Logie was trying to read out a statement but got cut off because she’d left it to the very end of her speech, and it’s a pity she wasn’t able to finish. He asked that we read into the Hansard something that they had tried to have acknowledged through their official process with the Crown but couldn’t have acknowledged, and it was simply that it be acknowledged that the Wai 2573 claimants, those on behalf of Ngāti Pārau, that is, are still addressing outstanding historical matters with the Crown concerning those events at Ōmarunui. I encourage officials to conclude that agreement as quickly and sympathetically as possible.

Those hailing from Ngāti Pārau I think are being very magnanimous in this instance, because they were not entirely happy with everything that ended up in this bill. They still had some outstanding grievances; as I said, it’s not always perfect. But they said, “Look, we are not going to interrupt this special day for those others in this agreement, who after all are our wider whānau. We will not further contest this. We will not in any way be difficult. We will allow this to go ahead without protestation from us.” But they would just like the Hansard of the House of Representatives to have that statement, so that they are not unacknowledged in the passage of this bill. So I say to my old flatmate in this intimate country of ours, I hope I’ve done you well by having that read into Hansard, and for those of Ngāti Pārau, I hope that you do indeed get the closure that everybody has been seeking as rapidly as possible so that everybody can move on with enjoying what this settlement has delivered for the different peoples in the region.

With that, I commend this bill to the House and give my best wishes on behalf of ACT for the future for all of those in the Ahuriri Hapū who are touched by this settlement bill.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Otirā, tēnā tātou katoa i roto i tēnei Whare o tātou i te ahiahi nei, mihi kau ana ki a tātou. He Hōnore tēnei mōku te tū ki te kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire i tēnei rā. Engari, he āhua rerekē te āhua o te Whare i tēnei rā nā te mea kahore ngā hapū o Ahuriri i konei i roto i tēnei Whare ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero e pā ana ki a rātou, e pā ana ki ō rātou kerēme, me tēnei pire o rātou mahi i ngā tau maha kua pahure ake nei. E mōhio ana ahau kei konei rātou kei te Whare Pāremata engari kahore i roto i tēnei Whare. Nō reira, e mihi ana ki a koutou ngā hapū o Ahuriri e mātakitaki mai ana i runga i te pouaka whakaata, mātou e kōrero ana e pā ana ki tō pire, ki ō kerēme i tēnei ahiahi.

Ā, ka huri ahau ki Te Pire Whakataunga Kerēme a ngā Hapū o Ahuriri. Ko tēnei te pānuitanga tuatoru, me kī ko te pānuitanga tata mutunga o tēnei pire i roto i te Whare Pāremata, nō reira, muri mai i tēnei, ae, ko te whakataunga o ngā kerēme, ko te whakatinanatanga i tērā whakaaetanga e hia kē te roa o te hainatanga o tērā.

E hiahia ana ahau ki te whāki atu i roto i te Whare i tēnei ahiahi, me kī atu i te 180 tau te roanga o te hainatanga o Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I muri tata mai i te hainatanga o Te Tiriti ka tīmata te puta mai ngā raruraru i waenganui i ngāi tātou te iwi Māori me Te Karauna. Engari, i a au e pānui ana i ngā kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire me te kaupapa mō ngā hapū o Ahuriri i kite ahau i tīmata tēnei whawhai mō te whakataunga o ngā kerēme i te tau 1988. I taua wā e ono noa iho ōku tau. E tū ana ahau i roto i tēnei Whare 33 tau mai i te tīmatanga o tērā tuku, tono atu i ngā kerēme i mua i te aroaro o Te Rōpū Whakamana i Te Tiriti o Waitangi, nō reira e mihi ana ki a koutou mō tō koutou mahi mō tō koutou manawaroa ki te whakatutuki i ēnei kerēme.

Kua kite ahau i tono atu te kerēme tuatahi ki roto i Te Rōpū Whakamana i Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Te Taraipiuna rā i taua tau, ā, i puta te ripoata Te Whanganui-ā-Orotū i te tau 1995, ka tīmata ngā kōrero kei waenganui i te rōpū o te hapū me te Karauna i te tau 2010. E ono tau pea te roa o ngā kōrero kātahi ka haina i te whakaaetanga whakataunga i ngā kerēme i taua tau. Engari, i uru mai te pire tuatahi ki roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata i te tau 2019. E mihi ana ahau ki ngā Minitā o taua wā, ki ngā kaimahi o taua wā e whakawhitiwhiti ana i ngā kōrero kia whakatau i ēnei kerēme. E mihi hoki ana ki te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori o taua nohoanga o te Whare Pāremata. Ko tētahi o ngā Māngai o Te Whare, ko Adrian tētahi o ngā mema, kātahi anō ia ka puta i tēnei Whare, engari e mihi ana ki a ia, ki ētahi atu o ngā mema hoki.

Ko tētahi o ngā take i whakaroa ake te ture i roto i tēnei Whare, ko te mate urutā. Koirā te take kāhore rātou i roto i te Whare i tēnei rā. Nō reira, e mihi ana anō ki a koutou mō tō koutou manawaroa kia kite i te whakatutukinga o tēnei pire, o tēnei ture, i roto i te Whare i tēnei ahiahi. Nō reira, he rā nui tēnei mō koutou, he nui taku aroha ki a koutou.

I mua i taku houtanga mai ki roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata ko wētahi o aku mahi ko ngā kerēme mō ōku hapū i roto i Ngāpuhi, nō reira, e mōhio ana ahau ki ō koutou mahi ki te mamae mō wēnei momo take, nō reira ko te hiahia ko tēnei e whakatau ana i ō koutou kerēme i mua i te Taraipiunara. Ko te hiahia ka pakari ō koutou hapū i te whiwhinga o tēnei, ka taea e koutou te anga whakamua kia pai ake tō mahi tahi me te Karauna. Koirā taku tino hiahia.

Nō, reira, i runga i tēnei, kahore ahau e hiahia ana kia roa ake taku kōrero nā te roa o tēnei kaupapa mō te hapū, i runga i tēnā, e tautoko ana ahau i tēnei pire. Pau te kaha.

[Madam Speaker, greetings to you and to all of you in this House of ours this afternoon, greetings one and all. It is a great honour for me to stand and speak to this bill today. But the House looks slightly different today because the hapū of Ahuriri are not in the House to listen to the speeches about them, about their claims, and their work on this bill in the many preceding years. I know that they are in the Parliament buildings, but they are not in this Chamber. Therefore I greet you, the hapū of Ahuriri who are watching this on the television while we discuss your bill and your claims this afternoon.

So, I turn to the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. This is the third reading, that is to say the reading which is almost the final stage of this bill in the House of Parliament, therefore, after this, yes, that is the settlement of the claims, the embodiment of that agreement which was signed many years ago. I wish to state clearly in the House this afternoon that it is 180 years since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. Soon after the signing of the Treaty, problems began between us, the Māori iwi, and the Crown. But as I was reading the stories relating to this bill and the issue for the hapū of Ahuriri, I saw that this battle for the settlement of the claims began in 1988. At that time I was only six years old. I stand in this House 33 years since the sending, the submission, of those claims to the Waitangi Tribunal, therefore I acknowledge you for your work and your perseverance to carry these claims to completion.

I found that the first submission on this claim was sent to the Waitangi Tribunal in that year and that the report on Te Whanganui-ā-Orotū was published in 1995, then began the discussions between the hapū grouping and the Crown in 2010. These discussions continued over about six years and the deed of settlement was signed in that year. But the first bill entered Parliament in 2019. I acknowledge the Ministers of that time, to the workers at that time, whose negotiations led to the settlement of these claims. I also want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee of that sitting of Parliament. One of the Speakers of the House, Adrian, was one of the members, when he first appeared in this House, but I acknowledge him and some other members as well.

One of the reasons that slows down the making of laws in this House has been the pandemic. That is the reason why they are not in the House today. Therefore, I acknowledge you for your perseverance to see the completion of this bill, of this law, in the House this afternoon. Therefore, this is a great day for you, and I sincerely empathise with you.

Before I entered Parliament some of my work was claim-related for my hapū in Ngāpuhi, therefore I understand your work and the pain involved in these sorts of issues, therefore I hope that this will settle your claims in front of the Tribunal. I hope that your hapū will be strengthened by this achievement, and you can find a way forwards to improve your collaboration with the Crown. That is my sincere hope.

Therefore, on that basis, I don’t want to make my speech any longer because this process has been long enough for the hapū, and so I state that I resolutely support this bill.]

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Chris Penk, five-minute call.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to be able to stand in this House and join others across the House to speak to the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. Other speakers have said much more eloquently, I’m sure, than I’ll be able to—including in te reo Māori most recently by Willow-Jean Prime, in very eloquent fashion—some of the issues surrounding the passage of this legislation; of course, the historical context, but not merely a description of that which has been in the past but also a road map into the future for the hapū and, of course, the Crown, being partners on this journey.

So I do want to start by acknowledging those who have spoken, more particularly, of course, to those who are here in this building today, notwithstanding that you’re not seated in the usual place that would be available to you for COVID-19 related reasons. But please know that we do feel your presence in this place and know that you are very welcome here in this, your House of Representatives.

The legislation is interesting, I think, because it sets out a number of different associations that the hapū have had with the land, the resources that were denied them, and, obviously, some of these are of different kinds of natures and therefore the types of redress that are offered and agreed and encapsulated in the settlement bill reflect those different kinds of associations.

So we see, for example, the apology redress, the cultural redress, and the financial and commercial redress. The dollar figures, it always seems to me, in these cases, as other contributors to the debate have noted, are relatively small compared with that which was confiscated oftentimes in these scenarios, but nevertheless has been formulated in a way that does finally and comprehensively—to use the expression in the bill—deal with these matters as between the hapū and the Crown.

The different associations give rise to a number of different forms of redress. One of those is the vesting of properties. So there are three different sites that we see—a couple to be vested in what lawyers would know as fee simple and the other as a reserve. But to me, more interesting, perhaps, is the relationship protocol. This indicates that not only is there a record of where the parties have been historically, but sets out the way ahead not merely to state an intention or a desire, but actually to require, in the legal sense, an ongoing relationship. We move from the transactional to the relational by having these things in a settlement bill. And so I hope that all involved will view that as a matter of some importance and significance for the future of the people.

Some of the detail of that is in relation to the Minister of Conservation and director-general to issue deeds of recognition. I think there are a number of different things going on. So we’ve got regard having to be paid to the statutory acknowledgment—that’s the acknowledgment in this bill. So the Environment Court, relevant consent authorities—presumably of a local government nature—and Heritage New Zealand must have such regard. And then there’s also sort of going back the other way, so to speak, the right of the hapū to be informed of resource consent applications, or notices of applications to be provided to them, so that they have the ongoing ability to understand that which is being contemplated for their land. Obviously, somewhat of a change from the historical context in which, you know, so little regard was paid to the property rights of hapū originally. So there’s some effort to make right what was wrong in that regard as well. Also, simply making a record of the association of Ahuriri Hapū with the statutory area. So that’s putting in black and white in this law the fact of the historical record, that acknowledgment, and, of course, the apology that goes with that being so important, as others have already recognised.

So with that, my time draws to an end. But suffice to say that I hope all others will join me in recognising the journey not only to this place and back to the land of these people but also the journey in time to this place and beyond. And so we commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Rawiri Waititi—five-minute call.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Tēnā tātou. Tēnā koe e te Pīka, tēnā tātou i te Whare. Kāti ake. Tuatahi ko te wehi ki a Ihowa rā ngā mano mōna e manaakitia nei i a tātou.

Kua hoki te āhuatanga o te tīmatanga o ēnei kōrero nō te mea heipū mai tērā tūāhuatanga i roto i a Kahungunu hei te wā i a Te Toiarikiriki, nāna i kī atu kia haramai atu ahau. Ko tōna ingoa ko Te Tama-i-roro-pūtea, nō reira tika tonu kia whai korōria ki tōna ingoa tapu.

Ngāti Hinepare, Ngāti Māhu, Ngāti Matepū, Ngāti Paarau, Ngāi Tahu Ahi, Ngāi Tāwhao, Ngāti Tū, Ngāi Te Ruruku, Ngāti Kahungunu, Kahungunu mātangi rau, tēnei te mihi, tēnei te tangi. Tēnei te tangi i runga i te āhuatanga o ō tātou mate. Ngā mate putuputu o te wā, ngā pakeke nā rātou anō hoki tēnei ara i para mō koutou kia tutuki pai ai i ngā mahi i tēnei rā. Nō reira, tika tonu kia tangihia kia mihia kia poroporoakitia rātou ki a rātou. Nō reira, e ngā mate o te wā, ngā mate i roto i ngā tau maha, rātou i pupuri i te mana me te mauri o tēnei o ngā kerēme mō Ahuriri, tēnei te tangi. Haere, haere, whoatu rā koutou. Whoatu rā koutou i runga i te ara kōrero kua parangaia e tino me te mano. Koutou kua haere ki tua o Reitū ki tua o Reiao e te pae, ki te huinga o te kahurangi ki te kāhui Matariki, e ngā mate, haere, haere, whakangaro atu rā.

Tērā anō ki a tātou, Ahuriri. Anei rā ngā te mokopuna a Kahukura Mihiata, ngā here, ngā tautakawaenga ki waenganui i a Te Whānau ā Apanui i a Ngāti Kahungunu. Ā, me ngā kōrero a te Ngāpuhi nei, Ngāti Rēhia nāna i kīia nei, ā, tika tonu ana korero i haramai a Kahungunu ki Te Tai Tokerau, Ngāti Kahu. Nō reira, tika tonu ngā tautakawaenga, ngā whakapaparanga kua kōrerohia hei roto i tēnei Whare o tātou i tēnei rā.

E, kāti ake. Ko tāku i tēnei wā, tika tonu a Willow-Jean. Ko ngā kaupapa pēnei me kōrero Māori tātou kia whakanui ake i ngā kerēme kia rongo ai i ō tātou reo, te whawhai nui i ō tātou pakeke kia ora ai tātou, kia ora ai tātou i roto i ngā mahi o Te Tiriti o Waitangi, kia ora ai tātou i roto i tēnei Whare e tū nei, kia warowaro tō tātou reo i ngā pakitara o tēnei Whare. Nō reira, Ahuriri, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou i a koutou tutuki pai ai i tēnei o ngā kerēme i tēnei rā. Ahakoa te roa, ahakoa te taumaha, ahakoa ngā piki me ngā heke o tēnei ara huarahi, kua tutuki i tēnei rā. Kua tutuki i tēnei rā ahakoa kāore koutou e taea te haramai ā-tinana ki roto i tēnei Whare kei konei koutou e whakarongo mai nā ki tēnei tūāhuatanga ā-tutukitanga. Nō reira, ā, tika tonu.

E ai ki Te Tiriti o Waitangi i whakaaetia te whakatūngia i te Kāwanatanga. Anei te Kāwanatanga me ōna hē me ōna hāmene katoa. Anā, kua kōrerohia i tēnei rā, kua whakahoki atu i te 1 paihēneti noa iho i tangohia i a koutou. Ā, inā te kōrero o te Atikara Tuarua ka pupuri tonu ngā rangatira i tō rātou mana motuhake me te rangatiranga. E kore tērā e mimiti i roto i a tātou ngā iwi puta noa i te motu. Ā, ko te Atikara Tuatoru kia mana ōrite tātou katoa. Kāore anō tērā kia whakatutuki. Nō reira kei te aroha tonu atu tātou ki ō tātou iwi. Ahakoa kua tutuki pai ai tēnei tūāhuatanga i roto i te 1 paihēneti me waiho ake mā ō tātou tamariki mokopuna, te 99 paihēneti e toe ana. Mā rātou anō hoki e whawhai mō taua tūāhuatanga i roto i ngā kerēme tiriti puta noa.

Kotahi noa te mea o taku kōrero. Kia kauaka rawa e tukuna kia full and final, waiho mō ā tātou tamariki mokopuna me makaia ko te kōpaki pūtea me tangohia te āhuatanga o te mahi tāke i ō tātou pūtea. Konei tētahi mea hei whakaarotanga mā tātou, e hika mā. Ā, me mea hoki me waiho ake mā ngā iwi anō hoki tō rātou mana motuhake me tō rātou tino rangatiratanga e whai.

Nō reira, kua pau te taima ki a au, e rima miniti noa te wā ki a au. Ā, tēnei rā te mihi atu ki a tātou i tēnei rā, ki a Ahuriri, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Greetings, everyone. Greetings to you, Madam Speaker, greetings to one and all in the House. Enough. To begin with, my respects to the Lord and the blessings bestowed upon us all.

I have gone back to the beginning of this kōrero because that situation occurred in Kahungunu in Toiarikiriki’s time. It was he who told me to come. His name was Tama-i-roro-pūtea, so we should honour his name.

Ngāti Hinepare, Ngāti Māhu, Ngāti Matepū, Ngāti Paarau, Ngāi Tahu Ahi, Ngāi Tāwhao, Ngāti Tū, Ngāi Te Ruruku, Ngāti Kahungunu, Kahungunu of the many winds, this is my greeting, this is my lament. This is my lament to our dead, to the frequent deaths of this time, to the old people who have cleared the way for you to bring this work to completion today. Therefore, it is right to lament, to acknowledge and to farewell them. Therefore, to the dead of this time, to those who have died in the many years that have before, to those who have held the authority and the life force of this Ahuriri claim, this is my lament. Go, go, go forth. Go forth upon the storied pathway forged by the many before you. Farewell to beyond Reitū, beyond Reiao on the horizon, to where the multitudes are gathered, to Pleiades; to you all who now rest in peace, farewell, farewell, farewell.

Returning to ourselves, Ahuriri. There we have the grandchildren of Kahukura Mihiata, the connections and the links between Te Whānau-ā-Apanui and Kahungunu. And, those stories of this one from Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Rēhia who said, and they are right, that Kahungunu went to Northland, to Ngāti Kahu. Therefore, what has been said about these go-betweens and generations in this House today is correct.

Moving on. I would like to say now, Willow-Jean was spot on. For issues such as this we should all speak Māori to celebrate the claims, to hear our language, the great battle of our old people, so that we could survive, so that we can participate in the work relating to the Treaty of Waitangi, so that we can stand in this House and so that our language can be heard in the walls of this House. Therefore, Ahuriri, I acknowledge you. I acknowledge you on the completion of this claim today. Despite the length, despite the burdens, despite the ups and downs of this process, it will be completed today. It will be completed today despite the fact that you can’t be here in person in this House, but you are here listening to this final stage of completion. Therefore, yes, it is appropriate.

According to the Treaty of Waitangi, agreement was given to set up the Government. Here is the Government, warts and all. Look, it has been talked about today that only 1 percent of what was stolen by you has been returned. And, according to article 1 the chiefs would hold on to their independence and their chieftainship. That concept has not been extinguished amongst the Māori tribes all around this country. And, according to article 3, we should all be equal. That has not yet been achieved. Therefore, we should all feel sorry for our iwi. Despite the successful resolution of the return of 1 percent, we must leave the other 99 percent for our children and grandchildren to deal with. They would also have to fight for that in all Treaty claims.

My speech has one point. If we do not achieve full and final settlement it will be for our children and grandchildren to drop the fiscal envelope and to recoup our money by way of tax. That is something we all really need to think about. And, I also have to say we must also leave the tribes to pursue their own independence and chieftainship.

So, I have run out of time—there were only five minutes allotted for me. I acknowledge you all today, to Ahuriri, greetings, greetings, be well everyone.]

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Otirā, tēnā tātou e ngā mema Hōnore o te Whare Pāremata. Tēnā koutou i tēnei rā nui whakahirahira. E ngā hapū maha o Ahuriri, nau mai, nau mai whakatau mai, nau mai whakatau mai ki te Whare Pāremata, ki te ana o te raiona. Mō koutou tēnei rā nui whakahirahira. Tēnā koutou ngā hapū maha, ae, ko Ngāti Hinepare, Ngāti Māhu, Ngāti Matepū, Ngāti Paarau, Ngāi Tāwhao, Ngāi Te Ruruku me Ngāti Tū, ae. Nau mai, nau mai whakatau mai.

Nau mai, whakatau mai ki te whakatutuki i ngā wawatā o rātou mā, ka huri tū me mihi atu ki ngā tini aituā kua whetūrangitia, haere, haere koutou.

Hoki mai ki a tātou te kanohi ora e pae nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker. I also greet the honourable members of the House of Parliament. Greetings to you all on this highly significant day. To the many hapū of Ahuriri, welcome, welcome, welcome to Parliament, to the lion’s den. This highly significant day is about you. Greetings to all the many hapū, indeed, to Ngāti Hinepare, Ngāti Māhu, Ngāti Matepū, Ngāti Paarau, Ngāi Tāwhao, Ngāi Te Ruruku and Ngāti Tū. Welcome, welcome, welcome.

Welcome to the fulfilment the dreams of those who have passed, and I turn to acknowledge the many who have become stars in the heavens; may you rest in peace.

Returning to ourselves the living, sitting here, greetings, greetings, greetings one and all.]

I’m delighted to speak at the final reading of the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill—the penultimate region of the great Ngāti Kahungunu—that we are now passing into law. I want to acknowledge all the hapū of Ahuriri ngā hapū katoa, which I have just welcomed and joined with everyone to welcome with their welcomes to this House. I acknowledge their long journey, which started way back in the 1980s, through Waitangi Tribunal claims, all the way through to today where finally—we’ve had a few intervening legal processes that have also come up over the years—here we are. Here we are to celebrate the passage of this legislation.

I want to acknowledge all those that have travelled that cannot be in this House today who I know are tuning in. As an uri of Ngāti Pāhauwera, I’m very proud to mihi to all my tini whanaungas of Ngāti Kahungunu and, in particular, Ahuriri, who are here to celebrate today. We all celebrate because this is a very historic and significant occasion. I’m delighted that I was able to play a small part in the last Parliament as chair of the Māori Affairs Committee. We heard the submissions on this bill, travelled up to Napier, and it’s always a great privilege to be able to visit the beautiful areas from where Ahuriri Hapū originate and represent. It was not without some degree of discord at times, but I’m pleased that all of the issues that were raised have managed to be resolved, in particular the issue around the mandate. There was a desire—a directive, I guess—to ensure that there were elections held to renew the mandate for Ahuriri. That has since occurred, and there is a reconstituted body of representatives for Ahuriri. So I want to acknowledge them for going through all of those various processes to ensure that the Minister and this Parliament can proudly and confidently pass this legislation, knowing that all those intervening steps have been met, and I acknowledge them all for that.

As I recall, they were colourful hearings that we conducted at times. I vividly remember our Deputy Speaker, who was a member on the committee at the time—never one to back down— engaged with one submitter and it got a bit testy. So much so that he was propositioned outside to settle it out there. Ha, ha! Never the one to back down, our Deputy Speaker stood his ground in true Te Tai Hauāuru fashion. But, fortunately, the good chair of the committee was able to bring kia tau te rangimarie, we were able to sort it out at that point, although our dear member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti was at the ready with her Māori wardens just in case things flared up. But such is the spirit of collegialness and whanaungatanga that we share as members of the Māori Affairs Committee that we were able to resolve those issues in a rangimarie way. And here we are with this historic bill.

I want to just acknowledge features of this bill, which I think are significant. We talked about the issue of Māori rights and interests to fresh water. And this was raised by my colleague Louisa Wall just now. I do want to acknowledge the statutory acknowledgment and deeds of recognition contained in this deed of settlement which is put into force fully through this legislation. They are over the sacred rivers of Ahuriri hapū, from Esk River and its tributaries, all the way through to Ngaruroro River, Tūtaekurī River—those famous rivers that we hear in those beautiful Kahungunu waiata. Ahuriri Hapū have deeds of recognition recognising their historical and spiritual and traditional relationships as the tangata whenua status over those water bodies. So I do commend those instruments being recognised in this settlement and through this legislation.

There is a long history which Ahuriri have had to endure, whether it’s landlessness, the dispossession of lands, the conflicts that arose through no fault of Ahuriri actually, but they were just caught up in these conflicts—Ōmarunui in particular, and the other Crown attacks in Herepoho during the New Zealand Wars. It was a dark period in our nation’s history and Mana Ahuriri certainly felt the brunt of the aftermath of those conflicts, only being left with a mere wee fraction of land, but virtually completely landless and with all of the resulting hardships that a dispossessed people has faced. And not only over the lands but over their tribal domain of their water bodies and, in particular, the estuary of Te Whanganui-ā-Orotu. It’s right that we instil a new level of relationship and authority for Mana Ahuriri over their ancestral landscapes and their water bodies and traditional lands.

So there is so much that we can talk about, and I want to acknowledge all the contributions from around the House which are all in support of this bill. The next step from here is that new era of a relationship which every Treaty settlement is really the basis for. I want to acknowledge Minister Little for his work and all the Ministers and officials and negotiators and everyone that’s been involved over the many years to ensure that we have gotten to this point. So I don’t want to prolong this any longer than it has to be, only to just add my tautoko. I also want to acknowledge my colleague, tuahine, the Hon Meka Whaitiri for her staunch advocacy as a member of Mana Ahuriri herself, and as one who has played such an active role in ensuring that she has provided that tautoko for all of her whānau to ensure that we get to the successful passage of this legislation. With that, I wish Mana Ahuriri all the very best and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora, tātou.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to speak on the third reading of the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. It’s always a pleasure to follow Rino Tirikatene when he speaks because you know that whatever I say, they’ll believe him and they won’t believe me. I always quite like that, because he’s a man of his word and I always enjoy listening to him because he has great stories to tell.

It is a privilege to be part of the Treaty settlement process in this House, and I accept that we’ll never get any briefing to the point of being perfect. We can’t, because we’re trying to redress or address the challenges of the past, and that’s always been a bit of a challenge. But it’s been a privilege for me. This is the third time I’ve spoken on this bill. So I’ve spoken on all three readings of it. I’ve never had the privilege of sitting on the Māori Affairs Committee, interestingly, so I’ve never been part of the deliberation of these bills. I know that throughout this afternoon a lot of the fact of the bill’s been talked about, so I won’t talk about a lot of that because it’s not really my place to do so. But I do think that it’s a privilege to be part of something where we’re acknowledging the challenges of the past, apologising for those challenges of the past as best we can, and, I guess, trying to put right what’s happened before. And often when you look at the progress of the Treaty settlements in New Zealand, and where they’ve been successful, they’ve been hugely successful, and I congratulate all those recipients of those settlements for the way in which they’ve managed them and the work they’ve done to get them to, I guess, the point they get to, at any one time.

You might wonder what an old bloke of Scottish descent is doing speaking on a bill like this in the House, but the Ahuriri area actually goes right into the Rangitīkei. So when you drive over to the Kāwekas and go into Hawke’s Bay, you’re basically looking at this whole area, from my part of the world where I go across there. And I’m fortunate enough to have a mother, a daughter, and two grandsons, all who live right in Ahuriri itself. So I spend a bit of time there. On the weekend, I was walking around the estuary, actually, looking for National Party voters—and they’re pretty slim there. There was no more National Party voters there than there was snapper in the estuary. But it is a beautiful part of Hawke’s Bay, and I accept the fact that nature dramatically changed the nature of that in 1931. But it is an interesting part of Hawke’s Bay.

There’s one or two other things I think are worth commenting on, with respect to what’s going on in this area at the moment. You’ve got to think about—we’ll put these things in perspective, and if you look at Conservation House, it’s a beautiful old building in the middle of Napier, and it very much reminds me, actually, of the Government buildings across the road here. You just have to hope that those sort of things are preserved for future generations because they are pretty special.

The other thing I think is really interesting about this part of the country is that Scinde Island, which is part of the settlement of this, is, of course, the home of the grave of Sir Donald McLean. If you go back in history, he was the cause, or could be well blamed for, a lot of the problems that have arisen in the process that’s led to this settlement. So it’s a very interesting history some of these settlements have too.

But I do think that it’s important that we put these in perspective and that we do our very best, at least, I guess, to honour the challenges of the past. I find it extremely difficult to think that we’re trying to rectify something that started occurring 160 or 170 years ago and continued for probably nearly 100 years, and then from that time on, really nothing happened until the settlement process started, I guess, in this case, nearly some 35 or 40 years ago. But having got to this point, I just want to wish all those recipients of the settlement, the Ahuriri Hapū and all associated with it, all the best for the future. I think it’s really important that we get this through the House. I wish them a safe journey home, and I think it’s really important that we acknowledge that this House has done its very best to get this bill to a point that at least is acceptable and deals with some of the challenges of the past.

Just before I stop, Harete Hipango asked me to apologise—she had Christmas coming a week early during the course of her speech, and she was very worried. She mentioned the date of the 14th of the 12th, when in fact it was the 7th. So she was in a hurry to get home. But she wanted me to apologise on her behalf for that mistake she made during the course of her speech.

I wish the Ahuriri Hapū and all associated with it all the best going forward, and I congratulate them on getting this thing finally to a fractious, I suppose, at times, agreement. But, none the less, they’ve got it to an agreement, got it to a point of an agreement, and the apology I hope will be accepted and I hope that progress is made in the future. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs):

Some say that she,

is just a fantasy

But I can swear,

that she is there.

So come along with me…

When the night is still,

and the moon is clear

You can see Pania,

of the reef appear

Kua tae mai a Pānia, kua tae mai a Karitoki, kua tae mai a Morimori.

Nō reira, e ngā hapū o Ahuriri kua huihui mai i runga i kauapa whakanui, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Pania has arrived, Karitoki has arrived, Morimori has arrived.

Therefore, to the hapū of Ahuriri who have gathered here in the spirit of celebration, greetings, greetings, greetings one and all.]

To those that have travelled all the way from Ahuriri but can’t be here in the debating chamber, but I know they’re on precinct, can I extend my warm welcome to them all. It is an absolute pleasure to be the final speech on this third reading of the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. Can I acknowledge those that may be watching at home. I’m probably going to get a text from my mother that says, “Stick to your day job.”, but, you know, I know she would want to be here, but I want to acknowledge all the hapū of Ahuriri that have come along. It is unfortunate we cannot have them here in the debating chamber, because it gives that sense of grandeur that Treaty bills absolutely deserve, particularly on the third and final reading.

Can I too acknowledge those that are not here today. I want to particularly mention Uncle Heitia and Margaret Hīha, Ron Toatoa, Fred Reti.

These were the whānau whose whakaahuas came to the pō’hiri today. So those that are no longer with us, I want to mihi to them.

I want to also acknowledge all those involved in the settlement: obviously, the Hon Chris Finlayson; obviously, our colleague the Hon Michael Cullen; and, of course, the current Minister of Treaty settlements, the Hon Andrew Little. The Ahuriri negotiators: I want to particularly acknowledge Piriniha Prentice, Barry Wilson, Joinella Maihi-Carroll, and, of course, the Te Arawhiti officials and all those—our Māori Affairs Committee colleagues, everyone that’s made today possible. It has been a long journey, and it’s not been without its challenges, but today is a day of acknowledging the harm and the hurt of the past but also of celebrating, and with great expectation, what is to come before us.

There are two parts particularly that I want to draw attention to in my contribution this afternoon, and it is around underscoring Māori land legislation yet again, as it appears in this particular settlement, and how generous the hapū of Ahuriri were in 1840 when they settled Te Whanganui-ā-Orotu, which is the greater Ahuriri-Napier area. In 1851, they allowed the Crown to purchase the Ahuriri Block for £1,500. In the mid-1850s, tension was created. Māori were killed, with the Crown obstinately obsessed with getting more land. In 1865, you had more legislation passed by this House. It introduced the 10-owners rule that led to greater alienation in this particular settlement when in 1870, 51,000 acres of 54,000 acres were alienated under the 10-owner rule. I want to underscore that, because I’ve stood in this House many times to look after the very little Māori whenua we have in Māori hands, and here’s a classic example, in acknowledging this third reading, that another iwi not only had their land taken off them but, actually, their legislation that enabled the guarantees that weren’t promised and upheld. That’s what we are acknowledging here today.

In 1874, more land was gifted to the Napier Harbour Board. In the settlement, the Minister talked about shares in the Napier airport. I’m hoping that the Port of Napier will also learn the history of how they came to be and how the Crown enabled them with whenua from the local hapū of Ahuriri.

So I want to acknowledge those particular histories of this claim, but I’m under no illusion that both the apology and the cultural redress and the financial redress in this settlement of something to the tune of $19.5 million will aid and abet the opportunities that these hapū so well deserve. The gifting and losing of so much land in a key strategic city of the Kahungunu estate—Ahuriri is the gateway into Ngāti Kahungunu. It is the gateway because it’s the airport site and it has a port and it also has a railway. This is why it is regarded as strategically in a very important area of the Kahungunu estate. Therefore, my message to those in Napier, in Ahuriri, our business sector, our councils: please work alongside these people, because they’re not going anywhere, and now they’ve got $19.5 million, not to mention the statutory acknowledgments over many of our strategic waterways. It makes sense that the people of Napier work alongside them, and I’m pleased that the member that just took his seat prior to me getting up, Ian McKelvie, said that he found no National supporters walking around the estuary of Te Whanganui-ā-Orotu—probably he was looking in the wrong place, because there’s no whare around there. Maybe he should go up the Bluff Hill—maybe there’s plenty up there.

But the point being that these people have actually sacrificed—I shouldn’t say “these people”, because they’re my people, our people. Our tīpuna have sacrificed significantly to the growth and development of Ahuriri-Napier, and it is important in the passing of this bill, in its third and final reading, that we look forward to the opportunities. At today’s 1 p.m. pō’hiri, our speaker from our side acknowledged ngā mokopuna o ngā moemoea, and I want to leave in my contribution the opportunity for ngā mokopuna of ngā hapū o Ahuriri, because this settlement gives the opportunity for the settlement trust, in its responsibility to those mokopuna—to share the story of all mokopuna across Ahuriri-Napier, of all mokopuna throughout the Ngāti Kahungunu estate, to share this important story of what transpired for the people and the hapū of Ahuriri. It is an important part of our history that we must acknowledge and we must share throughout our kura, of Hawke’s Bay, of Ahuriri.

So there are opportunities here for all people, and I have no doubt that under the new leadership of this trust—I want to acknowledge Tania Eden. I also want to acknowledge the newly appointed chief executive, Liz Munroe. I want to congratulate these wāhine toa for the positions that they have taken up, but more importantly, to lead our people into those opportunities that are quite clearly around and within the Ahuriri area. It is my pleasure and my honour to commend the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill to the House. Mauri ora ki a koutou.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Urgent Debates

COVID-19 Response—Report into Deaths in Self-Isolation

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, earlier this afternoon, the Speaker accepted an urgent debate application on the findings of the independent review panel into two COVID-19 deaths in self-isolation, and the House gave leave for it to be held following the third reading of the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill. I therefore call on Brooke van Velden to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

People put their faith in this Government every single day that the Government will act with the best intentions to keep them safe—keep them safe from harm. We especially expect this to be done in a time of crisis like the COVID response. That’s why New Zealanders have tuned into announcements every day during lockdowns, to make sure they’re hearing the most up-to-date information about what they can do to keep others in their community safe, to keep their family safe, and to make sure that if they are ill or they have COVID, they know how to keep other members of their community safe. We are all collectively working hard to make sure that we get through this COVID response together. People have stayed at home. They’ve done the right thing. People who have had positive COVID tests have turned themselves in for managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) spots and done the right thing to prevent infections and spread throughout the community. People have been at home for months with their kids, making sure that they’re not putting their own children in harm’s way. And people have, sadly, been missing their cancer appointments and their screenings and diagnosis. A lot of people have put their lives on hold because the Government has asked us to do the right thing.

In exchange, the expectation is that the Government will do the right thing by New Zealanders and that they will take on that duty of care, and work hard to put New Zealanders first and put our safety first. But this hasn’t happened. New Zealanders have the right to expect good government and expect an efficient system that puts them first. The system has failed New Zealanders, and, in this particular case, it has failed two New Zealanders, who have died as a result of home isolation. I want to acknowledge those people who may be watching who are family members or friends of those two people who died while at home isolating and doing the right thing.

But we have to acknowledge how we ended up in this situation. The Government failed in its duty of care to New Zealanders by consistently being slow off the mark throughout the entire COVID response. We have been slow to put systems in place since COVID hit our shores last year. We’ve had vaccines: they took ages to actually get procured and come to New Zealand and be put in arms. We’ve had the vaccine roll-out, still, to this day, not be complete, but the vaccine passport, at the same time, wasn’t done in tandem, and that’s taken extra time too. We’ve seen delays when it came to rapid antigen testing and putting that in place in communities when it could’ve been done months ago. When we had home isolation, we knew, from talking to doctors in the community, that they were asking for this to be put in place months before the Government actually rolled it out. They were slow making sure that we had a plan to keep New Zealanders safe in their homes. And we have been slow with basic things like making sure that we have ICU capacity in the hospitals. We had 18 months, and not a single new ICU bed put in place. And we’ve also had nurse shortages. You know, I talked to a woman who was locked out of New Zealand, and she was a critical care ICU nurse without her family here in New Zealand, struggling to get back through the border because she wasn’t seen as essential to the COVID response, to get back through the border. That’s how slow and badly planned this COVID response has been.

But when it comes to self-isolation, we weren’t prepared for Delta at all. We had, at the beginning of this latest lockdown, MIQ that was being used, and we knew that the cases would increase as people ran out of MIQ spots. And that’s exactly what happened. So the Government rolled out self-isolation, and they weren’t prepared for what that would actually mean in reality. They announced it after we went into a Delta outbreak. That’s why I’ve brought this debate to Parliament—because people have died at home, at home while they have been isolating away from the community.

Last week, we saw findings of a review into home isolation that said that these deaths were potentially preventable deaths. Deaths that are preventable is extremely significant to Parliament. This is one of the largest errors that policy can make—to lead to potential preventable deaths. There is nothing more significant to people than that they would lose their lives from an error of Parliament and an error of the Government.

I have a real concern, and the ACT Party has a real concern, with what this means for New Zealanders now. We have thousands of people who are currently isolating at home, and as we go into summer, as we see the COVID protection framework being rolled out, which is more commonly referred to as “the traffic light system”, this means that more people will be moving around the country, more people will be contracting COVID-19, and we will see more cases in the community self-isolating. We need to know that the system will actually be prepared for an increased number of cases and that people will have care when they’re doing the right thing by isolating and staying out of the community. It is absolutely essential that we are scrutinising what is happening, because people deserve good care; they have a right to it. If we’re asking people to stay home, we need to ensure that they have faith in the system so that they actually do it. This debate, I have to stress, is not about politics; it is about people. It is about people because people have lost their lives. Two people have died and more are potentially at risk currently self-isolating.

The Minister of Health, Andrew Little, stood in Parliament two weeks ago, after I questioned him in the House, and I asked, “Does he have confidence in the home isolation system?” And the Minister assured me that he did have confidence in the system. He also raised that every person who is COVID positive and isolating at home should have a clinical assessment from a GP or another competent clinician if a GP is not available to assess them when they get a positive case. He also said that we do have metrics for clinical assessment.

But if you look at what has been coming out of these report findings, what the Minister and the people in charge and the Government have been saying is completely different to what the doctors and the people working on the front lines of the COVID response have been seeing in their communities. Papakura GP Dr Harwood said that top officials said that protocols were being followed but that the kōrero on the ground was completely different. People weren’t having contact with public health, and pulse oximeters weren’t being issued to people who did have a positive case. The Counties Manukau chief executive and spokeswoman for the Auckland home isolation system said that the system buckled under pressure.

We need to know that the system can continue going forward, and we have so many questions because the findings of this review said that there were problems with assessments and clinical safety, welfare needs, mental wellbeing of COVID-19 patients, issues with connectivity between all parts of the system to ensure clinical oversight. There was a need for stronger clinical governance, for adequate reporting systems, and rapid, informed review of adverse events.

I don’t want to go too in depth into the cases of the two people who died, out of respect for their families, but there are some issues that do need to be addressed. In the case of case A, it took five days before Healthline even attempted to call him, because the system was overloaded with patients. When Healthline calls went unanswered, the case was not escalated as a case for priority. The man’s whānau were not contacted after he was unable to be reached by Healthline. And his GP first received a written contact eight days after he tested positive.

In the case of case B, the information about his ill health when he was discharged from hospital was not shared with Healthline, despite it being recorded by the hospital staff. The administration of medication that created an artificial sense of patient wellbeing was never considered in an initial or follow-up clinical assessment. Data from his pulse oximeter was not adequately collected, because he had difficulty using it. And a backlogged system meant the appropriate action was not taken when he was determined to be in need of urgent medical review.

The Government and the system failed two New Zealanders, and the ACT Party has questions about what went wrong. We know that we’ve seen some of these report findings, but, importantly, we need to know what changes have been made to the system so that this doesn’t happen again for another New Zealander. We need to know that as we go into summer, thousands of New Zealanders will be safe, they will get the adequate care that they deserve, and they won’t be another one—another person who is let down and loses their life because of bad public policy.

We need to know where the pulse oximeters are for every person who’s got them. We know that the Minister says we have nearly 30,000 pulse oximeters in New Zealand, and yet we’re not issuing them in every case. I don’t understand why we are giving different abilities of care to different New Zealanders throughout the country. Every person should be expected to receive the same amount of care when they are at home.

Why isn’t the Ministry of Health as available as it should be to New Zealanders? Why are some people spending days waiting for a phone call while others will receive them within 24 hours? Why is there not more consistency with the calls? And why is it that some people when we’re being promised that they’ll be contacted by a GP, or somebody who’s clinically trained, are not being contacted by these people? They are being contacted by people who have already gone to the media and said, “We are not adequately trained to deal with this.” I think that is very disappointing.

The actions going forward are that every person should be issued a pulse oximeter. There are thousands of them. We should give them to everybody, not just the ones that the Minister believes are clinically assessed for it. We should be ensuring that GPs and clinically trained people are contacting people who are COVID positive within 24 hours of them having their positive test and then being at home. We need to ensure that the Minister is being transparent. It’s not good enough that the Government can stand up and say that they have confidence in the system and say things are working well, when people who are on the front line are painting a very different picture. We need to know what’s going wrong so it can be rectified. The Government needs scrutiny because people have a right to know what is actually going on. New Zealanders need to know that if they get sick and if they stay at home, they have certainty that they will get good care. There are thousands of people who are currently sitting at home wondering, “Will I be next? Will that happen to me? How am I supposed to know how to keep care of myself if people are not contacting me, to know how I’m supposed to do that?”

I want to just end on acknowledging the two people that did die. I think it is a real shame that this Government and its systems led to that, and I think we can do better and we have to do better for all of those other New Zealanders who are currently self-isolating and who will be self-isolating over summer. We need to provide certainty that they will get the care that they need. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and can I begin by firstly acknowledging the tragedy of this situation and of these two deaths, and express my condolences to the families and whānau of these two men who lost their lives when they were isolating at home with COVID.

It’s important, as indeed the member who has just resumed her seat, Brooke van Velden, says, that there is transparency and openness, and it was because of those deaths—it was straight after the first death that the investigation, which is the subject of this report, was commenced. It was a day later that the second death happened and the report was amended to include that second death as well. The report was conducted by a group of people, a number of clinicians, as well as those working in the welfare front line as well. They have concluded their report. They’ve made their findings and they’ve made some recommendations, and they have done that in a matter of weeks, and we now have the benefit of their report. The report writers of course acknowledge that their review and their focus was on the processes from the time at which these men entered the care in the community system to the time of their deaths, but it is for the coroner to rule on cause of death. So I think we do need to pay heed to the content of the report in terms of the processes that they examined for two patients who came under the care of the care in the community system.

I should acknowledge also that the DHBs who are responsible for the organisation that provides the care in community service, the Northern Region Health Coordination Centre—those DHBs have apologised for the failings of that system. Indeed, the DHBs said—and I quote—“We unreservedly accept the findings of the review and apologise to the whānau for the shortfalls in the response provided.” The DHBs go on to acknowledge the input that whānau had into the completion of the report.

It was interesting to note that writers of the report made a comment about the speed with which things were happening, and indeed, at the time they were writing their report, they made the comment, and I quote, “The panel acknowledges that changes to the care and community systems are being introduced daily, informed by the issues that are arising. We are acutely aware that even in the few days of the review period, some of the recommendations we will make are becoming a reality.” So the review panel was aware that as a consequence of these events, changes were already being made.

The review panel also acknowledged the speed of change that was happening around this time, and they acknowledged that the speed with which the number of daily cases was rising in Auckland had overwhelmed the system. They pointed out, for example, that at the time that they were writing the report, the system was supporting 1,255 patients with COVID and their whānau and close contacts: a total of 2,835 people in 885 households. And just a matter of weeks before, there was one organisation being required to support just 50 families at the commencement of the programme. That is how quickly things changed. For the record, there are now over 6,500 people being supported in the system, and that is requiring a daily programme of a size that has never had to be geared up before. None of that is comfort to the whānau and families of these men who have died.

The Government has been acutely aware, since the beginning of the pandemic last year and since the beginning of the August outbreak in Auckland, that the measures that the Government supports and the measures that the health system has to put in place have to prioritise preserving life, and that is what we have done and that is why the track record of this country when it comes to the management of COVID has been to see one of the lowest levels of mortality and one of the lowest case numbers of any country in the world.

As Delta arrived and we managed our response to that, we knew that we had to adapt our system to allow for more people to recover from COVID in the community. That planning started in September. On 14 October, myself and some colleagues confirmed the model that we were adopting, the care in the community model, which was very much based on models that had already been put in place in Canada and in New South Wales. That was the model that was being put in place as Auckland, in particular, was adapting to the rapid rise in case numbers that were experienced at that time. The reality is the system as it was, and during its adaptation, was being overwhelmed and, tragically, the steps that ought to have been taken in relation to these two men were not taken.

The Government had made clear its expectation that the priority is a clinical assessment of those who are being required to isolate at home or to remain at home while they are being cared for. Because the first question is, is that the right place for them to be, and have all the relevant factors been taken into account—both them, their health and their health profile, the rest of the household, and indeed other personal circumstances that might be applicable? So the first question that the system needs to answer is should the person even be at home? The system was used to referring anybody with COVID immediately to a managed isolation facility, but that wasn’t going to continue and it never was going to be a permanent feature, because at some point, as the population became vaccinated and as we became used to COVID and as more therapeutics came on that could help us manage COVID, we knew that we had to prepare for more people being able to recover at home. Those are all the steps that this Government has backed and supported and financed in preparation of a change of mode in response to this virus.

So in addition to prioritising the clinical assessment, we also had to prioritise a welfare assessment. There are some who can look after themselves at home, but not everybody is in that circumstance. There are some people who have a number of other issues, including whānau members, it might be pets, it might be their personal circumstances and their employment relationships and what-have-you that have to also be taken care of. If they are living on their own and they can’t go out and get food, then that has to be supplied and they have to be supported for that as well. So all of that was part of the model that was being put in place and is in place now.

I think what became clear is that the transition from the public health assessment, which was what the system was geared up to do primarily because they knew that once a person had returned a positive test they’d be whistled off to managed isolation or to hospital—but the shift from public health assessment to personal, clinical, and welfare assessment was too slow. The system did not keep up and so the right assessments were not carried out by the right people at the right time. But the reviewers, as they recorded in this report, have noted that changes that they have recommended should be made were already being changed at the very time that they were examining the processes. And I can say with confidence that those processes have changed, and when I see the way the system has responded in other places where the outbreak has just emerged—so, for example, in Nelson last week where an outbreak emerged, I’m confident that the DHB, which like all DHBs had engaged in the preparation planning, was prepared, was ready, was waiting, and was able to respond effectively and quickly and properly to the needs of that community and those who returned positive tests. And that has happened.

There are a number of things that the report has highlighted where there were inadequacies in the system. The reality is some of these have been historical problems, the relics of an extended period of time where the investment in health infrastructure was at an appallingly and embarrassingly low level—so little or no investment in our IT platforms and our health system. So we’re meant to have a national health system, but we allowed 120 different systems to set up because the previous Government just didn’t have its eye on the ball, just ignored the problems. So we now have—we’ve started the investment in an IT platform that means that all the systems talk to each other and are accessible wherever you are in the country. But it wasn’t ready. It hasn’t been ready. We had to build a system especially for our border management when COVID arrived—the border case management system. We had to build that especially for COVID in New Zealand, a system that is accessible nationwide and can track cases coming in. But that was to map people crossing the border who had COVID. That was all it was set up to do, and it had to be adapted, and it has taken time to adapt it to do a much more complex and comprehensive function.

But, see, that’s what happens when you run down a health system, and even with the best effort that has been made in the last four years to massively increase investment and do the massive catch-up job, sometimes you just don’t catch up fast enough. But I acknowledge the work that the health system has done: the Ministry of Health, DHBs, and an amazing health workforce that has, frankly, been under the pump month after month after month, since this virus arrived, to provide the best care possible. But it hasn’t been perfect—but it hasn’t been perfect—and I again acknowledge the tragic loss of these two men.

If there is a lesson in this anywhere at all—and there is a lesson, actually—this virus has highlighted a number of things about our health system. One is that you cannot, year after year, short change our health system and expect a world-class health system 10 years later. Also, we know there is inequity in our health system—huge inequity in our health system—and the light has been truly shone on it in recent months and indicated by these two cases as well, where it is pretty clear, according to the report, that the proper cultural responses were not made; that two Māori men who needed care were not communicated with in an appropriate way. Community organisations who could have provided appropriate intervention were not plugged into the system sufficiently to enable that to happen.

So those things have been acknowledged and those things are known, and the system has adapted and continues to improve and will always continue to improve. When we have events like this—tragic events such as this—we need to know and the system needs to have confidence that it can examine itself, that it can find its shortcomings, and that it can be given the opportunity to overcome its shortcomings and, at the very least, honour the loss of these two men in the improvements that will be made that will be for the benefit of everybody else in Aotearoa New Zealand.

I’m confident that those who have led the system at the DHB level, at the regional health coordination centre level, and at the ministry level have understood what the gaps were and were rapidly trying to deal with them as case numbers were rising, and have taken the steps and made the measures, with the support of Government, with the support of additional investment, to ensure that everything that can possibly be done to prevent this sort of thing happening again has been, and is being, and will continue to be done. That is what we owe people—that is what we owe people.

The member who opened the debate was right when she said that people put their faith in Government to act with best intentions, especially in a crisis like this, and that in exchange for the sacrifices that people have made and are making, every effort is made to ensure the system is as effective as possible. I can assure the member, and I assure this House, that is what has happened. Every person, every public servant, every clinician, every person on the end of a phone, every person involved in the community, the community organisations, the NGOs who have been involved, and everybody in this precinct who gets to be involved and gets to make decisions, that is the value that has underpinned everything we have done. But tragically, it will never be perfect and we have discovered imperfections, and the clinicians and others who put this report together have revealed those imperfections, and steps were being taken at the time, have been taken since, and are being taken now to make sure we have the best system possible to respond to COVID, not just in Tāmaki-makau-rau any more, and Waikato, but right around the motu, right around Aotearoa New Zealand, and I’m confident the system is a good one.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. If I could give you the “too long; didn’t read” version of that Minister’s lamentable 15-minute contribution to this very important debate, it would be: “Two people have died in preventable ways in a Government-run home isolation system. That’s terrible and we weren’t ready.” That’s basically the short summary of a very lamentable 15-minute contribution in this debate, which is: we accept that two people have died in preventable ways—and that’s to quote the northern health organisations’ review of those deaths—we don’t like that, that’s regrettable, and the system wasn’t ready.

Well, my question to the Government is: why was the system not ready? What we had was a stunning admission just then from the Government, and in their response to media reports of these deaths, that the system was not schooled up, the system was not geared up to cope with the number of daily cases that presented in this most recent outbreak. And I quote the Minister: “The system wasn’t ready for the rapid escalation in the number of daily cases. … [We expected] 100 to 120 cases a day. … [We were not ready for] 150 to 200.”

Here’s a question. Why was the system not ready? When is Andrew Little as the Minister of Health going to stop blaming everyone other than the Government and his own ministry for the failings that he presides over? Because the thing that has come through with this Government, whether it’s vaccination passes or business or the health system readiness or rapid antigen testing, or anything at all—when it comes to COVID, the clear theme that comes through is it’s everybody else’s fault but the Government’s. Everything that happens is everyone else’s fault. It’s never the responsibility of the Ministers. They’re always able to disclaim responsibility. It’s always somebody else’s fault.

Well, the question for Andrew Little and the Government Ministers that will follow in this very important debate moved by Brooke van Velden is: why was the system not ready? Why has Sir Brian Roche written a report to Government in September this year, 23 September, saying that there are urgent issues with respect to New Zealand’s preparedness for reconnecting—in other words, opening up. And the current outbreak—and remember, this is in September and the outbreak started in August—has revealed the very poor level of preparedness of the hospital systems for Delta. Why is that the case?

I put it to you that, unfortunately, the Government spent the first few months of this year assuming that elimination would work. They assumed that they’d run the same playbook as 2020, which was very successful, which was that we would erect the border barriers, not let anybody in, and we would use the hard measures of lockdowns to eliminate COVID from New Zealand again. The reason I say that I think the Government thought that is because that’s pretty much what the Prime Minister said. When Delta turned up on 17 August and it had been in the community for a few days, but the first case came through the system on 17 August—everyone remembers; here we go again. Delta has arrived; 20 percent vaccination. The numbers were so low. The Prime Minister turned up on national television and she said “short and sharp”. Remember that? Remember a “short and sharp lockdown”?

Poor old David Seymour got a $3,000 parking bill because he believed her. I would have thought a guy who’s been in Parliament for four years would know better than to believe the Prime Minister, when it comes to exhortations from the podium of truth or the podium of mistruth, as is now being called—the podium of platitudes, as we now call it on this side, because that’s all we get these days. We don’t get the truth from the podium; we get platitudes. But I would have thought David Seymour as an experienced member of Parliament would know better than to believe what he listens to from that podium. He got a $3,000 parking fine, poor guy, because he thought it was going to be short and sharp. What’s that?

David Seymour: You can’t even trust the PM with your parking now.

CHRIS BISHOP: You can’t even trust the Prime Minister with your parking. He thought it would be short and sharp. And as it turned out, because there was no prep work whatsoever for Delta, it was not short and sharp, and because our vaccination rates were so low—20 percent in mid-August—we had to do the lockdown and it went on and on because there was no prep work for Delta.

And as it turned out, as the outbreak persisted, the Government had no idea what to do. Now, a sensible Government would have listened to people like Rako Science, who said, “Let’s scale up the testing—let’s scale up the saliva testing that we can provide. Let’s carpet-bomb South Auckland with rapid antigen tests to try and find as many people with COVID as possible.” But no, no, no. This smart Government that eliminated COVID last year, they knew better. They’d just run the 2020 playbook and all would be well. Well, actually, what happened was all was not well, and we have now spent four months, the better part of the last four months of this year, in Auckland in a lockdown which is only now lessening. There was no back-up plan from the Government. I don’t like using the word “Plan B”, because of the connotations that that has come to be associated with. So I talk about back-up plan. There was no back-up plan. It was assumed that elimination would work.

And we know from the Government’s own documents that from August the officials were writing to Ministers Peeni Henare and David Clark. They were writing to the Ministers saying: we are now starting some work on Delta. In August! Why were the officials writing to Ministers in August, saying things like: “We’re setting up a work programme to consider the effect of Delta on New Zealand.”? Hmm. What a sensible idea that would be! I’ll tell you when it would have been a sensible idea to do: maybe back in March and April, because Delta was in managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) from the first week of April. The Prime Minister says, “Oh, well, Delta. It’s a very tricky virus, you know. Look, there’s no playbook for it.” Actually, there was a playbook. We knew what was coming because we were the last to get it. That’s the other thing. We were the last to get Delta because we’re at the bottom of the world and we had these high barriers, and we looked at the UK and we looked at the United States and we looked at Australia and we knew that it was going to come. But the Government only got on top of doing some work on it in August—in August! It’s just unfathomable when it was in MIQ since April. That is the context for this report.

The Government should have been ready. It was as clear as day to anybody that at some point COVID was going to turn up here again and we had to be ready for it, and the Government had no plan. That’s the context with which this report comes, because if you read the report, it makes it very clear that the Government had to very quickly stand up a home isolation system. Just read it. Page five: “The speed of change mandated by the rapid rise in cases cannot be over-emphasised, with consequences including confusion and delayed response. … the rapid increase in the number of patients requiring the service far exceeded planning and expectations. Capacity … was initially overwhelmed.” That’s in the report and the Minister accepts it. The Minister accepts the findings of the report and he says, “Well, we’ll put it right.”

Well, that’s all very well and good now, but we need to know, and the House needs to know, why that was not done earlier. Why did the Government spend April, May, June, July, August, September in denial about what Delta would bring?

Barbara Kuriger: Because they’re hopeless.

CHRIS BISHOP: Because they’re hopeless, says Barbara Kuriger. Why did the Government spend all that time assuming that elimination would work? It’s possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, or it should be, for a competent Government. Clearly, we had to try and make elimination work. No one doubts that as a strategy. We adopted an elimination strategy that enjoyed bipartisan support across the Parliament, particularly in the first six months of this year. Clearly, we had to make elimination work, but you don’t put all your eggs in one basket. You do not. You have to plan for the future.

What the Government should have been doing was saying, “In the event that Delta turns up, it will spread. What will we do when it does? Well, we’re going to end up with a lot of cases in ICU and a lot of cases in hospital, and we’re going to end up with some cases in the community; we need a plan for that.” What is so clear from these documents, from reading the Sir Brian Roche advice of September and reading the Northern Region Health Coordination Centre’s own report is that no one bothered to do that. No one bothered to say: go away and do some work on home isolation. I got an Official Information Act (OIA) response from the Whanganui DHB the other day. Three weeks ago, I OIA’d them and I said, “What’s your home isolation plan? I want to see a copy of it.” They hadn’t even produced one. This was three weeks ago, in mid-November. You know, you ask yourself why that is the case, and the reality is there’s probably no central direction. So I find this incredibly depressing, because it was so clear that we needed to be planning for the future.

Good government is not just about responding to what’s in front of you on a day-to-day basis; it’s not. It’s not just about reacting week by week and turning up in question time and saying things are OK when they’re not. That’s not good government. Good government is thinking ahead. Good government is actually directing the officials to think ahead and to think about what’s coming. And the tragedy of these reports and the tragedy of these two poor men who have died is they died in preventable ways. That’s what the report says. If this Government had been on the job and competent from the outset, they would not have died. Thank you very much.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Nā, te mea tuatahi he mihi aroha ki te whānau pani o ērā tāne. Mauria mai ngā tini aituā hei tangihia hei maumaharatia. Haere ki te puna wairua, ki te puna roimata, ki te puna tangata. Haere, haere, haere atu rā.

[Madam Speaker, greetings. Firstly, I would like send my condolences to the bereaved families of those men. Carry with you the many deaths that need to be mourned and remembered. Go to the spring of the spirit, to the well of tears, to the source of life. May they rest in peace.]

I begin today by acknowledging the whānau and friends of these men—people who loved them, who are mourning, and who are rightfully angry at these tragic and seemingly completely preventable deaths. We’ll take part in this debate because we want to honour their lives and all the people who have so far passed away from this pandemic. We hope that it will continue to be the wake-up call that the Government needs, but we acknowledge the hard work of the Government. We acknowledge how hard our health workers, our community people, how everybody has rallied, and Māori communities and Pasifika, all our migrant people—everybody is working as hard as they can. They are tired. They are really tired.

However, some of this, and the impact on Māori, is because of some key strategic decisions that were made that from the beginning have impacted on us. So, from day one, the Government decided against an equity approach. An age-based vaccination roll-out inherently and completely disadvantaged Māori from the beginning because of our underlying health conditions that see us die on average 20 years younger, because of overcrowded housing, but mostly because of the institutional racism that the health system is set up on. That’s just not me and the Greens saying that. In this report, and I quote, “Most importantly the system design has not developed with equity at its heart. The combination of lower vaccination rates in Māori and Pasifika, and the spread of COVID-19 in low socio-demographic and marginalised communities has meant that the burden of COVID-19 has fallen disproportionately on Māori and Pasifika communities. There is a risk that the current”—this is the community supported isolation and quarantine—“system could further magnify this inequity.” So that is the place we start from.

Every single Māori and even non-Māori expert that we have spoken to and that I have questioned in the Health Committee that has gone on record has agreed that even if the rest of the country has 100 percent vaccinations, if Māori do not, it doesn’t matter. They will be fine generally; we will not. So we make up about half of the cases, despite being less than 20 percent of the population. Nearly 85 percent of Māori have had one dose; that is great, that is awesome—72 percent have had two. While nearly all DHBs have reached that magic 90 percent first dose, and Tai Rāwhiti is so close, only two DHBs in the country have got 90 percent of Māori that have had their first dose.

And when we look at this report that has been done, I was so, so sad reading this, because I know how hard people in our health workforce are working. No one there wants to make mistakes. No one wanted to be the person who realised that the call wasn’t made because of the technology. Those are horrible, horrible reasons and horrible things to deal with in your work. What struck me, though, in both these cases is it was not just one thing that happened; it was a succession of things that went wrong. Things escalated, and in some cases the escalation that should have happened never did.

So we acknowledge things are moving very, very fast. We acknowledge we’re trying to work things out with old systems. We acknowledge that the health system has multiple systems that do not speak to each other, and that holds us back not just for this, but in probably most aspects of health. And the new health system—we’re looking and waiting for the magical IT unified system that will have no glitches, that will speak to everybody and everybody’s information will be updated, their correct name and gender will be in the system, their iwi, perhaps, will be connected to their name.

So supporting our workforce. People need everything in place to do their job well. We understand the key times, the key places where our most qualified people need to make the decision. People on the end of a phone who are not qualified cannot make those assessments. They can triage things, they can tell you who to call, but we need those systems in place. We need enough of those people with those qualifications. I absolutely agree with my colleagues who are saying, “What are we doing about all those people who are waiting to come here but do not have an MIQ spot? Qualified health workers that we need right now in our system.” We need to unify the families of people who have come here for that purpose, because that’s a health and wellbeing thing for our staff.

We absolutely need the technology that allows people to do their job properly, but we also need those strong local connections. My first thing when I hear somebody’s self-isolating, it’s like, “Where are they?” Lots of us are living in overcrowded spaces. Where have they gone to be by themselves? And it may be, because we don’t know all the details, that these were people who lived alone, but where were their families? Why were their families not told? So those local connections—who’s stepping in to check on them? Who’s coming to just see if they’re all right, even if they’re standing outside the door to have a chat? Who’s bringing them food? Who’s making sure their cat’s all right?

It really disturbed me, that thing about the oximeter, because some of our people who are given these pieces of technology to use—and it said in the review that even though they were struggling with it and didn’t know how to use it, they were still sent away with them. Now, that was critical to monitoring that person that it was used and updated, because they didn’t know how to use it, the information wasn’t updated, so one of the ways the alert could have been raised never happened. A simple, simple thing of someone going to the house and checking they know how to use it.

I’ve spoken in this House before about whare tapa whā; that our health system mainly focuses on the tinana, the bodily integrity, what happens to our physical self. But I think one of those other aspects is around whānau. We have to stop treating each case as an individual and look at where they fit in their whānau, who is their community of support around them, and then helping resource those whānau, those community people who will be the ones that will go in and check on them—their hinengaro; their mental wellbeing. These are unprecedented times, but actually we’ve had things like this before, because, for Māori, even though COVID impacts on Māori disproportionately, it’s just the latest thing. There’ll be something after this. We’re not designed for these Pākehā diseases. We are pinning all of our hope on the Māori Health Authority. There’s a lot of burden going on this one little statutory authority to fix—centuries of problems with Māori health, but this one is happening right now. So for the same reason that the Government knew they had to set up an independent Māori authority if they wanted to make an impact on Māori health for COVID, for whether it’s home isolation, whether it’s MIQ, however things are rolling out, if you want Māori to live, you ask the Māori experts what to do and then you do it. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora huihui mai tātou katoa.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)): E aku apa whatukura e te ika huirua kua riro atu ki te pō, kia tāpai ake ki tini kua riro atu i tēnei tāima o te urutā, kia tangihia wā tātou mate ki te tāhuhu kōrero o tō tātou Whare e tū nei. Ki a koutou katoa kua riro atu ki te pō, haere mai, haere.

Ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātou, e te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe, kia ora tātou katoa.

[To my many spiritual ancestors and to the two victims who have recently passed away, adding to the many who have passed during the time of this epidemic, let us lament our dead as they pass into the history of this House. To all those who have passed away, may you rest in peace.

Bringing the discussions back to ourselves, Madam Speaker, greetings to you and greetings to all.]

As I have done on many occasions, I stand first to lament the loss of these two gentlemen. Of course we send them and farewell them, with all of those whom we’ve farewelled during this tricky time and challenging time of COVID-19, whether they’ve passed because of the disease of COVID-19 or whether they’ve passed during the time of lockdown. We know that these particular challenges on our whānau have been heightened in the Māori community, heightened in the Pacific community, but I will say this: heightened across all communities of Aotearoa. And I want to take the opportunity to farewell them and farewell them appropriately here in the House.

The Minister of Health has already explained that we accept the recommendations from this report. We know that, as COVID-19 has been in our community, in particular over the last four months, we have required a system that must be agile and nimble during what is a particularly tricky time, and if I can echo the sentiments of our colleague Dr Kerekere in thanking a hard-working health sector—and I mean hard-working. I’ve travelled the country to meet with Māori health providers, primary health organisations (PHOs), pharmacies, health leadership, and I acknowledge the role that they’ve played in adapting to these tricky COVID times and making sure they can continue to serve their community and not in a one-size-fits-all approach. And I’ll come to that a little bit later in my contribution, as we look towards what the report recommends and how we might continue to make sure that we’ve got a better system that will continue to serve our people, as we look towards the new protection framework and, of course, the 15 December date that has been offered to allow the people in Tāmaki-makau-rau more freedoms across the country and the ability to travel. What we know, in the conversations in the community, is that, while we count down to 15 December, communities right across the country are looking towards the right model that suits them for care in the community. And I can say that if we get the framework right, the leadership right, the most important part will be how we connect it to the execution on the ground—the way that we implement it amongst our people—and that’s going to be key.

If we look towards these two gentlemen and acknowledge their Māori whakapapa—and Dr Kerekere is right in saying that we can’t simply look towards a clinical assessment. While we acknowledge, in the report, that that was lacking, we acknowledge too that that must be one of the first priorities as we find whānau members and community members who contract COVID, to have a clear clinical assessment early. From there, we must look towards the entire system to cater for them and their whānau. And I want to give an example: what we know, in recent times, is a particular person in a whānau has contracted COVID-19, and what’s happened is that the health response was strong—actually, a strong clinical assessment, a strong connection with the whānau—and then, sadly, what happened was the social connection wasn’t there. In a remote area, how was that whānau supposed to be able to go and get the needs of their tamariki, their mokopuna who all live in the same house? And who stepped into the breach? Māori health providers—Māori health providers. And we’ve heard it right across the country. I suspect members right across the country have heard the same line: trusted members of the community—not just anybody but a trusted member, and a skilled member, and the right person in that community to continue to work with that family.

So we accept these recommendations, and as the report already outlines, we’ve already gone some way to making sure that we can fulfil those recommendations, to make sure we can adjust the system to be able to respond. And I want to come back to a previous point I’ve made: it is important that we have a good structure and good leadership here, but the system must be able to respond according to its environment, and we know that these particular cases are in Tāmaki-makau-rau, where, despite the challenges on the health sector, there is a health infrastructure there that you will not find in either Kaitāia, Te Tai Rāwhiti, and more remote, rural area across Aotearoa. So we need to make sure the settings are right to allow the ability for our providers in our community to lead the isolation at home. And I want to come to that very shortly.

I want to address a couple of the points that have already been made by members from the other side of the House. One of them is: “OK, what has the Government done to be able to prepare ourselves for COVID-19?”—and in particular the Delta strain. I have been travelling the length of this country since March to promote the most effective tool to protect our whānau during these times, whether it was before Delta or even after Delta, and that is the vaccine. I can tell you that certain members on the other side of the House have proven a roadblock or challenged the push for equity in this space as we’ve looked to support Māori communities to vaccinate, to make sure that our people have the number one tool that will help them in the onset of COVID-19 in their community. Those efforts continue today, and I want to be clear to the Māori community in particular, but also to our Pacific community, our ethnic communities, and our tangata whaikaha communities: we will not give up on you. We will continue to push the vaccine to make sure it’s readily available to you, to help give you the best protection as we move forward.

The other part I want to touch on is, of course—right, we accept the recommendations of the review, of the report—where to from here? And I’m actually quite proud to stand here and say that, about a month and a half ago, we announced a significant investment of funds to be able to make sure that, amongst iwi and in particular in Māori communities, we can support them now to do the planning for care in community. And I’ll tell you what makes that special: not only do we have the health expertise to be able to do that, led by Māori health providers, PHOs, and regions, but we also have the more fulsome tapa whā model that Dr Kerekere refers to that are led by iwi, led by hapū, led by Māori communities.

And I want to really emphasise that point, because I’ll tell you why: in recent days, a member from the ACT Party has likened the actions of iwi to protect their community to thuggery, calling them thugs. Now, what we know is that for this model to be successful, we need iwi on board. In fact, I’ve seen multiple iwi plans for care in community which are fantastic—iwi-led, community-led. For example, Ngāti Tūwharetoa showed me their plan, which would look toward isolating the case of COVID. They’d wrap around support in the whānau, and instead of putting the positive case into the marae, what they’ll do is take in the whānau, those who test negative, and put them on to the marae, where we would normally care for and cater for our whānau while wrapping the health services around the positive case isolating at home. Now, that’s how you do Māori care in community, and the support that we are giving iwi to plan this, to lead this amongst our own people, in our own communities is really important. Now, that planning isn’t just done in Tāmaki-makau-rau, where a large percentage of our Māori population are. In fact, 74 percent of Ngāpuhi live in Tāmaki-makau-rau. What it also does is support our more rural, isolated communities, and that’s going to be the key so that we don’t repeat the mistakes that have been identified in this report.

So we’ve got a job to do to continue to support those efforts, and I acknowledge that as we look towards care in the community, as we look towards making sure that Māori actually can play a lead role in this space, we need to continue to drive home some very key messages to our community: (1) vaccination. Our rates are climbing for Māori, and I’m proud of that. In fact, if we look towards all the vaccination programmes ever run in this country, we have now well exceeded the best that Māori communities have ever done in the past on a vaccination programme. Long may that continue. The next one is to allow the space and to resource Māori communities to do this. And I’m proud to say that on this side of the House, we are doing that now, and we will continue to do that. Ultimately, though, as we look towards the way that we care in community and the 15 December date that I’ve already mentioned, who’s going to lead this? It is going to be our community. It’ll get there with strong health leadership from the centre, from this Government, from health infrastructure across the country, and I’m confident that, as we move forward into the coming weeks and months, we will manage this well during summer.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I te tuatahi, ki ēnei mate, haere ki te kāinga tūturu o tō tātou Matua i te Rangi, moe mai, moe mai rā.

[Firstly, to those who have passed, go to the permanent dwelling place of our Father in Heaven; may you rest in peace.]

First of all, I want to acknowledge these two people who have succumbed to this terrible disease and extend thoughts to them, and particularly to their family. I want to, in this offering, address several parts around these very sad reports. First of all, why did this happen? Secondly, what actually happened? And third, most importantly, where to from here?

The question of why this happened—well, this is a sad tragedy of being underprepared through this report. The Government was underprepared for increasing community cases, and while it’s alluded to in the report, I actually find the answers in written question No. 52015, which asks questions around home isolation. The answer to this question was this: “A rapid increase in COVID-19 cases during the August 2021 community outbreak put pressure on managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) places and it was necessary to quickly implement a community isolation and quarantine option.”—it was necessary to quickly implement a community isolation and quarantine option.

This Government was unprepared. They had 18 months from the first COVID outbreak in 2020, and yet when COVID cases went up this year in August 2021, 18 months later, they had to quickly look at implementing a community isolation programme—hospital at home. When did we start doing ICU-lite? Surely that’s an oxymoron in itself. When did we start pushing cases out into the community and saying, “Oh, by the way, our health system’s unprepared, so you just help yourself.”? “Oh, by the way, we’ll give you one of these things.”, which is the pulse oximeter that I keep in Parliament for who knows when. When we say, “Here’s your hospital at home. Good luck to you. God bless you. Figure it out.”, when did that happen? When did we start saying to the community, “You’re responsible, because we don’t prepare the health system properly, and you just figure it out.” Because that’s what it looks like through these cases here.

If we look at what actually happened—reading through the cases themselves is quite revealing, and there’s a number of points, but I’ve broken it down to two: first of all, the risk factors, and secondly, communication. In case A, the risk factors were very clear. The person was living alone and they were unvaccinated. So the risks start going up just by virtue of that, quite aside from any of their personal demographics, how old they were, what other pre-existing conditions they may have. That was risk enough, as is being pointed out in the case review.

Then, secondly, for me, it’s the communication aspect. What didn’t we learn from the KFC worker in South Auckland who could not be contacted? They didn’t bother to turn and knock at the door. Three or four days later, as I recall, was when they were first contacted, and we’ve revisited that same mistake. We have not been a learning enterprise during coronavirus.

Here’s what the findings from the case reviews are for case A around communication: there was a five-day delay in the COVID Healthline making the first attempt at phone contact. How can that be? Discharged home, sent home, and five days before Healthline makes contact. Then when that failed, case A’s whānau were not contacted. How can that be? Written contact—and I’ll come back to primary care—with case A’s last known GP was not made until many days later. Secondly, the information that was seeking to be collected was poor quality, it wasn’t clear, it was inconsistent. We should have learnt from the outbreak last year many, many things that would have helped this time. Again, communication. If I look at case A, I pull out two things: risk factors and communication.

If I look at case B, there’s two slightly different things here—a little bit different. I need to acknowledge it’s always hard when a person self-discharges against advice. That’s challenging. They’re making a call of their own autonomy, and it’s against medical advice. That just raises the risks. It is what it is. That was the call. That raises the risks. It should have raised the response as well. But, in fact, what happened was the public health team weren’t aware of the self-discharge status, and when they were sent home, they were sent home with a pulse oximeter, by all accounts, looking at the findings, with really not much health literacy around what that means.

I think we need to be careful we don’t overreach with pulse oximeters. They’re just one measure, one tool to assess a person’s status. For example, you’ve got to think of it like a thermometer. If I take someone’s temperature and they’re a normal temperature, if they look sick, they’re sick. I don’t care what their thermometer is saying. So you’ve got to weigh up a whole lot of other things, not just the oxygen sats or the pulse that the pulse oximeter is telling you.

If I wanted to make it something more ubiquitous in the environment, I think of it like a peak flow meter. People will have more of a sense of that. Those people with asthma who blow get a peak respiratory flow rate through their peak flow meter. A pulse oximeter is just like that. It’s just a measure. If the person’s short of breath and they’ve got other things going on with them, actually, that’s the whole picture we need to be talking about. So I don’t want to be distracted. This is not a hospital in the home. It’s not ICU-lite. It’s just one tool that needs to have a lot of health literacy around it to do a good job. I accept some of the overseas studies that have shown that it’s important, and I think it probably is, but we’ve got to wrap around the other education parts to make it really effective.

So then what also happened was it failed to have primary care involved. So on 18 October, Allan Moffitt from ProCare goes to a meeting with the Northern Region Health Coordination Centre (NHRCC) and he’s angry. He’s angry because primary care haven’t been involved, because what the system tried to do initially was say, “Nah, we’re not going to involve primary care. What we’ll actually do is we’ll use the doctors in MIQ. The few that we’ve got who are managing MIQ, they’re going to be our response. They’ll do the hospital at home.”, and that failed miserably. GPs were telling them, “This will fail. If you don’t involve us, what’s going to happen is when you get overwhelmed, it will drop back on us. We will again be the safety net.” Sure enough, that’s what played out.

So Allan Moffitt goes to a meeting with NHRCC on 18 October, and he’s ready to do “battle” with the system to say, “We have to be involved.” Thankfully, when he got there, by all accounts, they’d also figured it out—“Oh, we’re going to have to have primary care involved. Yes, Allan, you’re right. Let’s sweep in behind ProCare. Let’s bring others on board.” Late again—just as late as primary care has been to give the vaccine, like pharmacies have been late to give the vaccine.

Big shout-out to pharmacies printing out the COVID passports, by the way. My goodness, we’d be struggling if they weren’t doing that for older people and laminating it. Shout-out to pharmacy. Thanks for doing that. That’s really helpful. But, again, they’ve been late to other parts of this response.

So we need to get to the “What next?” What learnings are we going to take from this? What do we understand could be a better response than what has been? So we already said it was hopeless, it was late, it was underprepared—yeah, yeah, yeah. So what are we going to do tomorrow? I must admit, some of the recommendations in the investigation are useful: the piloting of new models with Māori and Pasifika providers to provide holistic clinical social welfare and mental wellbeing support—that’s a good idea. I’m a big fan of treating people in a culturally competent context. You get a better outcome.

Immediate clinical assessment using information already available—so this is going to be integration with primary care databases. What we’re struggling on one level with Whānau Ora and John Tamihere—struggling with that. But one of the cases, it was very clear that the information was held in the primary care database. The discharge summary hadn’t got out to the public health people, and that would have been extremely useful if it had.

Reduction of the time taken between a positive test and the first clinical assessment—that must be another key performance indicator (KPI). As we’re assessing the system, as we’re assessing contact tracing—that should be a KPI. Give it a number, something that people can be accountable for. From your positive test to the time you’re first called for a clinical assessment it should be this, and then report it. Put it out in the public domain. Be transparent with it, so we can all hold ourselves accountable.

The launch of a hospital in the home initiative across all three DHBs for cases needing a lot of health support—that’s what we’re talking about. Door knocking for those who are not able to be contacted, particularly those isolating alone. We should have learnt this from the KFC worker in South Auckland a year ago. This was exactly that situation. We did not learn. When they cannot be contacted a certain number of times, hop in the car and knock on the door, surely. The establishment of a Community Supported Isolation and Quarantine System clinical governance group with the purpose of identifying emerging risks and trends—that’s just appropriate self-monitoring.

Here’s one of my concerns: so this whole philosophy of hospital at home. On one level, it does have a place. But here’s my concern—because this is fundamentally what the business case for the whole health sector reforms are predicated on: keep people at home, don’t send them to hospital, kick them out early, so you’ve got an early discharge, and push them back into the community. Look at the business case. Look at the business case and the risks for the health sector reforms, and it is exactly this. My concern is this is what we’re going to see, because this is how capable they are at managing health at home, this is how capable they are at managing hospitals at home, and this is what the business case—have a look at the risks. It’s really clear for both the Māori Health Authority and for Health New Zealand. This is where the money’s going to be made. This is the big saving. Oh, and by the way, there’s no mention of primary care or how exactly this is supposed to roll out. But that’s where the cost-benefits lie in this keeping people at home. I’d have to say, the track record from this Government in these two cases of doing that successfully gives me a sense of foreboding for the whole health sector reforms.

This has been a fail. Pick up the learnings. Do a better job. We’re happy to help with that, but we need to do a better job. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the time has come for me to leave the chair for the dinner break. I will resume the chair at 7 p.m.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the House is resumed. Before the dinner break, we were in an urgent debate, and we’re up to a Labour Party call—five minutes.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): I want to share my condolences with the families of the two men whose deaths were investigated as part of the report that we are currently debating tonight. If I reflect upon the families of patients who have passed away, who I have worked with, I think about the universal sense that I picked up from those families: that they want to see lessons learnt to understand what went wrong, if anything, for their family members, so that systems can improve. For that reason, I thank those families for being forthcoming with the investigations that were undertaken in relation to those two deaths so that we can find out how to better improve our systems, and in case these deaths could have been prevented.

It’s important to note that the review that we have seen published relates to a moment in time—a specific moment in time—when the community self-isolation and quarantine model was being rapidly scaled. As the results of the review say, many of the findings of it have already been implemented.

I want to talk about a few areas—those relating to process, equity, and information technology. It is clear that there were areas where either the processes were not followed or those processes were not suitable, and there are areas of gaps in communication—communication that should have occurred and didn’t. These certainly contributed to the care of both men and may have contributed to their outcomes.

It’s worth noting that there are a variety of systems improvements under way. Notably, all patients being cared for in the model will be clinically assessed within 24 hours of their being diagnosed. There are scheduled health and welfare checks and clear information to be provided to patients. Underpinning all of this are clinical protocols including assessments and escalation pathways.

I was surprised by the comments of Dr Reti, the last speaker in this debate. He described this system as “ICU-lite”. That’s surprising to me, having cared for people with infections in this country for a long time, because we know that the vast majority of influenza is treated in the community. The vast majority of pneumonias are treated in the community. Of course the COVID response involves standing up appropriate clinical care in the community. That is the only feasible way to really care for COVID at any scale. So I am surprised that Mr Reti seems to have a different view on this and that the idea that high quality care should be provided in the community isn’t a goal he shares.

We need to think carefully about equity in the roll-out of these plans. The reason why equity matters is that most of our patients that we are caring for will be people who are unvaccinated. Increasingly, by definition, people who are unvaccinated have some type of barrier in accessing care—whether that is their socio-economic status, cultural or language barriers, prior bad experiences in the health system, or lack of trust in the Government, even. Our challenge for our health services is that those who need us most now will be those that we have traditionally struggled to serve. That’s why there are important improvements under way, including the involvement of Māori and Pacific providers to provide that manaaki—that early wraparound support—in the patient journey.

Finally, the reports document the decades of under-investment that have led to information technology problems that are widespread. I think anyone who works in our health system will not be surprised that things like primary care data are not available to specialist or other services. I’m proud that this Government has worked to remediate those things through historic investments in our health information technology systems.

We honour those who have died from COVID-19 by learning from their deaths. I am pleased for the opportunity to debate this report. I thank the member from ACT for initiating this debate so that we can have the opportunity to cast light on these findings. The lessons are at the heart of the community-care model that Minister Little has now implemented. It is with these lessons in mind that we go forward and make sure that New Zealanders can have confidence that we can care for them, should they have COVID in the future.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I rise to speak on the independent review into the deaths of two people who tested positive with COVID-19 who were self-isolating, and I wish to acknowledge the ACT member for bringing this urgent debate to this House. I also want to acknowledge the two gentlemen, one 60 years old and one 50 years old, from Glen Eden and Mount Eden, who died on 3 November and 5 November. I want to acknowledge their family, their whānau, and their friends. These were tragic deaths, and that is acknowledged in this House.

I also want to acknowledge the independent committee that has prepared this report, in particular Dr Jonathan Christiansen, the chief medical officer from Waitematā District Health Board, and Dr Penny Andrew—both individuals that I have worked with closely when I was at that district health board, both individuals who I hold in very high regard and are respected within their sector. I also want to acknowledge Selah Hart, who has contributed as part of that committee as well—her contribution in terms of Māori health and progress within that sector is to be acknowledged—and Norma Lane, who previously was a member of the executive with St John Ambulance.

The report indicated four recommendations, and I think we’ve heard in the House today what they are, but the need for earlier assessment of clinical safety, welfare, and mental health was one of the significant findings. The finding in regards to better connectivity between the parts of the system and particularly around the clinical oversight was also a factor that played into the sad outcome that we were dealing with here, and the heightened focus around equity and cultural safety, particularly for Māori and Pasifika. Lastly, I think the important recommendation was around the need for strong clinical governance and adequate reporting systems and the need for that to be very agile in terms of the pace at which it operates. These deaths, as the committee and the panel have found—both deaths—were potentially preventable and there were missed opportunities contributing to that outcome.

The accountability for the system failures falls squarely with the Minister and this Government. The lack of preparedness in regards to COVID-19 has been highlighted by the findings recently in the last couple of weeks by Sir Brian Roche. The lack of planning in the response has been indicated—the Government had adequate time to prepare for this eventuality—and the lack of engagement with primary care, which I think has been raised, and particularly by Dr Shane Reti. Primary care, which sits at the heart of delivery of healthcare services within our communities; primary care, who were left outside for too long before being engaged.

I also want to acknowledge the St John Ambulance crews who responded to at least one of the victims, according to media reports, and just acknowledge the challenges and difficulties which those individuals face day to day as first responders, in responding to what are difficult clinical challenges, and the role which they do, and for all the officers that are out there right now protecting and keeping our community safe.

The Deputy Prime Minister noted after the sad passing of these two individuals that at the time he remained confident in the self-isolation system. The Director-General of Health, Dr Ashley Bloomfield, was quoted just after, saying that the home isolation system was working well overall. It is clear—crystal clear—from this independent review that the findings of the review show that the reality of the situation of systematic failures is very different from what has been quoted.

I also want to just acknowledge some of the comments that the Minister of Health made this evening—acknowledgment that, actually, part of this failure is due to the poor delivery of prior Governments. In a quote: “sometimes you … don’t catch up fast enough.” was the type of feedback that we’ve had from a Minister. What this shows very clearly is a Minister who is not willing to take responsibility, a Minister who is not willing to accept the accountability of his office, and, as a result, the system has failed two Kiwis.

The lesson here from these findings is that we need to and must do better. We must protect those most vulnerable within our communities, and this Government, this House, must take every action necessary in order to protect those individuals and take accountability for those actions, as and when they are required. Mr Speaker, thank you.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Health (Pacific Peoples)): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity. I want to acknowledge the contributions made by people across the House on this particular matter.

I acknowledge the ACT Party for raising this debate on a matter that’s quite painful, particularly when we acknowledge that two people have died, which has been part of this report. I want to convey, on behalf of this side of the House, our sincere condolences to the men who are tabled in this report who died in the month of November. No amount of rhetoric in this House will bring back the lives of the loved ones belonging to those extended families in Auckland. I think perhaps what we can look at is that by acknowledging the mistakes that the system has made—and all of us have a part to play in that—and looking at how we can improve the health system, that’s the kind of legacy that I’m hopeful will remove the pain that the whānau of the two men referred to in this report feel. Condolences to them for their loss.

It’s also important to acknowledge the staff of our health system, both the Northern Regional Health Coordination Centre across the Auckland region and everybody that has been working at the grassroots level. Most of us in this House have no idea of the kind of effort that has gone in from last year, which was a very different scene, to this year, which, again, is very different from last year.

As painful as it is for everybody concerned, I want to acknowledge and thank the members of the independent panels who have been part of this report and those who volunteered to give feedback to the independent members. It would not have been easy, but here’s the thing, ladies and gentlemen: our health system is one where we do not blame our people, because we need to adopt this no-blame system so that people working in the health system are able to feel confident in coming forward and in acknowledging the faults and the flaws of a system, and it is our task as politicians to make sure that we pick up on the recommendations—every single one of those recommendations—and improve on it.

So to those who are part of the health system in Auckland, but I know also those throughout the whole country in the health system stand in solidarity, I am one of many of our Ministers who sit in, day in, day out, and hear the day-to-day reports from our health workers. There are times when I’m upset with the way things are flowing, but, by and large, in the health system we’ve got people who are dedicated to giving their all for the sake of our community. Why? Because this Government laid down a strong foundation when we became the Government that we’d prioritise lives and we’d prioritise livelihoods, and I think, as challenging as it has been for our health system, that has been their mandate and that has been what everybody has been working towards.

In trying to draw a line and in looking forward in an attempt to acknowledge that there were faults and mistakes that have been made but acknowledging how we do better than this going forward, I want to acknowledge those who have spoken in support and acknowledgment of the inequities that our communities face, particularly the challenges of Māori, Pasifika, and people with disabilities, because when somebody who gets infected with COVID—as we’ve seen with both case A and case B—it’s not just COVID that we’re dealing with; it’s other long-term conditions that that side of the House knew about and that we on this side of the House have always known about. That’s why we’re talking equity. Never before in the nine years of the previous Government has there been a discussion about equity. For the first time ever, we’re talking about equity.

So it’s not just COVID. COVID has highlighted long-term conditions which make Māori, which make Pasifika, and which make people with other physical disabilities more vulnerable than other members of our society. Diabetes, rheumatic fever, heart diseases, high blood pressure—these are the things that are being highlighted as a consequence of COVID.

So, in many ways, let’s learn from this. You know, if you look at case A, I acknowledge, as painful as it is, that the initial phone call was prompt, as the report says, but the clinical background wasn’t made available to the caller. The risks weren’t fully assessed. The template itself wasn’t fit for purpose. There was a delay in the clinical assessment by a registered health person. There was no follow-up when the patient didn’t answer the phone.

What that highlighted also was the fact that last year, what we saw when people were infected was that it was a totally different group of people. This year, since August, over 9,000 people have been infected, largely Māori and Pasifika. At the moment, our numbers stand at 45 percent for Māori, about 30 percent for Pasifika, 20 percent or so for Pākehā, and for Asian communities, the highest vaccinated group, they’ve been relatively safeguarded because of the vaccination.

In case B, the person discharged himself against medical advice. The COVID Healthline weren’t aware of his clinical condition. The public health team were unaware of the circumstances of the self-discharge. The oximeter machine was provided with training, but the patient still had difficulty using it. That’s normal, and I suppose what that also highlighted was that within our health system, you have a number of factors and a number of streams of work that are separated. The left hand often doesn’t know what the right is doing. What we are trying to do as a Government is to get more collaboration and more line of sight across.

I want to acknowledge our health providers—Māori, Pasifika, and our general health providers—right across the motu. It’s been relentless, this year. If we thought last year was unrelenting, this year has been relentless for them. It’s gone on two years now that our health workers have been on the ground having to face all of this, and I just want to acknowledge and thank them.

The pūtea that this Government has provided to our health system and, more particularly, to our Māori and Pasifika health and disability providers—they have said that never before has there been an investment of this kind. In the pilot that is taking place with the Fono Trust and South Seas Healthcare in Auckland, they are providing this holistic, whole of care, end-to-end support.

Face to face is important. What we’re recognising since August is that the cohort that has now been infected, largely—Māori, Pasifika, and others—are the ones that we do need to pay attention to, and we need to understand that they speak different languages. We need to understand that the holistic approach means that we’ve got to involve their whānau into this, and, more importantly, you see that the report also says that there has been year in, year out of under-investment into the system.

We need to get our system in place so that we’re sharing that information across the motu so that people on the ground are able to save lives, and that’s what this Government is about. It is about trying to do the best under the circumstances. The whole world is grappling with this, but, suffice to say, despite the high number of infections and despite the relative number of deaths, if you compare that to what’s happening in Fiji, in Papua New Guinea, in Australia, in the US, and in Europe, our system has helped keep us safe thus far.

In the new environment that we’re now in with the COVID-19 Protection Framework, there is a lot more work that we have to do to get confidence to our communities to be prepared for home isolation. We need to engage and provide education and workshops, and that’s a whole new year coming up.

Next year is going to be different from this year. I say to all our providers: take a well-earned break.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time for this debate has expired.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Discharge and Referral to Environment Committee—Not Agreed

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I move, That the order of the day for the second reading of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be discharged and that the bill be referred to the Environment Committee for further consideration.

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

Ayes 20

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

Noes 98

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33.

Motion not agreed to.

Second Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon DAVID PARKER: I move, That the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Just before I go into the merits of this bill, I really can’t ignore the attempt by the ACT Party to once again turn their back on their traditional viewpoint that the Resource Management Act (RMA) is part of the problem for the housing crisis. I find it incredible that they’ve turned their back upon that long history of their party and instead backed the interests of the Epsom electorate of their leader, and I think the National Party has actually wedged the ACT Party on this particular issue, because, actually, the ACT Party have got absolutely no credibility when it comes to the Resource Management Act and housing.

This Government is committed to ensuring that we offer more choice to Kiwis so that they can have a warm, dry, safe place to call home. This is especially important for our younger generation, our low-income and most vulnerable populations—disproportionately Māori—and our elderly, who increasingly are struggling to find affordable places to live in our largest cities.

The Government has worked across the Chamber with the National Party to develop this bill, and I believe it signals a stable and enduring policy for this very important aspect of housing policy. Now, there’ll be a lot of disagreement over other areas of housing policy, and there’s no grand accord being reached in respect of these issues. But in respect of this issue, across the two main parties of this Parliament representing the vast majority of the votes in this country, we now have agreement.

This bill allows for a greater supply of more affordable homes, predominantly three-storey townhouses and units. It will allow existing homeowners to renovate their properties more easily, it will better enable papa kāinga, and provide more options for renters, and yet the ACT Party opposes it. This will better meet the diverse physical and social needs of our communities, and yet the ACT Party opposes it. As countless overseas examples show us, denser rather than sprawling urban areas are essential to well-functioning, livable cities—up, not out—and yet the ACT Party opposes it. People living closer to their workplaces and the services they need will be served by this bill. It enables land infrastructure and associated investment to be used more productively and efficiently, and yet the ACT Party opposes it. We know from the cost-benefit analysis attached to the report—

Simon Court: Six-year-old data—six-year-old data.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, you don’t need to be a brain surgeon to know that infrastructure is more efficiently provided in a dense city than it is in a sprawling city, and the Infrastructure Commission nailed it when they came to the select committee and said that it is people being housed that cause infrastructure cost; not the shape of the city, predominantly.

We know that this will not only reduce the encroachment of the city ever further outwards, protecting the natural environment and the productive horticultural land that we rely upon for food production. We also know that within city, it will free up land for shared spaces because we’ll be using the other land more efficiently—things like parks. It’ll also enable lower-carbon lifestyles as it’s easier for people to get to their jobs, to their businesses, and to essential community services, and yet the ACT Party opposes it—and they’re still carping on the other side as if their position is in one iota justifiable, which it is not. This is going to bring new housing in existing neighbourhoods. It’ll help link people into their existing services and networks, and help them stay connected with their friends and family. It’ll bring vibrancy and new economic opportunities as we regenerate our urban areas for more inclusive cities as we grow.

At its core, the bill does two things. It accelerates the existing National Policy Statement (NPS) on Urban Development, and, secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it enhances the level of intensification that the NPS on Urban Development enjoins, and it also means that those opportunities will be spread across the city, including to Epsom, which is probably why the ACT Party opposes it.

Can I thank the chair of the committee, the Hon Eugenie Sage, and all the members of the Environment Committee for their consideration of the bill. They did a lot of work. Can I acknowledge those that took the time to make a submission: 966 in writing; 183 by video conference.

The committee has proposed several constructive amendments to the bill, which I welcome, and this will help ensure that it meets the needs of people who live in these cities. The recommendations will be reflected in a Supplementary Order Paper that’s already been provided to the select committee, and it’s already been published on the Ministry for the Environment website. It’s going through a final scrub at the Parliamentary Counsel Office before the formal version is tabled in the House.

I want to briefly outline the bill’s key provisions and the changes that are proposed. An intensification streamlined planning process modelled on the streamlined planning process introduced by the previous National Government is being used to make it faster and easier for councils to implement the national policy statement on urban development and these new medium-density residential standards (MDRS). It sets a series of steps out, and this process will require the 14 councils who, collectively, are the tier 1 urban areas—these are Auckland, Greater Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington, and Christchurch—and it’ll bring forward the existing NPS on Urban Development by a year. It’ll also apply to tier 2 councils experiencing housing supply issues, and we’re expecting some of them, because there’s a lot of councils that really like this—they’re going to be lining up, saying, “Pick us as well.”, because they want to do the right thing by their people, even though the ACT Party opposes it. They acknowledge the acute housing need in their areas.

In addition, the committee has recommended that tier 3 councils can also request the Minister for the Environment to involve themselves. Also, the committee recommends that before the Minister for the Environment makes that decision, he—

Simon Court: It’s you—it’s you.

Hon DAVID PARKER: That’s right—it’s me at the moment. It won’t always be me, you’ll be pleased to know. The committee has recommended consultation with the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti.

Tier 1 councils and any others that are included will have up until August 2022 to notify their intensification planning instruments. There are then processes set out in the bill that say that after notification, the proposed plan changes go to an independent hearing panel, which is appointed to hear public submissions on the council’s planning instrument, and then make recommendations back to the councils. Where there are disputes—[Member’s cellphone makes “boing, boing” sound]—they’re settled by the Minister for the Environment.

Simon Court: That’s right—that’s what it sounds like when it hits the wall.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I think that was another commentary on the ACT Party, actually.

Having considered the submissions, the committee made some other recommendations. They’ve recommended that we broaden the scope of the streamlined planning process that’s being used so that they can make consequential changes that are complementary to the MDRS and the NPS urban de-intensification policies. They want us to clarify that existing plan provisions which are not inconsistent with the bill will continue to have effect. They make it clear that only specified standards in the new medium-density residential standard will have immediate effect, and other rules like updating financial contributions will be subject to some further consultation requirements.

In respect of the main other changes: as to the standards, populations of less than 5,000 people are being excluded, so the likes of Akaroa and other small townships and offshore islands aren’t included because they’re not as appropriate for this intensification. Also, there were submissions on some more standards, with one for glazing: a minimum of 20 percent will be required for street frontage of the dwellings. It has to be glazed to improve street safety and appearance.

A minimum of 20 percent of the site will be needed to be planted or grassed—this will also encourage existing trees to be protected—and the outdoor spaces can be grouped so that units can group their outdoor spaces to create a shared, larger outdoor space. There’s a slight change to front setbacks: they’re reduced so as to leave more land at the back, where most of the shared space or individual space will be, and the height to boundary is recommended to be changed. At four metres at the boundary, with a 60-degree recession plane, it, effectively, means that for every metre in, you go 2 metres up. That results in a net loss of intensification of only 4 percent, but it has a better outcome in respect of shading or sun.

The building height and coverage standards remain unchanged. There’s a recommendation from the committee that we include schools so that they can take advantage of these provisions without occupying all of their fields.

I recommend this bill to the House and I look forward to hearing other contributions.

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

NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): National continues to support this bill. We do so because, quite simply, this bill will do more to enable desperately needed new houses in this country than any other policy initiative initiated by this Labour-led Government.

We note, on our side of the House, that the bill that we will pass in this House must be very much improved from the legislation that was brought to the select committee, and we acknowledge the select committee process, which has brought about recommendations for more than 50 pages of amendments to improve this bill. I’m going to discuss those improvements in this contribution, but before I do so, I want to take the minds of the members in this House back to 2017, and I want you to recall the debates that were had then about what was termed at the time by one Jacinda Ardern as a housing crisis. I recall those debates, because I remember Bill English saying that, actually, until we addressed the restrictive land-use regulation that has burdened this country for so long—until we addressed that—we would continue to prevent housing supply. At that time, while National was putting forward ideas for reform of the Resource Management Act (RMA) that we now debate in this House today, it was Jacinda Ardern who said, “No, no. The solution is 100,000 KiwiBuild homes.”

Well, here we are, four years later, and the 100,000 KiwiBuild homes never eventuated, nor will they ever. Then there was the promise to tax overseas speculators, and that didn’t solve the housing crisis, either. Then we’ve had the punitive measures against landlords to change the ring-fencing of losses, to change interest deductibility rules, and to extend brightline tests, and that hasn’t helped, either. So we are the National Party and we have come to help, and this bill is a result of our desire to help this Government make the underlying reforms which are required to enable housing supply.

Let me turn to the select committee process because that has been, I think, an exemplar of how Parliament can work together to make legislation better. We had hundreds of submissions from experts, from local authorities, from residents’ associations—from people impacted by this bill. We gave those submissions detailed consideration. The select committee considering this bill has meet for more than 56 hours, and we have done so because we want this legislation to work as well as possible. I want to thank the submitters, whose observations and whose expertise will make sure that this bill can be much more enduring into the future. Their thoughts and their concerns have been addressed in a number of amendments which are in the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has discussed.

At its heart, this bill will support the supply of new dwellings. It creates greater rights to build for those with sections in our major urban areas and it will reduce the red tape, the cost, and the complexity that is too often associated with the resource consent process.

There are some key areas that have been changed as a result of our deliberations. This first is around design standards. We had many submitters come to the committee and say, “Yes to more housing, yes to more density in our urban areas, but let’s do it well.”

Across the committee, I think there was widespread agreement that we can do density well and we should do density well, and in order to service that goal, the committee are recommending some key changes: the introduction of landscaping requirements so that 20 percent of a section must be landscaped with new development, the introduction of glazing requirements so that houses facing the street have to have some windows, amending the proposed standards around outlook and outdoor living space requirements to enhance the livability and amenity of this denser housing, and—critically—a reduction in height in relation to boundary of new dwellings from what had been proposed in the original bill at 6 metres down to 4 metres. That is a pragmatic decision by the committee to make that recommendation. It recognises those who had concern about loss of sunlight and loss of amenity, but it does so in a way that will still allow more dwellings to be added much more easily than they can be today. I note also in relation to design standards that the Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development have said that they will immediately begin developing a national medium-density design guide in consultation with local government and stakeholders to ensure that as we build more housing in our urban centres, we do so well.

The second area that the select committee focused on was ensuring that councils have the discretion to exclude those areas which are not suited to density of the sort proposed in the medium-density residential zone. Now, this is achieved in the bill via what are termed qualifying matters. These qualifying matters are really important for giving councils flexibility to manage development in certain areas where density may not be a good idea. So it’s for matters of national importance such as the natural character of the coastal environment, wetlands, lakes, and rivers, protection of outstanding natural features, landscapes, and historic heritage, management of significant risks from natural hazards, the requirement for the safe and efficient operation of infrastructure, and scope to identify other qualifying matters.

In the select committee process some submitters queried whether or not these qualifying matters would be able to be used in practice because of the information requirements required and the effort and resources needed. So what the amendments the committee has recommended propose is that councils don’t need to provide significant additional evidence to justify inclusion of specified qualifying matters. Instead, they can use that evaluation information that has been created through previous planning processes. I think that that is a critical clarification to have made. So, in practice, that would mean that where, for example, a council has previously identified a ponding area or an identified flood-flow path, then they can take the evidence of that and say, “That’s why we’re not having density here.”

A third issue that the select committee has addressed is around infrastructure, and I want to start by saying something really simple on this—because it has gone over the heads of some—which is this: the actual increased demand for infrastructure results from population increase. Nothing in this bill in and of itself will mean population increase. What this bill will potentially do is shift the pattern of development and the number of dwellings. In fact, in an ideal world, what this bill could result in is less overcrowded houses and more dwellings, which wouldn’t actually increase infrastructure demand. But we have added some additional provisions. One is to allow councils to amend their district-wide planning provisions for things like stormwater management, fencing, earthworks, and infrastructure, and allowing them to use those district-wide provisions to set standards for those matters and allowing local councils to recalibrate how they use financial contribution tools.

Finally, another critical area of study for the select committee was around the transitional provisions for private plan changes that are being facilitated in order to allow greenfields development. Now, here in the National Party, we believe there is still a huge amount of scope in New Zealand for greenfields housing development. We say yes to density. We also say yes to greenfields development. So it has been important to us that this bill not stall private plan changes that are under way, and, in fact, it was the intent of the majority of the committee that at best, this bill could actually accelerate those sorts of plan changes. So there have been changes to the transitional provisions in this bill to clarify that that is the case, and we note that some plan change applicants may, in fact, see this bill as an opportunity to increase the number of dwellings within their proposal.

This is a bill which will make a difference, not just next year or the year after; this is a bill that will allow for more responsive housing supply in New Zealand for generations to come. It is appropriate that the select committee have studied the details carefully and have made a number of very thoughtful amendments. National is proud to support this bill.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m delighted to be speaking on the second reading of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. As we’ve heard from the previous speakers, we do have a housing shortage in New Zealand and in our bigger cities, and the best place to put people is in centres close to jobs. However, very often those centres close to the jobs are zoned for a single house, and this bill will change that in many different places.

Before going into that, though, I want to thank the chair of the committee, the Hon Eugenie Sage. She is a Green Party member, and we’re talking a lot about a bipartisan accord here from across the House, and that is with Labour and National. Not everything that has been agreed to by National and Labour is agreed to by the Greens, and you see that in the report from the select committee, but I really want to thank her for her incredible and constructive chairing in getting us through what was a lot of work in a very short time frame.

As you’ve heard, we’ve heard from a lot of submitters. We heard from them on a Saturday. We had 183 oral submissions and almost 32 hours of hearings. As we’ve been hearing, this is bipartisan, but the members in the committee—I must admit to perhaps being the most vocal—have asked a lot of questions of advisers and of submitters because we really did want to do our best to bring back as good a bill as we possibly could. So we had 24 hours of private consideration within the select committee.

So what this bill does—and I think it’s important. Often in the media, we’re talking about this really in relation to those medium-density residential standards that will apply to residential zones in these tier 1 cities, and we’ve heard from the previous speaker about what they do and some suggested changes to those. But what it also does is it increases the speed at which the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) will be implemented for these councils. That is a very important urban planning tool because it really allows for a lot of densification intensification around those centre areas.

How it does this, and this is something that we worked a lot on in the select committee, is that there’s an intensification planning instrument—an IPI—and this instrument is what the councils will develop to implement both the NPS-UD and also the medium-density residential standards. The NPS-UD won’t always apply to a residential zone, but where it does apply to a residential zone, then the medium-density residential standards will be the underlying density zoning, and we’ve improved that link in our recommendations throughout the select committee report.

We’ve also improved the link to the plans that already exist and the different planning provisions that might relate to things that we’re calling related provisions—the things like fences and earthworks and hazards. As the previous speaker, Nicola Willis, also said, there are a lot of qualifying matters that can be brought across from plans as well. So there’ll be a lot of clarification in the Supplementary Order Paper that Minister Parker referred to, and that is now available online.

We also extended that IPI to including provision for papa kāinga provisions, and already in the bill as introduced was the financial contributions aspect of that. In the select committee as well, as the previous speaker just said, we were working very hard on the transitional provisions because we heard from a lot of councils and developers that the way the bill was introduced might actually set back some good work that’s being done to allow more intensification. We didn’t want to do that, so there are lots of amendments around those transitional provisions. Another change is to that definition of “residential zone” so that it’s not going to apply to offshore islands or small townships like Oxford or Akaroa.

This bill—often people say it’s going to lead to slum housing. Issues of the quality of a building are in the Building Act and the building code, not in the Resource Management Act, so I want to say that.

I look forward to the committee stage of this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call in the second reading of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I want to endorse the previous speakers on both sides of the House so far in this debate for their informed and articulate contributions to this second reading debate, because this is something of significance in terms of a bipartisan approach to solving the housing dilemma that has been confronting our country now for far too many years and, if we are not careful as parliamentarians, it will continue to confront us and future generations for years to come.

So, on this side of the House, we are supporting this legislation because, simply, this is, effectively, National Party policy and it’s the sort of thing that we have campaigned on now for several elections. Indeed, as we go through this second reading, it’s worth recalling and considering what the select committee heard, and the submission that was made by a lot of submitters was that the primary problem has been red tape and a confused, expensive, and convoluted Resource Management Act process that has made the ability to intensify housing in our urban centres extremely difficult. It’s made it expensive and time-consuming, and so, largely, the result of that has been that any development that has occurred has been, essentially, the preserve of the large professional developers.

What this bill seeks to do is actually unlock the potential for intensification literally in people’s backyards, and that’s a good thing. It’s good because what it means is that for property owners, they are going to be able to release the capital asset and equity in their property, and in terms of intensifying and building maybe a granny flat or a further dwelling on the backyard of their property, this legislation is going to make that doable. It’s going to make it easier, it’s going to make it quicker, and they’re going to be able to reap the rewards of that investment equity returned to them while, at the same time, increasing the density of dwellings in our major urban centres.

We heard a number of submitters who provided us with terrific examples of quality, intensive, domestic housing developments in other cities around the world. In fact, some of the most famous and livable cities in the world have exactly the type of dwelling that this bill envisages being built in our tier 1 council areas, and some tier 2 ones if they want it.

The legislation will even provide for other councils, if they want to make application, to participate in the mechanisms that this legislation provides as well. That too is a good thing, because what this bill is all about is—the key is in the name—enabling houses to be built: enabling housing supply and other matters. So the other matters include qualifying matters—the sorts of things that councils and residents in the leafy suburbs want to protect. They want to protect the amenity value. They want to protect historic areas within the area that provide character, and those things are important. So this piece of legislation provides that.

We heard from a very large number of submitters in a short period of time, and they included some 966 submissions—so, nearly a thousand—and more than a thousand documents presented to the select committee in a short period of time. We spent a lot of hours on Zoom meetings and sometimes, as the deputy chair of the Environment Committee said, even on a Saturday. But that was because we wanted to hear from each and every submitter that wanted to participate, and I want to join with the deputy chair of the committee in congratulating the chair of the committee, the Hon Eugenie Sage, for the manner and style that she chaired this committee with. Now, it’s not often that you’ll hear me praising a Green Party member in this Chamber, but I have to say that she did an outstanding job under sometimes quite time-constrained challenges. She did a very, very good job, and so I give her credit for that.

Giving property owners the right to build is a fundamental National Party principle, because we on this side of the House believe in private property rights, and it’s been fascinating to see some parties that we thought believed in private property rights actually dancing on the head of a pin and trying to find every possible reason not to support this legislation. It’s been a very edifying, eye-opening example of, I guess, parish pump politics at its not necessarily best, and others will probably speak about that. Certainly, commentators have noticed the academic gymnastics being performed by one party in this House as they try to justify their position in opposition to building houses and to solving and providing enduring cross-party legislation that will give certainty not only to property owners but to councils, to developers, and to the people who are building and investing in infrastructure around our urban centres. They need to know that the two major parties in this Parliament support and back this legislation, and that gives them certainty. It gives them certainty of investment, certainty of planning, and certainty around the future of what they want to do on their property, in their neighbourhood, in their towns, and in their cities.

So, on this side of the House, we wanted to thank the submitters, who provided an enormous range of quality submissions, very well-thought-out and very well presented. The bill has come back from select committee as a significantly improved piece of legislation to the one that was debated in this House at first reading, and that’s how it should work in this Parliament. So, on this side of the House, we support the second reading, and we will do so through to the third reading.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Mr Speaker, thank you for the call. This has been a labour of love, actually, working on Saturdays and listening to submitters present. I echo the thoughts of everybody else here who’s talked about the depth of experience that came forward in those submissions. Yes, this is a truncated process, and, yes, this is a quick time frame, but, actually, the people who really care about this space, they fronted up. They wanted some time in front of the committee and we gave them their time and we asked them questions, and we made sure that we took all of those recommendations and we put it into this report. So I’m proud to stand here and talk about this report and the various measures that we’ve taken as a committee to make sure that we’re navigating through a really decent piece of legislation.

Māori are at the sharp end of the housing insecurity spectrum, and it’s for this reason and with that lens that I’ve participated in this. I look to my own hometown of Rotorua and I see the complete housing supply that we don’t have, the real need to be able to build more houses, and the real need to be able to also build in an appropriate cultural way too. I want to expand on that just a little bit, because our planning laws here in New Zealand, they’re like everything else that was built in this country: they’re from a very colonial paradigm. If we look back to how Māori used to live, actually it was many to a section. That was called a papa kāinga, and, actually, we saw less and less of those in all of the big State housing projects that have been built in the past. It was one family, one home. But that was, indeed, a time and place back in New Zealand’s history where we thought a little bit differently.

I’d like to think that we’re a little bit more educated and a little bit more intelligent now, and what this bill does is it actually opens up the opportunity for multigenerational living. That’s what this does, and I use my own example. Back home, I live upstairs; I’ve got my mum and dad living downstairs. Our son gets to hang out with his nan and his koro regularly. On a daily basis, he gets to go and check in with them.

I’m a big fan of intergenerational living in the same space. When I go back home and I talk to our whānau Māori and they say, “We need more houses. How can we make sure that I’ve got my nan and my koro living with me and my moko over here who needs a house as well. How do we make sure that we do that on our land?” What this bill is going to do is it’s going to open it up for those whānau that are in our tier 1 councils—so our big cities—all around the country, but it’s also opening the door to some tier 2 and tier 3 councils that choose to go through the process as well.

We had a really strong submission from the Rotorua Lakes Council, who sat next to the Te Arawa Lakes Trust, who sat next to Te Tatau o Te Arawa partnership board, and together they said, “We are facing such an acute housing shortage in this city that, yes, we really, really want to be included in these changes. This is going to be great for big cities but it’s also going to be great for our city too because we know what the sharp end of the housing insecurity spectrum looks like. We know what homelessness looks like. We’re rich in land, but we need a bit of help with the planning laws to be able to enable housing that is culturally appropriate and able to have whānau living in the same space.”

I’m not going to talk too long on this. Suffice to say that we did put a lot of effort into this, and I want to again echo the bipartisan nature of doing this. It’s a problem for the whole country. Housing is still the number one issue—housing and COVID-19. But housing is still one of those top issues that we face as a country all around Aotearoa. So this bill can’t come too soon, and for that reason I absolutely commend it to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I’m pleased to speak on the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The provisions in this bill will influence what sorts of homes people live in and the shape, texture, and pattern of urban neighbourhoods for decades. It’s a very important bill.

The Green Party is supporting the bill because we strongly support intensification of housing development and urban renewal. It can help us tackle our housing crisis. It can avoid urban sprawl and the loss of productive growing land. It can help reduce transport emissions and protect the climate. So the question is not whether to intensify; it’s how to do it well.

There was wide support for the intent of the bill in submissions, for that intention of improving housing choice and affordability and encouraging intensification in our cities to ensure that everyone has a warm, dry place to call home. There’s also widespread recognition in the submissions that we need to shift away from the single-housing typology to a much more diverse mix of housing types: apartments, terrace houses, flats, and several-storey units. But there were significant concerns with the medium-density residential standards and the way the bill cuts across the efforts of councils to implement the National Policy Statement on Urban Development. So I’d like to talk about some of the improvements through what was a very constructive and collaborative select committee process—and I thank members for their kind comments—and also highlight some areas where the Green Party thinks further changes are needed and where we will be tabling our Supplementary Order Papers at the committee stage.

So, first of all, some comments about the whole process. It’s very challenging to compress a normal six-month process for a bill into six weeks, especially with Tāmaki-makau-rau in the middle of an alert level 3 lockdown. Fast law is much less likely to be good law, because of the reduced time for the public to consider it, to consider any unanticipated consequences and any implementation issues. There’s been no consideration here, for example, on who will benefit from the uplift in land values that goes with increased development rights, and this was why we supported the ACT motion to remit the bill back to the select committee to allow further time to consider it. It was troubling that there was no prior engagement with local authorities, iwi and hapū, and stakeholders before the bill was introduced.

The regulatory impact statement was finished in May 2021, but there was seemingly a cone of silence around the bill. I don’t know whether that was driven by Ministers or by agencies, but where you fail to have engagement with key stakeholders, there’s often poor problem definition and a limited range of potential responses.

The Green Party’s got a really strong commitment to local democracy and appropriate decision-making.

We need a much more active and engaged partnership between central government and local government, and iwi and hapū in terms of the way our cities and towns develop, the way infrastructure develops, the investment in that, and public transport—all these things that shape our urban environments. That partnership between central government and local government was missing from the bill, and it is the poorer for that.

Councils presented their submissions very professionally, but I did detect quite considerable frustration about the lack of consultation and about how their knowledge and expertise about their communities and their places had not been recognised in the drafting of the bill, and their concerns too about the way in which allowing pepper-pot infill development right across virtually all residential zones in our largest cities cut across their work to actively implement the National Policy Statement on Urban Development. We had councils involved in Future Proof Waikato—Hamilton City Council, Tainui, Waipā and Waikato district councils—all saying that they’ve been really working with central government agencies like Waka Kotahi to plan future transport development, and this bill just sliced across that.

Despite having only three weeks to make submissions, I, like others, acknowledge the huge expertise and effort that councils, the urban design community, iwi, community organisations, individual renters, residents’ associations, and many others went to to make more than a thousand submissions, and there were 183 that appeared before us in hearings. Public submissions and select committee consideration always improves legislation, and it certainly did with this bill. But, despite that, the bill still has gaps. There are still potentially implementation issues, and because it has these medium-density residential standards, and these are the sort of detail that one would expect normally in the national planning standards or in regulations—the national environmental standards—the Green Party recommends that new Schedule 3A be taken out of the bill and gazetted as regulations so that if there are issues that arise, they can be more easily amended than primary legislation can through this House.

The bill should be welcomed by those who consider that existing plan policies and rules prevent innovation in housing form and the construction of more intensive flats, units, terraced houses, and apartments. It will succeed if it leads to more of those sorts of housing options, which provide a good daily living environment for their inhabitants, are close to public transport routes, are close to services such as shops and schools, and make our suburbs more interesting places to live. It will fail if its permissive approach to infill development blights neighbourhoods with poorly designed apartments and units which provide their inhabitants with cramped living spaces and damp living conditions, overwhelm their neighbours, and replace trees with expanses of concrete. Housing developers can design and build houses faster; it’ll be the question of whether, with no need for a resource consent, they do that and focus on maximising their commercial return, or they respect residents and neighbourhoods and provide really good quality buildings.

So the Green Party acknowledges the many changes that have been made through select committee, and other speakers have noted those—the increase in outdoor space, the increase in outlook, the requirement that buildings interact more with the street through the requirement for 20 percent of the frontage to be windows—but we are doing urban density with urgency, with the bill being passed, potentially, before Christmas. We are not doing anything to protect nature in our cities with any urgency. There has already been wholesale loss of urban trees in centres like Auckland, continuing with the loss of a century-old pōhutukawa just last week in Khyber Pass. This bill does nothing to protect urban trees. We have a 20 percent site being required to be landscaped in grass or plants. The Green Party would like to see that increased to 35 percent to provide a stronger incentive to retain urban trees, because all suburbs should be leafy suburbs and should have the benefits that trees provide in terms of shade, reducing the urban heat island effect, taking up stormwater and helping reduce peak stormwater flows, and improving air quality and buffering from noise.

We also need some other changes to the density standards. This bill is all about allowing infill development of three buildings of up to three stories as a permitted activity with no need for a resource consent right across residential zones. But, as someone who emailed me yesterday said, there are several thousand lots in Grey Lynn, for example, where some hope this bill will have some impact: “Almost all those sections are long skinny rectangles, exactly 40 feet or 12.2 metres wide. They are not suitable for three-storey development lot by lot.”

We need incentives in this bill to encourage developers to amalgamate single lots so that we can have larger-scale perimeter block development which allows areas to be set aside for green space, which has the buildings interacting much more with the street, and which provides the high quality of urban density that we see in many cities in Europe. But the bill doesn’t provide the standards to encourage developers to amalgamate the lots to do that, and the Green Party has a Supplementary Order Paper that will do that.

One of the other major issues is in relation to private plan changes. Yes, the medium-density residential standards will apply as an underlying zoning, but we believe there needs to be a requirement for an upzoning to be of this medium density so that we don’t get the cookie cutter, single-storey suburban sprawl that we’re seeing in Christchurch, in areas like Prebbleton, Lincoln, and Rolleston, with those private plan changes that don’t promote more dense living. So that is a major failing in the bill and one, again, that we would like to see National and Labour consider in our SOP. Thank you.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s true that there is a problem with housing, and ACT is pleased to see that it’s acknowledged it is a supply issue. We need to get this right. There is a problem with housing affordability. It’s an intergenerational issue of fairness, opportunity, and overall welfare of people who cannot afford to buy a home. But this bill won’t solve these problems. As Minister Parker described when he spoke on the second reading, what he didn’t realise is that it’s actually possible to have better planning laws and still oppose this bill, which does nothing to improve planning laws and actually get more houses built.

We believe a bipartisan approach to solving issues is not a bad thing. But it would have been helpful, hearing that there was a regulatory impact statement back in May, to have actually taken that to the people who build houses and who develop land, and to the local government people, who could tell you about all the faults that they brought to the select committee and told us about over five days—in an awfully compressed period—when many of those people were working under level 3 lockdown conditions at homes with children at home and trying to manage businesses under those awful lockdown conditions.

Now, submitters were able to laser in on the problems with this bill, because they are glaringly obvious to practitioners and people who actually develop and build homes. They pointed out that poorly crafted deals hatched in secret between political rivals which lead to rushed law changes may have missed something, particularly when they’re brought to the House and pushed through under urgency. That is not the kind of lawmaking which is enduring and will actually fix housing supply.

Councils and developers actually pointed to issues like a lack of infrastructure that allows them to intensify in existing town centres close to the community services, where we understand more people should be living because that’s where it’s good to live. But the infrastructure is missing.

Hamilton, that relatively young city—a city of the future, even—actually lacks capacity for infrastructure in the older parts of the city, where they want to build up, but are severely constrained. They estimated $4 billion just to meet the intensification requirements for the existing National Policy Statement on Urban Development. But this Government has given them $320 million through the Housing Acceleration Fund. That’s less than a tenth of what they need to actually deliver the homes that could be built right now in Hamilton, so the Government appears to have its priorities wrong. That’s why ACT believes we actually need to reform infrastructure funding and financing in order to unlock land for housing. That is something we’ve campaigned on for years.

The submitters who came to the Environment Committee told us the same thing over and over again. We heard examples. We heard a Grey Lynn artist, of all people, bring up infrastructure in Grey Lynn as the reason why more homes couldn’t be built. She pointed to a project to separate hundred-year-old sewerage and stormwater as the reason why you couldn’t build more houses in Grey Lynn. That project’s 10 years overdue, and everybody who lives there knows you can’t swim anywhere around there because of the sewage overflows. So zoning to add thousands more potential homes is a complete waste of time, and it’s terrible for the environment.

We heard a developer tell us that if they want to put up the first five houses in the street and there’s a pipe big enough, they can connect, and all they pay is the standard development contribution. The guy who comes along with the next five is told “Sorry, there’s no more capacity. But if you upgrade the entire network in the street and maybe a bit further, and you spend a couple of million bucks doing it, we’ll let you build your five houses.” Well, guess how much that adds to the cost of a new dwelling? In some cases—not $85,000, like Auckland Council is asking for—hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Developers pointed out that their master plans already allow for mixed-use, higher-density apartments and terraces with an average density of around 40 homes per hectare. That’s very, very high by international standards. This bill means years of infrastructure planning and environmental and geotechnical investigations goes in the bin, because, by applying the medium-density residential standard to those developments, all of their infrastructure design, all of their planning, and all of their environmental discharge modelling goes in the bin and they can’t use it.

Hamish Anderson, from Adare group—he’s a guy who’s in charge of a 7,000 home development at Peacocke in the east of Hamilton. He estimated that this bill will delay, even if they go ahead and redesign, do all that stuff that this bill will allow them to do—and I see members opposite who sat on the committee with me shaking their heads, still in denial. Hamish Anderson said that this bill, through redesign, would cause a delay of 36 months and add up to $4 million for a development that’s literally months away from proceeding. Nigel McKenna, from the Templeton Group, formerly Todd Property, with $8 billion worth of projects in the pipeline, and Bill Loutit, from the Beachlands South consortium—which actually includes the Government’s own New Zealand Superannuation Fund as a major funder—told us exactly the same thing. Delay, delay; cost, cost—houses won’t be built any faster. In fact, this bill risks extinguishing development projects altogether.

The other thing they told us was that this bill appears to have been designed by planners for planners in central government, because the developers—all they want is access to fast-tracking, the same so-called privileges that the Government is according itself and these tier 1 councils, but these exclude private developers. They’ll be stuck with the existing Resource Management Act (RMA) processes, which can take years to progress plan changes.

They also pointed out something that is so perverse and confounding I had to ask a number of them to please repeat it, and that was that there’ll still be an RMA process that they have to go through. They’re going to have to go through two planning processes. Auckland Council said they’re going to have to set up a whole new department to run this new planning process in parallel to the RMA process they still have to go through. If Minister Parker thinks that supporting this bill will actually get more houses built and reduce red tape, well, unfortunately, Mr Parker, that’s not what’s going to happen.

Now, ACT asked the committee for more time to consider submissions and work to improve the bill. We want to make planning laws better so we can get more houses built. The National Party and the Labour Party voted down our motion. ACT asked the committee to please write to the Business Committee and seek to have infrastructure funding added to the bill and have the bill expanded to become and omnibus bill, but both the National Party and the Labour Party voted down ACT’s motion. Today, ACT proposed a motion to send the bill back to select committee for a full hearing because we do want to work to reduce red tape to get the bill right. The Government and the National Party voted that down, but we do appreciate the support from the Green Party for this proposal.

It’s clear that in this bill and the amendments, the urban design features are being negotiated away between the Government and the National Party. We know this because we can read about it almost hour by hour in the mainstream media, as the horse-trading about whether it is 6 metres or 5 metres or 4 metres in height to boundary, and all of these things are literally being negotiated in the media. Now, that’s not how good laws are made in a democracy. That’s not how enduring laws are made which actually solve really complex problems. As a civil engineer who came to Parliament to solve difficult problems, to find ways to change laws to get things built faster, to deliver infrastructure more affordably, and to reduce barriers to get stuff built, I was shocked. I am shocked. So were the submitters, so were the people who do want to get more stuff built—they were shocked.

Now, ACT has proposed a number of policies over the years, and it turns out many of the submitters to committee agree with us. We had Urban Auckland propose 50 percent GST sharing between central government and councils. We heard that—the Infrastructure Commission—private sector investment in the form of public-private partnerships would be very, very helpful to get more large-scale infrastructure built to free up the capacity for more housing. We heard that fast-tracked planning and consenting processes should be available not just to councils and Government departments like Kāinga Ora but to the private sector too.

ACT opposes this bill in its current form, but we do want to work to improve it. That’s our offer. Parliament needs to deliver a better—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. I’m delighted to take a call. Even though there’s still a chance that the ACT Party could see some reason and an opportunity to cut some red tape, it seems as though that’s not going to be the case this evening.

I want to add to the chorus of thanks that has already been expressed by members of the House this evening, particularly to my colleagues on the Environment Committee for the bipartisanship approach to what is obviously a significant issue. But I also want to commend our chair, the Hon Eugenie Sage, who I think actually exudes much patience and fairness to all—even Mr Court as a member of the committee. Where perhaps others may have terminated the leeway a little bit earlier than our chair did, she certainly indicated some patience there.

But I also want to acknowledge the staff, because while members this evening have identified that we have spent some time dealing with this particular bill, I know that the staff from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, from the Ministry for the Environment, from Parliamentary Counsel Office, and also our select committee secretariat, alongside others, have spent more time than we have around this issue. So I want to acknowledge their significant contribution and support as well, alongside the submissions that we received from many, many people.

This bill will enable an increase in medium-density housing, and I’m pleased, actually, that it will provide an increase in that particular space, but more so in the area of affordability and variety in suburbs, particularly in our main urban areas. The select committee did consider a number of factors and made a number of recommendations, and I’m delighted to hear from the Minister this evening that he welcomes the hard work but also those suggestions as well. When I look at the medium-density residential standards and what they will provide, yes, they provide an opportunity in this bill to apply to tier 1 councils in our large urban areas but also to tier 2 councils and tier 3 councils if the Minister, upon application, is satisfied that there is an acute housing need. Obviously, there’s a process that needs to go alongside that.

So when I step back and think of the work that the select committee have done and look at what is in the report and in the bill and what is to come, this really is an enabling piece of legislation because it does cut red tape but it also will provide opportunities for many individuals and whānau in circumstances where currently they are constrained by restrictive council planning rules and approaches. These changes do not disadvantage councils who are already in a process that is seeking to modify, in a good way, medium-density, so having no disadvantage in that particular sphere or area is really important as well.

Finally, I want to touch on the urban design aspects, particularly around the minimum requirements for outdoor space. We’ve heard this evening that the select committee is recommending a minimum area for ground units of 20 square metres, but what I think is really helpful is the suggestion from the select committee that, actually, in some areas it is appropriate to have a communal approach to that, and to ensure that there is an opportunity for good urban design and form but also place-making, livability, and vitality so that people can actually come together.

So this does speed up the introduction of intensification policies as a result of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, and that’s a good thing. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): I never thought I’d come to the House and hear the ACT Party passionately pleading for more rules to be inflicted on people in New Zealand. I’ve normally got quite a bit of time for Mr Court. I think he’s a very intelligent man who makes great contributions. But, man, oh man, where did that speech come from? Here we have a bill that is going to allow a whole lot more flexibility for people who want to use some of their surplus land or use a section that might be cleared for that purpose to create more houses for New Zealanders who desperately need them.

Look, I’ve heard all the talk from a lot of people who have said to me, “Well, what about all these boxes that have been built in Christchurch?” I’ve got to say to Eugenie Sage, go and have a look at the rules inflicted on the city by the regional council, because that’s what’s being built at the moment under the current rules. We have a city council there, of course, that has had its head in the sand literally for decades, not wanting to create more space for people to develop sections, and I think it’s got to a point after four years of absolute neglect from the Labour Party that we’ve had to come to this situation. So while there is certainly a bipartisan aspect to this bill, no one should think that it’s a willing party on all sides coming to the table.

So I’m very pleased that Nicola Willis has been able to negotiate some very reasonable changes in this bill. I understand a 50-point Supplementary Order Paper is coming that will make a difference to boundary offsets, will make a difference to height, will make a difference to the outdoor living space, and will encourage a better sort of garden-type arrangement inside these areas.

I’ve got to say, just on that score, in our city of Christchurch, we’ve got a council-owned organisation called Orion who run around the city with more chainsaws than you can shake a stick at, although why you’d ever shake a stick in front of a chainsaw is beyond me. They’re cutting down trees left, right, and centre for fear that the powerlines are going to get affected. So we’ve got a whole lot of things that go on from councils that just indicate a general level of incompetence and a general level of eye off the ball.

Earlier in the debate, the Hon David Parker made the extraordinary statement that the brightline test has done a wonderful job in containing house prices in this country. Well, let’s have a look at it. In the last 12 months, the average house price in New Zealand’s gone up by $150,000. So if someone in here, or anywhere in New Zealand, bought a house 12 months ago and sold it today, there’s $150,000 over and above the price they paid 12 months ago. They pay out their brightline tax and walk away with $100,000 profit. It’s great business, if you can get it, and the fact of the matter is that that is tax chasing a price.

Then you look at the tax content inside a brand new house. For a start, if it’s $700,000, there’s about $120,000 worth of GST and there’s profit tax on every input that goes into that house, as well as the PAYE for everyone who puts the thing together, so the Government does exceptionally well out of these things. It’s a massive tax take.

Then look at new subdivisions. Now, Mr Court spoke of the difficulty for one developer that’s out there and some of the extraordinary prices they have to pay to the council for the privilege of providing a rating base to the council by virtue of new titles. You look at it: the costs from local government inside that new house price is extraordinary. Add up that and the Government stuff, and it is a massive, massive part of that $700,000 to $800,000 average price, now, for a brand new, three-bedroom home somewhere in New Zealand, and not a home that might have been built in the 1970s, 1960s, 1950s, or before, on a much smaller site and in a much denser arrangement.

So what we have to recognise is that there is massive demand out there for new housing. New housing chases the price of existing housing, and unless there are these sorts of moves made that get some of those nutty planners out of the way and get councils starting to focus on what some of their core business should be, then it is absolutely essential that the Parliament takes a strong view on it. It won’t please everybody—I know that—but in the end, young people in this country have a right to live somewhere and have a right to some home ownership, and this is one way that we can ensure that they have at least a chance at that.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I rise to speak in support of the second reading of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. When National can unite with Labour on one of the biggest challenges facing Aotearoa despite not having unity amongst themselves, it sends a very strong message that the housing crisis is something this Parliament is taking seriously. So I commend the intent of this bill, as one of the parts of the solution to housing supply, and the bipartisan nature that has come into its being.

We have seen analysis that suggests this bill leads up to 100,000 homes being built over the next eight years and prevents around $198 billion of wealth transfer to landlords and speculators, but we do have to ask what will this actually mean for the grassroots, for w’ānau on benefits, for those trying to break into the housing market, and those trying to become homeowners, because increasing housing supply is one thing, but who supplies that housing is another matter entirely. Without building more social and State houses, the best we can expect from this bill is to slow the increase in rents and lower the costs of homeownership by creating more competition for speculators and landlords. It will also make it easier for people to get into the private rental properties.

In other words, this is a capitalist solution to a problem that was caused by capitalism, and, as usual, it is the big property developers and landlords who are set to benefit the most from a crisis they created. It will do very little, if anything, to get more Māori into homeownership. So while Te Paati Māori are supporting this bill, we are supporting it as just one part of the solution. We are under no illusions that this falls far short of the holistic approach we need for housing in Aotearoa, especially for tangata w’enua.

Since 1986, the number of Māori forced to rent has increased by 88.3 percent. Seventy percent of Māori can’t afford homes and are living in rentals, one-third of Māori live in a house considered damp and/or overcrowded, Māori make up 50 percent of the waiting list for social housing, 30 percent of Māori pay rent that is over 30 percent of their weekly income, and 33 percent of Māori will shift residence every three years. At the same time, there were 191,646 unoccupied houses on census night 2018, and 38,000 of those ghost houses were in Tāmaki-makau-rau. I have said this all before, the party has said this all before, and we’ll keep on saying it until it sticks.

For the majority of w’ānau, finding an affordable house to rent, let alone a house to own, is currently completely unattainable. So while we stand in support of this bill as one small part of the package, it does not address the income inequality and systemic racism that is locking Māori out of the housing market. What is being done to address the fact that Pākehā have a net worth almost five times higher than Māori, while non-Māori have a 13 percent higher median wage; how does this help the 12,000 tangata w’enua who are homeless in their own home; and how will it see more Māori owning their homes when homeownership for Māori is at 26 percent, compared with 41 percent for non-Māori?

The Crown needs to recognise the severe disadvantage that Māori face in the housing market and immediately introduce a Māori housing package that includes targeted financial support schemes to help with deposits such as the old Māori Affairs loans in the past. They also need to address supply through building social housing.

We’ve heard a lot of positive talk about this new partnership between Labour and National, and we’d like to remind both parties that this is more of an affair than a monogamous relationship. The Crown already had a partner: it’s called tangata w’enua. All w’ānau have a right to a warm, leak-free, secure home. Every New Zealander knows there is a housing crisis. It is not just Māori who live in cars, garages, and under hedges. However, it is only when non-Māori also suffer in a housing crisis that the Government decides to do something.

For Māori, this housing crisis and all of the issues surrounding it is the most significant Treaty breach of today. It is time this Government treats it as such. This bill does not do that by any measure, but it will help renters with this done. Kia ora koutou katoa.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. It’s an honour and a privilege to make a brief contribution to debate on the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I’d like to acknowledge the leadership of the Minister for the Environment, the Hon David Parker, and the leadership of Nicola Willis, and I congratulate the member on her new role, because it is with that leadership that we arrive here today at the second reading of this bill. I also want to acknowledge the leadership of the Environment Committee chair, the Hon Eugenie Sage, and her wisdom and her intelligence and her patience to deal with some of the members in our select committee. Of course, I want to also acknowledge the leadership of the deputy chair, Rachel Brooking, in terms of her intelligence and insights that she brings into here.

When I joined the select committee, there were only two acronyms that I really understood. There was the AUP, which was the Auckland Unitary Plan, and the RMA, the Resource Management Act. I have been schooled and my brain is still exploding. The ISPP, or the intensification streamlined planning process, requires the intensive planning instrument, or the IPI, and the NPS-UD, or the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, and, of course, all those details we talked about in detail and the submitters submitted on them. One thing that I really like about what the select committee came out with is the new independent hearing panel, because the independent hearing panel must—must—have somebody on that panel who has knowledge of mātauranga Māori.

So the other word that I learnt, the new acronym, is the medium-density residential standards. I live in tier 1 Auckland City, and I’m honoured and I’m privileged to be living in a place where the Auckland Unitary Plan has designated it from being a single-house zone in Onehunga. It used to be just one house, and now it houses 42 apartments: mixed owner-occupied, KiwiBuild, and renters.

So I want to acknowledge that. Before I get to that, I want to acknowledge the officials who have helped us and that have stayed up all night working on this, but I want to go into the submitters, in terms of the young people. The young people submitted and I think, if I themed the submissions by young people, there were three themes. They said that they support this bipartisan approach and that they have hope—they have hope—to one day own a home in New Zealand and to have solutions for climate change.

Particularly, I want to acknowledge Xuzong Chen. His submission was about allowing people to live near the places that they work. He also said that students and our younger generations need to have some hope for the future.

Oscar Sims lives in tier 1 Auckland, like I do. What he said was that in terms of the AUP—in terms of that, I spoke about how I’m living in an apartment built from that plan. However, there are places in Auckland that are still the status quo. What this bill does will enable those places to remain the status quo, because Oscar Sims says that in Auckland, where I live, too little homes are built in parts of Auckland. That’s because the Auckland Unitary Plan is busy building elsewhere like Papakura and like Onehunga, but there are places in Auckland Central that are still the status quo. This bill addresses that.

Last but not least, we had a young submitter. His name is Mitchell Palmer. He’s a student at Yale University, studying in Singapore. He’s living overseas. He said that one day, he wishes to be able to buy an affordable home here, in his birth country. I commend this bill to the House. Malo.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Jeez, I must say, listening to the previous member, Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, that I really do wish I was on the Environment Committee. It sounds like it was a remarkable place to be, and it’s always good to hear a lot of passion and energy in the House.

I rise on behalf of National to speak on the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill at its second reading. National supports this bill.

I do want to acknowledge—and, as I said, I wasn’t on the select committee, but what I’ve heard from my colleagues is consistent—that Eugenie Sage, as chair, was respectful and thoughtful throughout, and I think those were the two words that have resonated on this side of the House in terms of this. This was a challenging bill under the time line in which the committee was faced, and the way in which she conducted herself in that role was well appreciated from our team. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Scott Simpson and our deputy leader, Nicola Willis, for their contribution in terms of that process. It has not often, I must say, in my short time in this House that we have been part of a process that is bipartisan, and I think that that has been acknowledged by a number of speakers here already.

I also want to acknowledge, on behalf of our team, the officials at the Parliamentary Counsel Office for their significant contribution. It’s referred to in the fact of the long hours that the select committee put into this, but I think it would be fair to say, as it often is the case with the officials that we have supporting us in our roles, that it probably would have been twice, if not three times, the amount of time that went on in the background in order to contribute to this bill, and that is appreciated as well.

There was a significant number of amendments that have, obviously, been put in following that select committee process. As the member of Parliament for North Shore, I obviously had a large number of comments and feedback in regards to this bill after the first reading. I know a number of members from my community and many communities across Auckland contributed throughout that select committee process. I think what we have seen as a result of those amendments is the select committee process doing what it’s meant to do, and that is to listen and take on board the feedback of our local communities and people from around the country: experts, iwi and hapū, developers, and those in the commercial sector, and, of course, our local government. All of that feedback has been taken on board very diligently by the select committee and, as a result, we have got nearly 50 points of amendment that will be coming through on a Supplementary Order Paper at the committee of the whole House stage, which is good to hear.

Look, I must say, looking at some of the feedback, there were significant concerns raised in terms of the short time frame, and we acknowledge that this was a reduced time frame from what we would normally expect in the select committee process, which probably prevented the usual scrutiny. But, as I’ve said, the committee did work very hard on that. There were 183 oral submissions and 966 submissions overall, and over 1,000 documents of correspondence that was—as was referred to—from a number of community groups and individuals.

I also want to acknowledge local government across our country in terms of their contribution to this process. Obviously, in my home city of Auckland, Auckland Council made two actual submissions as part of that process. I think their feedback was constructive and concise. It was absolutely, I know, from the committee’s perspective, taken on board, and you can see a number of the amendments that have resulted follow on from that feedback process.

The key elements that have changed we’ve talked about, but, primarily, we’ve seen changes in regards to higher design standards. I think that was something that was quite significant in the submission made by Auckland Council, in particular. There are more concessions for councils in regards to qualifying matters, the protection or exclusion of already existing heritage zones—which, obviously, is very important in my home electorate; particularly in Devonport—environmental concerns, and other factors as well. The changes also amend in regards to height to boundary and the other elements that we’ve talked around such as sunlight, etc. This also, I think, reflects that this is really trying to achieve a higher quality of outcome in terms of what we’re doing, and, again, that reflects some of the feedback made by submitters and, in particular, Auckland Council. Lastly, around the district plan changes, that’s the fourth element in which we’ve seen some significant amendments within this bill, and it is something that will carry us forward.

A significant proportion of the feedback that I had was from young people within my community of the North Shore. These are young people who are struggling to afford to buy their first home, they are struggling to find a home to rent, and they are hopeful in terms of being able to participate in the homeownership process, as have many generations before them, but the reality is that this is a significant challenge. It’s a significant challenge that has faced our country for a period of time, and I think while there is no silver bullet in terms of solutions, the ability for both sides of this House to work together to put in place actions that will make and support this process and support the futures of our young people in particular is, I think, a good thing.

There was a recent survey undertaken in terms of the New Zealand Issues Monitor in October. It referred to the fact that over half of Kiwis in this country rank housing affordability as the No. 1 issue that they face. Sixty percent of those people were women, and I think that also acknowledges the importance of this process and that it is the No. 1 issue for people who live in Auckland.

I think that is pretty much what I wanted to leave and cover off this evening. Again, thank you very much to the select committee for your contribution. I’m looking forward to seeing this bill proceed through this House.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, it is a real pleasure to be the last speaker on this bill, the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

We did have a very busy select committee period, but I do want to add my voice to everyone who has spoken before me in regards to acknowledging the chairperson, the Hon Eugenie Sage, who was very diligent. I swear she read everything twice—and with over 966 submissions, I think that’s pretty amazing—and she kept a very calm demeanour. It’s quite an exhausting pace that we set, so I want to acknowledge the chairperson for her good work.

I also want to recognise Nicola Willis, who during the sitting of the select committee was elected as deputy leader of the National Party. I want to acknowledge that you continued to do this work while also busily doing other things, obviously.

My Ministers, both the Hon David Parker and the Hon Megan Woods—I want to acknowledge them for their work together to bring this bill together. We know that there is a significant issue in this country. The homelessness issue and the housing crisis that we have has happened over generations. We know that each and every party that has come here today has probably had part of the responsibility of not solving that problem, and so that’s why I’m very delighted that today we have pretty much, pretty much—almost—

Tangi Utikere: Still a chance.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Still a chance. Everyone is in agreement that this is something that needs to happen.

I spoke to my husband, actually, who is a builder. In part of when I was talking about the bill after the first reading, I explained to him what was going to be happening, and he said, “Boy, that will absolutely shift things. It will absolutely shift things.”

Papa kāinga, it will enable the brownfields developments, and it will enable people to put that granny flat on the back of their house for their mum or dad or even their children, and some of these things are about solutions. The—

Kieran McAnulty: Well said.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: —way that we—thank you—particularly want to see things go is to ensure that there are people in houses and that there are people in communities that have good, warm, dry places. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 110

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill and the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill.

HansS_20211207_054270000#S#HansDeb_20211207_20211207_51#6801

House in Committee

House in Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the House is in committee on the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill and the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill.

HansS_20211207_054285000#S#HansDeb_20211207_20211207_51#6800

Bills

Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill

In Committee

Parts 1 to 6, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): We come first to the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. I seek leave for all parts to be taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Is there any objection? The question is that Parts 1 to 6, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Supplementary Order Paper 59, set out in Supplementary Order Paper 104, be agreed to.

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 59, as amended, be agreed to.

Amendments, as amended, agreed to.

Parts 1 to 6, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2, as amended, agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Sexual Violence Legislation Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Evidence Act 2006

KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all parts to be taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Madam Chair, thank you for the chance to speak to the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill. Can I acknowledge all parties in the House who have contributed to second reading speeches which, I think, on the whole, were very supportive of the thrust of this piece of legislation—to make the experience of those who have experienced sexual violence, or allegedly experienced, to have a much better experience of the court process in order to ensure that we don’t retraumatise victims as part of that court process.

This piece of legislation has come about by two reviews by the Law Commission in 2015, and one undertaken and delivered back under my predecessor, the Hon Andrew Little in 2019. My recollection of the second reading debate, again, was relatively overwhelming support for most of the components of this piece of legislation. But some debate and concern around fair trial rights around two clauses within the piece of legislation—around clause 8 and clause 14, I believe. Clause 8 is around the admissibility of evidence about a complainant’s sex life, and a higher threshold in which evidence can be brought into the court process—about the particulars of a complainant’s sexual experience with someone who is a defendant, or parties who might be a defendant, other than to state or claim of fact that there has been sexual experience between the complainant and defendant or defendants. There has been some concern around that from the legal fraternity and from Opposition parties around the obligations under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act around fair trial rights. I would point out—because they obviously made, at the second reading stage, a plea for a change of policy within this piece of legislation—we do believe that the bill as it stands does protect the rights of defendants, and gives judges the discretion in cases where further information or further evidence may need to be gleaned about particular instances between the complainant and a defendant. That can be done to ensure that a fair trial is heard.

The other clause in Part 1 that was cause for debate was around clause 14 and the ability for claimants or propensity witnesses to be able to give evidence by means other than appearing in the court physically itself. This isn’t necessarily something new, but under this piece of legislation, again, based on work undertaken by the Law Commission, it would be a right for complainants and propensity witnesses to give evidence by way of video or other technology prior to the trial occurring. Again, some concern around that, around fair trial rights. I would also point out, again, that we believe that the legislation as it stands, and aspects of the current regime, enable the judiciary to have discretion about, for example, the ability to call a witness again for cross-examination if the judge deems that fit. So that is why, and that’s a rationale for not making any changes that are sought through the Opposition Supplementary Order Papers, or the requests in the second reading speeches, or the extensive lobbying and public campaigning by some in the legal fraternity.

The heart of this legislation is to ensure that we have safe environments in which people can feel they can come forward to make complaints, in order for complainants to feel that they are not retraumatised, and, in essence, to get to the point before they get to a court case to feel comfortable to come forward. Certainly, the feedback from both of those Law Commission reports is that there is an issue with the ability of people being confident to come forward to make complaints about sexual violence—because of concern around what would happen in terms of retraumatisation in a court trial, because of concerns around what might happen in terms of questioning, for example.

On that, that’s just an opening statement to kind of lay the foundation for what I’m sure will be a number of questions around Part 1, around those contentious clauses. But, again, I would reiterate: I think, on the whole, most of the House agreed with the thrust of the components of this piece of legislation.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair for the opportunity to say a few words and ask some questions of the Minister in the chair, Kris Faafoi. Obviously, I’m very new to this portfolio following the arrival of a new leadership team here in the National Party, one that will, effectively, hold this Government to account and reflect the widespread frustration there is across the country over the general conduct of this Government in a whole host of areas. So we’re very much looking forward to that discussion, and I’m very much looking forward to our role in Opposition of opposing and proposing better justice policies for this country—a country where, after a couple of decades of making great progress on reducing crime statistics and the victims of crime in this country, in the past few years most statistics have turned around in the wrong direction and are getting worse.

We heard today in select committee that family violence has increased around 60 percent in the past five years, which is having a huge impact on people’s lives. Sexual violence is obviously a component of that and something that we’re focusing on in this legislation here today introduced into this Parliament. I don’t think anybody, reasonably, looking from the outside would dispute the basic proposition that, overall, victims of sexual crimes have a hard row to hoe in terms of getting justice, because of, fundamentally, the difficulties of proving what went on in situations where it’s not easy to prove. So there are many, many instances where justice is denied, and so I think there is a widespread desire to do what we can to reduce the retraumatisation of complainants, including victims of crime, and to make the process as effective as possible in attaining justice.

As we always do in every element of the law, we recognise that there are two sides to this equation and being able to defend oneself against accusations is equally important, and the rule of law needs to be observed in all those ways. So it is, I think, disappointing to hear from the Minister that notwithstanding all the very many submissions and very serious issues raised by the New Zealand Law Society and the Auckland district council and many legal elements of the fraternity around elements of this bill, very little changes have ultimately been made.

We’ll be laying out a couple of Supplementary Order Papers in the name of my colleague Chris Penk on a couple of issues that have been raised, and I thought I’d start with the one around clause 8, which is in relation to the sexual experience or connection between the complainant and the defendant being relevant or discussed in the course of the hearing. I think, again, widespread concern about practices in the past, dredging up all manner of stories and accusations or implications against the complainant or even, potentially, the victim of the crime and getting into territory that is not relevant, and so the rules have been tightened over the years. This tightens it even more in relation to really reflecting at all on a prior relationship between the complainant and the defendant. So I’d like the Minister to explain exactly how he is confident that what is being proposed here and not being changed at all will still ensure defendants have the ability to raise important and relevant issues in the case. I’d like him to justify that a bit more.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I begin by congratulating the member on his new role as justice spokesperson for the Opposition. I would point the member to page 10 of the bill under clause 8: new section 44A outlines a number of processes that a party who does wish to ask any further questions or ask for admissibility of any further evidence over and above the fact that there is a relationship or there has been a sexual relationship in the past which is black and white, a fact, can propose to do that via application to the judge, or the judge can direct for that if the judge believes that that’s in the best interests of fair trial. I believe that does strike the right balance in order to get to the desired outcome of this piece of legislation to keep the victims safe from further retraumatisation of going through particular instances and in great detail, or a line or manner of questioning which may again retraumatise or revictimise the complainant, but also give the defendant’s counsel the ability to further question if they believe it is in the interests of a fair trial.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Minister, for those comments, recognising, of course, that the stakes are very high for both the complainants and the defendants. Of course, being convicted of such a crime and sent to prison is a very serious matter for the person involved as well. So ensuring that everybody has their chance to raise issues is important. So the threshold now is much higher.

Similarly, the next question relates to new section 44 in relation to the—sorry, I’m just trying to find the jolly part—

Hon Kris Faafoi: Page 8?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes. No—no, I’ve moved on from page 8 in terms of the pre-trial reporting. The issue raised, again, by a number of parties, is that under the current arrangements under the Evidence Act, the judge may direct evidence to be gathered in an alternative way, including cross-examination taking place prior to trial. A number of submitters highlighted a Court of Appeal judgment of 2011 detailing that rare and exceptional circumstances would make such a course of action appropriate. So this is allowing for rather than the complainant being in the full court on the stand during the trial, instead to do a pre-recorded interview, maybe even a year before it goes to trial. So that has been allowed under the current arrangements in very rare and exceptional circumstances. This bill would make that process an entitlement, effectively, rather than at the discretion of the judge. So it would make it much more common.

That has real implications for the defendant’s right to a fair trial, as protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, particularly because the pre-trial recording offers no opportunity for the defendant to question a witness based on what happens during the trial, and what may happen subsequent to the recording. So a number of submitters—serious submitters—raised serious questions about that and the impact that it has on the fair trial process.

So I suppose, again, I’d like to hear from the Minister. The Minister rather glibly said at the beginning that “You know, well, we just introduced this bill. We heard all the submissions are deeply concerned about it, but fundamentally we’re not changing anything and we think everything’s fine.” I’d like a bit more meat on the sandwich from the Minister to explain exactly how he is so confident that defendants will have the ability to have their basic, basic opportunity to effectively cross-examine the complainant and have the ability to defend themselves.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): If we think of the motivation for the piece of this legislation to try and assist victims of sexual violence, to not retraumatise them in the trial period, the ability for complainants or propensity witnesses to give evidence—let’s use the example that the member gave—via video. It may be some time before the trial actually takes place. I guess the motivation for that is to ensure that the complainant or anyone else who is going to give evidence can do that at a period that is suitable to them and not something that would prolong the pain or the suffering of a defendant, because they may have to wait a year, as the member mentioned, between either giving that evidence and the trial actually occurring. So I guess the proposition within the piece of legislation meets that test.

There were, obviously, concerns about any lag between the video evidence being gathered and the trial actually happening. I would note to the member that the defendant’s counsel also get access to that evidence at the time that it is gathered. I note there is a Government Supplementary Order Paper on the table which gives the ability for the judge in a trial or overlooking the issue to put conditions on the access to that video evidence.

But I would also remind the member of the point that I made in my opening remarks, in terms of striking that balance between protecting victims within this legislation and the right to a fair trial. If the judge believes that the giving of evidence via video, whatever the circumstances may be, and the way that it is presented is not providing fair trial rights to the defendant, they can and they do have the discretion to have the ability to recall a defendant in order for cross-examination to happen.

Now, obviously, I think if you’re taking a victim-centric approach or view here, we would hope that that would be rare and reasonable, because of what we are hoping to achieve with this legislation. But in the interest of fair trial rights, there is the ability for the judge to do that. So that’s why we believe the valve that’s available to the judge in that case of that ilk will allow evidence to be garnered again from the defendant in order for the defendant to express his or her rights to a fair trial.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a real pleasure to take a call in the committee stage of the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill. I want to acknowledge the Minister Hon Kris Faafoi in bringing this back into the House on the day that the Government launched Te Aorerekura: the national strategy for ending family violence and sexual violence within 25 years. I think that is a really significant piece of work. We know from survivors of sexual violence as well as their advocates that the right to an appropriate justice system is of real concern. This has been on the agenda for a very long time. Some of the provisions in this go back specifically to the taskforce for action, I think, from 2009 and what Simon Power, the then Minister of Justice, described as the best road map the country had had for ending sexual violence. This work is really long overdue and is not actually putting us in the advanced path of any country in the world. This is just catching us up with some other jurisdictions that we like to compare ourselves to, and just ensuring basic dignity in our court system.

There are a lot of provisions in this piece of legislation that are really important. The extending around communications assistance to those who may have trouble following the court processes. As a non-legal person myself, I have a lot of sympathy for that, let alone for people with learning disabilities for particular impairments that may make it that much harder. That is of benefit to every single person in our court process—the defendant as well as the complainant. That is provided for in this legislation.

Providing instances where the judge must intervene if they believe the questioning is inappropriate, misleading, or needlessly repetitive, because we’ve got recent evidence of those behaviours happening unchecked in our courts and judges telling us that they’re not intervening because they fear there being an appeal process based on their intervention. So we need to give judges that legal certainty to be able to stop those behaviours.

Also, around judicial direction to address rape myths if they haven’t been addressed through the process in the trial. That was a non-exhaustive list but I commend the select committee for their work on adding to some of the rape myths that were identified: looking at the things around where the suggestions that the way somebody dressed meant they wanted to be raped; that they abdicated their right to consent by the way they dressed or the fact that they’ve been flirting with somebody. We have recent analysis of a court case—truly shocking—where somebody had flirted with the defendant earlier in the evening and that was absolutely used to suggest that that person had consented to the rape, because they’d flirted and sat on their knees—clearly consent to having sex several hours later! In my world, those things don’t flow on from each other. There’s quite a few steps where you need to say yes or no along the way before you get to sex. And other examples around drinking and alcohol or drugs, and how that affects decision making. And it’s really important that juries get that information about what is rape, because we know that there are a lot of myths in our society and that there’s a lot of victim blaming, and that can lead to what I characterise and use inappropriately as miscarriages of justice, when juries make decisions based on myths, rather than an accurate understanding of the law and an understanding of what is rape.

The controversial parts of this bill—and I do want to follow up from the Hon Paul Goldsmith’s questioning around prerecords and the fact that the Court of Appeal had said that it should only be rare or exceptional circumstances. I noticed the member Emily Henderson just coming into the House tonight and noticing that her academic work critiqued that ruling, when she was a research fellow at Auckland University, and noting that the Court of Appeal did not draw on the evidence of 20 years of prerecording for child witnesses in sexual violence cases in Western Australia that found that there was not an undermining of the right to a fair trial. In fact, it had strengthened the fair trial and good interrogation of evidence through that process, rather than undermining it. I would also point the member to the fact that the legislation around this point also—[Time expired]

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Just a quick contribution. First of all, can I acknowledge my two Green colleagues in the House tonight, the Hon Marama Davidson and Jan Logie—obviously, on the day that we’ve launched our national action plan on sexual violence and family violence. I want to acknowledge the work that both of those members have undertaken to get us to that point and congratulate them.

One point that I wanted to raise, upon my re-reading of the Hansard from the second reading debate, was an assertion from Opposition members about who was either supportive or not supportive of this piece of legislation. I know the judiciary don’t like to be dragged into debates in this House or into politics, but they were, in the second reading debate, from members to my left about whether or not they were supportive of this legislation. Now, I don’t think they’ve made a declaration about whether they’re supportive of this legislation, but there was a Court of Appeal ruling in 2020 which made it very clear that the judiciary is more supportive of the use of the types of video evidence that we are looking at in this piece of legislation. In that ruling, the Court of Appeal judges said, “We see considerable merit in pre-recording the evidence of a vulnerable witness before trial. Not only does this provide a vulnerable witness with a more accommodating environment in which to give their evidence; it also provides counsel and the trial judge with an opportunity to take any remedial steps that may be required after the vulnerable witness gives his or her evidence.”

I do want to acknowledge the argument that the Opposition is making, because I do think we need to make sure that we are addressing questions around fair trial rights, but I do believe the safeguards within this legislation actually offer that well and truly. There have been concerns in other jurisdictions across the Tasman, where similar concerns were raised ahead of regimes such as this being introduced, but time and evidence have suggested that the concerns that were raised pre these kinds of regimes being introduced haven’t been borne out, because of safeguards like that which are a part of this legislation being there. So, again, respectful of the concern—I think it’s a valid one to have.

The other thing I do want to note was part of the contribution of Jan Logie, about some of the types of questioning. I’ve had meetings with both sides of the ledger here, in terms of what does and what doesn’t happen in some of these trials, and the types or manner in which questions are being asked. I think the reality is, and I’m convinced, that they still do, and whether it is motivated to be intimidatory, it is for those who are answering the questions. So I think one of the components of this piece of legislation is that a judge has discretion not only to make judgments around the question but also the manner in which the questions are being asked. And I think, again, that is another component of this piece of legislation which has been well looked into by the Law Commission twice and which I think will, effectively, mean better justice is served. And I mean that by allowing a safe environment for victims or alleged victims of sexual violence to be able to have their day and their say in court against a defendant but also to ensure that those fair trial rights are protected as well.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā tātou katoa. I want to firstly congratulate Minister Faafoi for progressing this legislation through the House. I do actually acknowledge, genuinely, across the House that I believe we all want to see safer responses for victims and survivors of family violence and sexual violence, and I want to hold to that. I want to genuinely uphold that I truly believe that that is what representatives in this House want to see. I want to take us back, and the Minister, Hon Kris Faafoi, himself mentioned in the opening statements tonight that we go back to the purpose of what this legislation is trying to do: to make sure that we are addressing primary concerns here.

Hon Kris Faafoi, for example, just talked about how we can make sure that we are preserving the principle of fair trial and that, in fact, there is international and other evidence to show that with the safeguards, the concerns of breaking the integrity of the principle of a fair trial have not been borne out. What I want to say and what we know is that the risks and the under-reporting of sexual violence and family violence has been borne out. That is very clear and has been in front of us for many, many decades. Right now we have, unfortunately, around 80 percent of violence and harm going unreported, but for sexual violence, it is in fact even higher, the vast majority—around 94 percent of sexual violence goes unreported. This legislation is part of the essential and long overdue necessary steps that we all need to take to ensure that when victims and survivors want to truly see justice and accountability, that we are at least making changes in our legislative and court processes to give people more faith and trust that that is indeed what will happen: that we will deliver justice and accountability.

My colleague Jan Logie—who for the Green Party has been our outstanding holder of this legislation, who has been our outstanding spokesperson—also referred to the ongoing evidence and the evidence of our colleague here in the House, Emily Henderson, which has shown what has been borne out. We can hold that to our own high standards in this House about what the cause, what the principle—what this legislation is trying to do; it is trying to improve and maintain the principle of a fair trial.

Oh my goodness, the time goes. I did want to draw on the voices of advocates, victim survivor advocates, and the sector. I particularly acknowledge Te Ohaakii a Hine—National Network Ending Sexual Violence Together—TOAH-NNEST—for their sharp and critical analysis on what we all know was also challenged and continues to be challenged here in the House. I acknowledge Hon Kris Faafoi’s approach in actually making sure that we do answer and debate those valid law and legal legislation challenges that are being raised. The very critical debate that I too want to uphold around the principles of a fair trial. The sector and victim survivor advocates have absolutely gone directly to those very debates as well and have asked, in fact, that where there are issues, where we do need to strengthen and make sure we are tightening up the principles of a fair trial, then we seek operational solutions to make sure, for example, in the—I believe it’s actually clauses 13 and 14, but also pages 13 and 14 in the Supplementary Order Paper that refer to the giving of evidence by family violence complainants and the giving of evidence by sexual case complainants or propensity witnesses, that the video evidence and alternative evidence options are a small but important part of how we want to improve safety for justice, including victims and survivors and complainants through our justice process, and that there are ways to seek solutions to uphold the important principle of a right to a fair trial. Thank you, Madam Chair.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I commend you for the work that has been done on this bill. One of the things that the ACT Party are really focused on is making sure that victims are at the centre of our justice system. We have supported this bill through this process, the first reading and the second reading, and I must admit, Minister, when we got through the select committee and the recommendations that came back, we were actually considering not supporting it because we had similar concerns to our colleagues in the National Party. We’re very pleased to see your Supplementary Order Paper 105, because it addresses those issues that we had. In saying that, I just want to let National know that their member’s bill—there’s one of them that we will not be supporting purely because we believe it’s already been addressed in the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper.

But, Minister, one of the concerns that we did have at the time—and you actually have addressed it already when you’ve stood and spoken—is that while we want to put our victims at the centre of the justice system, of course, there was that balance that you talked about earlier where we had defendants possibly being the subject of some vexatious complaints. I believe that you have balanced that out and we congratulate you for that. Where my question comes is if we have a victim who has given video evidence before the trial and there is a need for that victim to be cross-examined later on, is there any support that’s been put aside for those victims if they do have to come back within that system? Because while we’re saying we do need to protect them, we also need to look after them to make sure that we don’t give them an opportunity and then ultimately revictimise them in a way that enables a defendant to have the ability to be able to defend themselves as well. So it’s about support for the victims if we’re going to change the way that they give evidence. And I just wonder if there is anything there for those victims.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I thank the member Nicole McKee on two fronts: obviously, for continuing support for the legislation; we do appreciate that. And also, I think it’s a fair question to ask if a complainant is going to go through the process twice. They will still have the flexibility of arrangements that are available to them, either existing or that come through this piece of legislation. They will have the option of either giving their evidence or responding to questions which have to be set out via video recording. I think there’s also the ability, if they are choosing to be physically in the courtroom at the time, to have a screen available as well so they don’t see the defendant. And also they will still continue to have a court victims adviser available to them to be able to walk them through what will no doubt be—unfortunately, they would have experienced some of it—a foreign experience to them.

So again, I think the components of this legislation, the flexibility in this legislation, but also the safeguards will have a flow-on effect if someone were to have to experience the questioning twice.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Just want to reassure Marama Davidson, my colleague, that yes, indeed, we do all share a desire to ensure that justice is attained by victims of crime and particularly in this area of sexual violence. I don’t think you’ll find anybody in this Parliament or anybody in this country who doesn’t agree with that broad proposition. What we also recognise is that we live in an imperfect world and that the stakes are high in this area for, obviously, victims of crime but also for defendants where things have been alleged that didn’t happen, and that is the purpose of the trial. We wouldn’t be having trials if there weren’t those circumstances. So it’s important that everybody has access to a fair trial and the right to defend themselves. That’s what we are trying to tease out through this process.

The other question, because, indeed, the stakes are very, very high in these cases. People’s lives, of course, are affected colossally by the outcomes. So it’s quite natural that there will be a fair amount of tension over the process. There’s no way to avoid that given the stakes. So managing that process in a way that is civil and appropriate is, of course, something that we all turn our minds to, and views on that change over the decades, and have changed colossally.

The question that I have, though, of course, one of my observations, having been in Parliament now for 10 years, is that I don’t know what the exact ratio is, but quite often legislation passed by this House actually has the opposite effect of what was intended. Life is complex and, particularly in regulations, we set out to do one thing, we pass a law, and actually, it turns out that the consequence was completely unintended, and it’s something quite different. That has been raised by a number of submitters in regard to this one, which is to say, in relation to turning a pre-trial recording of a cross examination maybe a year or maybe two years before it actually goes to trial from something that is rare and exceptional into potentially standard practice could have the unintended consequence of, well, first, turning that situation into an area of great legal confrontation and debate and a fair amount of legal drama around that. But then given the fact that it may well be that quite often it is judged as necessary, on basic rights to justice, to recall that complainant back for the actual trial, you might end up having made the attempt to reduce re-traumatisation of complainants, actually getting to a situation where more often they’re doubly retraumatised as a matter of course.

So, I’m sure that’s not the Minister’s intention. I’m sure that’s not the drafters of this legislation’s intention. But many people who work in the sector, and know it inside out, and know how it operates, and know how lawyers operate, and how the world really works, are deeply concerned that this could, well indeed, be the outcome. So the Minister, sort of, batted it off. Everything will be fine, don’t worry, and it won’t happen. I’m struggling a little bit with the tightrope, which is to say there’s a very high threshold before the judge would order a recall. But, we’re also concerned about the rights of defendants to a fair trial. So if that is a major concern, well, then the recalls will happen reasonably frequently, in which case you’ve got the re-traumatisation happening more often, or if it doesn’t happen hardly ever at all, then we do have a real issue around the rights of the defendants to, under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, be able to defend themselves effectively. So I want to hear more from the Minister on that.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I guess, given the situation, I do think that’s a fair question to ask. What I would remind the member is that this is not a piece of legislation—to pick up a theme that has been used to my left—that has been rushed through any policy process. It’s the product of two Law Commission reports and quite a lot of work from the Ministry of Justice, in consultation with many stakeholders, in order for us to find the right balance in terms of fair trial rights and also the protection of victims in a process which, again, is foreign to probably 99 percent of New Zealanders and that no one wants to find themselves party to in the first place.

I again—and it may not be to the pleasure of the member—reiterate the safeguards are a discretion and the ability for a judge, if they see fit, to seek the ability to garner more information. We do have options to do that.

The legislation, obviously, isn’t passed, so we don’t have anything to fall back on in a New Zealand context. But I would point to a close jurisdiction which undertook an evaluation of a pilot and reported back in 2018, in New South Wales. My understanding of the report back from the evaluation of their pilot was just like we have in this situation here. There was concern around fair trial rights and what might happen as a result, in the order of what the Hon Mr Goldsmith mentioned. I think the scenario he was painting was that we try to help, but we end up making things worse, potentially by having a retrial, for example. The evaluation in New South Wales found that despite the concern around the process, there were no appeals in any of the cases where similar components of this legislation in the regime across the Tasman were used.

Again, I do think it’s fair to raise the concern and raise the question, because that is the right thing to do in order to strike with precision that balance between the defendants’ rights and also the complainants’ rights. But the evidence we have from jurisdictions that are similar to us is that that does not translate into concerns being borne out by appeals in those cases where these types of methods are used. Certainly, in New South Wales, which is a jurisdiction very similar to us, their evaluation of their pilot came back with no appeals of those sexual violence cases where these methods were used.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence): Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually am appreciating this debate in the Chamber tonight. I am going to acknowledge the Hon Paul Goldsmith in that the principle that the member is actually raising is that “Are we making sure?”—what I just heard in the most recent contribution from the Hon Paul Goldsmith is that “Are we making sure that we are guarding against the unintended consequences, that we are not, in fact, actually setting up victims and survivors for further traumatisation?” I want to acknowledge the principle of that debate.

We have heard some of the opposition—not necessarily in the parties tonight in this House, but from the community and from the sector—which does not even try to uphold the principle of making sure that we are not further re-traumatising victims and survivors through the justice processes. So this is a really good crux of this debate here in the Chamber, where we have representatives from all across the different sides of the room holding on to these important principles and debating the pathways to uphold them. I absolutely want to acknowledge authentic political debate that actually crosses party divides, something which we should be seeking to do as often as possible when it comes to such important issues that there are high stakes—I completely agree; I think all of us agree—for not upholding the right to fair trials.

There are high stakes for making sure that we are upholding actual justice processes. On that, I again would then fall back—I was supposed to make this a short contribution—to the crux of the sector and part of the drive behind this legislation, which goes back to the risks of videos and evidential video interviews being shared with the world, which are higher than ever, especially when a common reaction of those accused of adult sexual assault is to attack the character of the victim by ridiculing the accusations and—and this is the crux—by making that evidence public, and that we have had instances, and I know that’s what this legislation is wanting to address.

So if we take it back to that principle, if we take it back to what we are actually trying to do with this legislation, and taking on board what the Hon Kris Faafoi has just outlined in terms of, again, comparative examples for our Aotearoa New Zealand demographics and country demographics, and understanding where we can learn on how we can better protect everyone, and also the evidence in what we know around pre-recorded cross-examinations. When walking alongside victims, we know that the anticipation and subjection to cross-examination is, of course, a stressful experience—of course—and that this is almost always conducted during a hearing, even in cases with child victims.

But here’s the crux that I wanted to pick up on: allowing pre-recording of cross-examination improves accuracy of testimony and increases fairness of trial. So making sure that we can and must do that bit of work in the House, in legislation, and, again, my point—I do repeat it—of looking for operational changes of policy changes to any concerns that might restrict defendants’ access to a fair trial, to viewing the evidence, in that we can actually put this legislation in place and get regulations, per the consultation, working with victims’ advocates—and I think this is key—in those regulations, to making sure—making sure—that we have got a strong framework that both upholds the right to a fair trial and protects and does not retraumatise victims.

My last few seconds is, you know, this goes to broader work. And, yes, thank you, I received the acknowledgments of launching Te Aorerekura strategy to end family violence and sexual violence, along with many colleagues who have worked on that in that we are moving away from, also, such an adversarial approach to justice. I welcome this step. Thank you.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Can I start by acknowledging the point that has been made by a couple of members on both sides of the House, so to speak. Of course we all do want, ultimately, the same thing, I believe, which is, of course, that no victim of sexual violence is retraumatised, but, of course, at the same time, we want to have a process that establishes the truth of a matter in a fair trial so that any convictions are safe, so to speak. So I think it’s gracious of members who maybe have approached this from another perspective to others to acknowledge that the intentions each of the other are good in this space.

In that spirit, I do want to state for the record that which has already been traversed at first reading and second reading, but not at length, Madam Chair, you’ll be pleased to know. But there are a number of really positive features in the bill in addition to the well-intentioned basis on which it has been brought forward. So we’ve talked before, for example, about the rights of victims in relation to victim impact statements and the way that those can be made.

In relation to the particular—really, down to, basically, a couple of points in this legislation that we’ve continued to discuss, because there’s been some nervousness, as you will have gathered, on this side of the House about the way they might play out, and my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith has voiced that, I think, really well in relation to the potential for unintended consequences, with the right of recall under section 99 of the Evidence Act potentially re-traumatising or having a second bite at the cherry being required in relation to evidence being given.

I would just make the point that is probably reasonably obvious: the length of time between an incident, or alleged incident, and the giving of evidence is really problematic, for all involved oftentimes. I think it does reflect a deep-seated difficulty and problem in our justice system, one that’s been quite longstanding and is getting worse—but is, to be fair, a longstanding one—which is the delay in trials taking place and the additional stress that that imposes upon all of those whose lives are upended and put on hold when the outcome of a day in court is delayed for such a significant period of time.

I think we’ve talked about previously—and certainly I’ve recorded in the Supplementary Order Paper regarding the pre-trial recording of cross-examination—the fact that, under section 103 of the Evidence Act already, evidence can be directed to be given in an alternative way, including, for example, pre-recorded by way of cross examination that is before the trial starts. That does lead to an interesting point around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, section 25(e), which I don’t believe was traversed particularly thoroughly, with all due respect, in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet and advice in relation to the bill. So that’s the right of a person to be present at the trial and to present a defence, and if the discussion—that is to say the cross-examination—has taken place before the trial and cross-examination can’t take place on the basis of things that have emerged during a trial, that is potentially quite problematic in terms of that New Zealand Bill of Rights Act freedom or right that’s supposed to be protected in that instrument.

The other one that’s been discussed—again, by others, and I don’t intend to go into it more fully than needed—is in relation to a complainant’s previous sexual experience with the defendant. That seems instinctively to be a different category from saying that her or his sexual disposition is one thing—and, of course, we all would say, I believe, that we wouldn’t want someone to not receive a fair hearing if she or he were to say or for it to be said of them, “Oh, they always act in a certain way”; you know, that they were “asking for it”, or whatever. I think we can safely assume that no one here would think that that was a reasonable basis for dismissing a good-faith complaint, but, at the same time, it might be that if two people—or more, I suppose—have engaged in a certain activity in the past, that is at least potentially relevant and should not be something that is necessarily precluded or which is regarded as not likely to be relevant in a court.

So I would just urge the Minister to respond, if he’s able, for the sake of the record, or at least turn his mind to the fact that there are already Evidence Act requirements around relevance and whether evidence is unfairly prejudicial. So, having placed that on the record, I do reiterate our commitment to the broader mahi of sexual violence legislation—[Time expired]

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I thank the member, Chris Penk, for the contribution. Just for the record—because the member did raise bill of rights issues and any New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) vet—both the bill and Supplementary Order Paper 105, which has been tabled, have been through the BORA process and received the Crown Law tick of approval in terms of that process. So it’s been through the ringer twice, including the changes that have been made via the Supplementary Order Paper.

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 105 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Chris Penk’s amendments to clause 14, new section 106D(7) and 106G to 106J are out of order as inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Chris Penk’s remaining amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 5 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Noes 85

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Chris Penk’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 11 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

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

Motion not agreed to.

Part 1, as amended, agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Victims’ Rights Act 2002

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 18 to 27 in Part 2 of the Schedule Amendments to Victims’ Rights Act 2002. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I think it’s always a significant matter when we are considering ways that we can make the lives of victims easier, and so it’s commendable that Amendments to Victims’ Rights Act 2002 are contemplated by Part 2. So I just wonder if the Minister can give us some explanation, for the sake of the record, in relation the victim impact statements. So we see in new clause 22A, as it will be within that Act, to do with the presentation of such statements to accord in some other manner. So if the Minister can give the House some kind of explanation about the thinking behind that, and the way that he believes that that will be helpful I would greatly appreciate it.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I thank the member for the question, because I think this is something that the whole House will agree on, in terms of victims being able to have the right to use the same methods in which they would give evidence at a trial to make the victim impact statement post trial, usually at the sentencing point of the process. They can use video recordings. Again, if they want to be in court but not to see the defendant—or the person who’s been prosecuted, at this stage, if they’re giving a victim impact statement—they can also use that means. I guess this is giving the right of flexibility for victims to be able to give their victim impact statement in a way that suits them, and I think the ability to do that, again, will give some safety to the victim and a sense of closure and the ability to bring closure in a way that they would like to happen, as opposed to in an open court with a defendant present looking at them directly. So I think, again, this is a good thing as part of the process for victims.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Can I acknowledge the Minister for taking the trouble to set out that philosophy behind the victim impact statement method of presentation being alternative.

I have a question in relation to a new section 28D—“D” for delta as it will be—which is headed “Court may be cleared when victim impact statement read or otherwise presented to court”. I just wonder if the Minister can explain whether it’s his understanding that that is already able to be the case under the current law, and whether this bill is really, essentially, affirming that or providing a bit of a guideline, or if it’s more in the fact of it being something that creates a new right that isn’t, you know, essentially on the statute book or by way of case law or perhaps practise of various court jurisdictions.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Clarifying that it is not a right for that to happen in that manner at this stage. If the judge declares that doing it in that manner would cause undue stress to the person giving the victim impact statement, they can ask for that to be done. My understanding, I believe, although I might need to be clarified of this, is that while you can clear the court, I think the media might be able to be present in the court at the same time.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the time has come for me to leave the chair to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

Report of Committee of the Whole House

Report of Committee of the Whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.