Wednesday, 8 December 2021

WEDNESDAY, 8 DECEMBER 2021

WEDNESDAY, 8 DECEMBER 2021

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

SPEAKER: Members, no select committee reports have been presented—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: A point of order. Point of order.

SPEAKER: A point of order, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

Obituaries

Wiki Mulholland

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): I seek leave of the House to move a motion without notice and without debate honouring the passing of cancer drug advocacy movement leader Wiki Mulholland.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: I move, That the House express its sympathy and condolences to the whānau of community and youth development leader, Wiki Mulholland, and pay tribute to the outstanding advocacy she led for better access to cancer drugs in Aotearoa. Kia ora.

Motion agreed to.

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

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

SPEAKER: No select committee reports have been presented. No bills have been introduced. Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Social Credit, requesting that the House declare the Marsden Point oil refinery a nationally strategic asset

petition of Natalie Horspool, requesting that the House ensure the Te Awakairangi Birthing Centre in Lower Hutt stays open

petition of Ava Simeon, requesting that the House urge the Government to increase the Access Barrier boarding allowance

petition of Ingrid Shaw, requesting that the House urge the Government to stop actioning ideas detailed in the He Puapua report until it has seen full public consultation

petition of Chlöe Swarbrick MP, requesting that the House urge the Minister of Education to provide immediate, direct financial support for all tertiary students.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

Tertiary Education Commission, Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2021

Archives New Zealand, Chief Archivist’s Annual Report on the State of Government Record keeping 2020/21.

SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Consulting Matters: Observations on the 2021-31 consultation documents. Those papers are published under the authority of the House.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. 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): Yes.

Christopher Luxon: Why did she ignore advice from Dr Bloomfield that there is “no public health justification to maintain a boundary around Auckland under the [COVID19 Protection Framework].”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: All the way through the pandemic, of course, we have taken on board the advice of our public health officials, but we’ve also weighed that against the requirement to consider the best interests of all New Zealand as well. Our view was that over the summer period there would be a large amount of movement across New Zealand and that we could best balance the interest of Aucklanders’ need to move with the interest of the rest of New Zealand not having a large increase in COVID cases by simply requiring unvaccinated individuals to be tested before departure and for other Aucklanders to carry proof of vaccine.

Christopher Luxon: What does she say to the thousands of Kiwis who’ve been kept from seeing family members or saying goodbye to loved ones because of her decision to ignore health advice and instead maintain a hard Auckland border?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I fundamentally disagree with the statement the member’s made there. He claims that the director-general has given advice that there should be no boundary around Auckland at all. In fact, in his evidence he talks about the role that it played in preventing the spread of COVID cases throughout the country.

Christopher Luxon: What advice has she had on the number of businesses that have gone under or the additional cost to the economy as a result of her decision to keep the Auckland border closed despite being advised by Dr Bloomfield that there was no public health justification for it?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the member is misinterpreting, or in fact possibly not even reading, the director-general’s statement. He talked about, in their view, there no longer being a need for a hard enforced border from the point—at that point, the COVID-19 Protection Framework came in likely in mid-December. So it is incorrect to claim that we have kept the boundary longer than we were advised to by Health. What it is fair to point out is when we changed that boundary, Health said we could simply lift it. Our view was that the rest of New Zealand would appreciate additional measures to stop the spread of COVID-19. But it would be in keeping with the member’s “let it rip” strategy with COVID.

SPEAKER: Before I call David Seymour, I just want to say that I had quite a few complaints yesterday about the level of noise. Some of it was a general complaint about the noise on my left, but there were some very specific complaints about sparring finance people, especially while the Prime Minister’s mike was open. That is to stop.

David Seymour: What does the Prime Minister say to shopkeepers like my constituents Dave and Sumi in Mt Eden, who’ve had their shop robbed multiple times, called the police, and they don’t come because they’re busy enforcing a border the health advice said wasn’t even necessary?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, I would ask them to raise then with their local member why he stands opposed to the idea of additional support for the police checkpoints through the use of the Defence Force, Māori wardens, community wardens, and Pacific wardens, because he seems to object to that.

Christopher Luxon: Why doesn’t she simply just make the call and open the Auckland border tonight?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because that boundary—which Aucklanders, and I thank them for allowing this to be the case—has protected the rest of New Zealand from being part of a Delta outbreak, which in many other parts of the world has been devastating. I thank Aucklanders for the work that they’ve done, and so does the rest of New Zealand, because that is the reason we have not seen an outbreak beyond that border that has been beyond measure, unable to be controlled. So to Aucklanders, again: we all thank you.

Christopher Luxon: How are Kiwis expected to get ahead under a Government that keeps them locked down longer than needed and when the cost of living is rising at 4.9 percent but wages are rising at just 2.4 percent, giving average Kiwis a pay cut?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The only advice that I have seen suggesting that we have kept Auckland locked down longer than needed is from the Leader of the Opposition. The public health advice—again, I point to—reinforced keeping the boundary in place until mid-December, which is exactly what has happened, and that is because it allows us to get vaccination levels up, which allows us to keep our economy open, which allows us to keep people in jobs, and which allows us to be in the position where, relative to other OECD countries, we have continued to perform well.

Rawiri Waititi: Does she stand by her statement in relation to Māori providers seeking access to vaccination data that “we all want to accelerate vaccination rates and access to data will help with that.”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, and as I’ve mentioned in this House before, one of the issues has been, of course, that that data has been provided to hauora providers, but then we’ve had an additional ask from Whānau Ora to also receive that individual-level data. The Ministry of Health in undertaking consultation with iwi around the release of that encountered some who held the view that it should not be released. The court has now asked Health to finish its work in the next 72 hours to resolve this situation, and the Government supports them to do that.

Rawiri Waititi: What specific actions has her Government taken to release data in response to Whānau Ora winning again in the High Court this week, given that she recognises the need to access data to boost vaccination rates?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The court actually didn’t award the release that was being sought by the Whānau Ora commissioning agent for the immediate release of that data. They did ask the ministry to complete its process, and I guess what I would come back to with the member is they originally sought that the ministry try and resolve the issues that were being raised by iwi. That has been done in, my recollection is, two regions, but there have been outstanding issues that the ministry is now expediting. We bring it back, though, to what we’re all trying to achieve. Everyone wants Māori vaccination rates to lift, and can I just acknowledge everyone who has worked so hard to get them at 90 percent in Tāmaki-makau-rau, to get them at 84 percent in the rest of the country, and to see our over-60s at well over 90 percent. We just need to keep going.

Christopher Luxon: How much of the record increase in the cost of living does she believe is a result of the 40 percent increase in Government spending she’s overseen over the last four years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, that is a curious question, given the rest of the world is experiencing the same thing and has not directly replicated what New Zealand has done here. As I said yesterday, the US is at 6.2 percent, the UK at 4.2 percent, Canada at 4.7 percent, the eurozone 4.9 percent—the inflation that everyone is experiencing currently we can point strongly to the impacts of COVID. Increasing demand, supply chain constraints, shipping issues, increases in the cost of oil—we are not immune to that. But if the member would like to advocate for cuts in Government spending that have substantively gone towards supporting the business community, then that is his prerogative.

Hon Michael Wood: Does she stand by the Government’s decision to increase the minimum wage to ensure that the incomes of low-income New Zealanders keep pace with the cost of living? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Right—OK. The members who interjected then will stand up. They will all apologise and they’re all on final warnings for the day.

Hon Simon Bridges: I withdraw and apologise.

Dr Shane Reti: Withdraw and apologise.

Hon Louise Upston: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Member: Three stooges.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m just trying to decide whether to continue with the question.

Hon Michael Wood: Does she stand by the Government’s decision to increase the minimum wage to ensure that the incomes of low-income New Zealanders keep up with the cost of living?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely do. This Government has always been mindful of the impact of the cost of living on low to moderate income earners. It is why we have stood by, of course, increases in the minimum wage which the Opposition said would lead to job losses. We now have record low unemployment. It’s why we have, of course, increased the family tax credit, made changes to Working for Families, and consistently had an eye to lowering and decreasing child poverty in this country. I know, though, that the member opposite will not agree. He has very openly spoken against the increases on minimum wage.

Christopher Luxon: Isn’t it true that with rent up more than 20 percent and food prices up more than 10 percent since she came into office, hard-working Kiwis are actually going backwards under her Government?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, I do not agree with the premise of that member’s question, because, of course, until the more recent quarters, we did see wage growth outstrip growth in inflation measures. Again, in more recent times, we have seen that increase, but so has the rest of the developed world. It is the impact of COVID. I would seek, then, the views of the member as to what he would do—price controls, perhaps? I would be interested to see his resolution, because, currently, he seems to be advocating for the removal of things like the wage subsidy, resurgence support payments, or perhaps even investment in our Government services.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): ANZ’s latest Quarterly Economic Outlook has reported that economic momentum heading into the Delta outbreak was “nothing short of remarkable”, and during the higher alert level restrictions, the wider economy has been performing very well—“better than anyone dared hope”. It reports that it is clear that macroeconomic stimulus has done what it can to limit the economic fallout from lockdowns. Domestic demand remains strong, unemployment at record lows, while business confidence is above pre-crisis levels. The growth in goods export prices has outstripped import prices and led to good returns in dairy, meat, and horticulture. Looking ahead, the ANZ expects low unemployment and a robust household sector, which will underpin a sustainable growth path for the economy of 4.2 percent in 2021 and 3.9 percent in 2022.

Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on the labour market and its impacts on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the jobs market is supporting our recovery. Stats NZ reported last week that seasonally adjusted filled jobs continue to grow, rising 0.1 percent in October compared with a month earlier to reach a new high of 2.28 million. The number of jobs for men rose by 37,526, and for women by 37,414 on the same period. On an annual basis, the biggest gains have been in healthcare, construction, and professional services. Interestingly, accommodation and food services also rose by 5.3 percent, adding 7,559 jobs. Despite ongoing restrictions, Auckland added more jobs, rising by 3.4 percent for the September year, with gains also in the Waikato, Canterbury, Wellington, and the Bay of Plenty.

Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m sorry to do this, but I feel like I have to. There’s a prominent member of the House not actually wearing a mask at the moment. [Member puts mask on]

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

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to warn the member that his first two answers have been far too long.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Right. So much good news! The OECD Economic Outlook for December—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! That’s the end of it.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the latest ANZ Quarterly Economic Outlook’s assessment that “Government spending remains highly expansionary … The fiscal situation is quite nuanced. Many businesses and households are in desperate need of targeted support, but from a macroeconomic perspective, high government spending in an economy facing severe capacity constraints risks just adding to inflation pressures. That wouldn’t be a good return for taxpayers, and also implies the RBNZ will need to hike interest rates more than otherwise”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I thank the member for floating up to the macroeconomic level, as his leader suggested! I agree with the ANZ that many businesses and households are in need of targeted support and that the fiscal situation is nuanced. That’s why this Government has invested in our businesses and households during this one-in-100-year shock. As the ANZ says, there is a balance to be struck. We will be careful and focused in future spending decisions in order to provide targeted support and address the long-term challenges facing the economy.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he accept that one of the reasons inflation is at its highest level in over 30 years and Kiwis’ wages are going backwards in real terms is because his Government has increased Government spending by 40 percent since 2017 and is now overcooking the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I do not accept the member’s analysis. What I do accept is that in recent months, the Government has had to provide a significant amount of targeted support to businesses, through things like the wage subsidy scheme and the resurgence support payment, and, indeed, I have stood in this House and been called upon by the Opposition to put more money into those areas. The member cannot have it both ways.

Hon Simon Bridges: Has Treasury provided him with a view on whether his Government’s decision to run structural Budget deficits for the next five years, at a time of very high inflation and tightening monetary policy, is in line with the principles of the Public Finance Act, which requires Governments to have regard to the interaction between fiscal and monetary policy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we traversed in the select committee this morning, the Public Finance Act foresees a situation where, in the event of a crisis such as what we have experienced with COVID-19, the Government is able to run the books in the way that we are and still meet the Public Finance Act. It is fiscally prudent to make sure that we support people to stay in jobs, and that’s what we’ve done.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why is the Government running structural Budget deficits for the next five years, at a time when monetary policy is having to tighten to offset it, hurting many millions of Kiwis in the process?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member cannot wish away COVID-19, a one-in-100-year economic shock. The Government took the responsible action of supporting businesses, of supporting Kiwis to stay in work, and I stand by those decisions.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he accept that he is turning up the heat on the economy with his increased Government spending so that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand has to try and turn down the cooker in terms of interest rates, to dampen inflation more than would otherwise be the case?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is well aware that the inflationary pressures are being seen all around the world. What this Government has done is make sure that we invest in supporting people to stay in work and balance that with a responsible fiscal position. I do note that the member’s party’s fiscal position wouldn’t see a surplus until 2028.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he accept that overcooking the economy quite literally means less for Kiwis to cook this Christmas, with the price of fruit and veggies, for example, having gone up 9 percent this year, well above the 2.4 percent average wage increases?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That’s interesting, isn’t it, because here we now have the true colours of this particular National Party. I presume that means the member is going to propose a price freeze. Welcome back, Muldoon.

Question No. 4—Education

4. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What reports has he seen about numbers of people undertaking vocational education and training?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I’ve seen reports about the take-up of the Targeted Training and Apprenticeship Fund, which has been supporting fees-free training for all apprentices and those who have been undertaking vocational education and training in targeted industries where demand for skills will continue to be strong or is expected to grow as we recover from the impacts of COVID-19. Between 1 July last year and 30 November this year, over 175,000 New Zealanders have been supported by that fund. More than 83,000 of these were in apprenticeship programmes, more than 52,000 were trainees in the workplace, and 47,000 were at our polytechs and other vocational education providers. The Targeted Training and Apprenticeship Fund is attracting learners from across the community: Māori account for 20 percent of all of those being supported, Pacific people around 9 percent, Asian New Zealanders 14 percent, and, encouragingly, around a quarter of the learners being supported are over the age of 40, so are being supported to increase their skills whilst in work.

Marja Lubeck: What support have employers received from the Apprenticeship Boost initiative in relation to vocational learners in their workplaces?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Apprenticeship Boost, which sits alongside the Targeted Training and Apprenticeship Fund, is part of our COVID-19 support initiatives. The increase in spending that we’ve done as a result of COVID-19 helps employers keep their early-stage apprentices employed and training towards their qualifications. Since it started in August last year, we have paid out support to over 15,500 employers, and that has allowed them to retain in their jobs 38,000 first- and second-year apprentices whilst also taking on new apprentices. As a result of that, we now have record numbers of apprentices, which is in stark contrast to the global financial crisis when apprenticeship numbers fell. To the end of October, we funded support for 70,000 apprentices compared to 52,000 in the same period last year—that’s an increase of over 32 percent.

Marja Lubeck: What responses is he aware of regarding numbers in vocational learning and the support provided by Government?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, I was recently made aware of the response by the Concave Construction co-chair, Graham Burke, who discussed the 49 percent jump in apprenticeship numbers since August of 2019 with my good friend, Mike Hosking, yesterday. Mr Burke told Mike Hosking that the increase was a direct result of the Government’s Apprenticeship Boost policy, and to quote him directly, he said, “It’s had amazing results.”

Question No. 5—Social Development and Employment

5. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Is the Government still committed to welfare overhaul; if so, why does the Child Poverty Action Group report released today show not a single key recommendation from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group has been fully implemented nearly three years on?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, and we are making good progress on the overhaul. This progress includes the biggest lift in benefits in decades, reversing the cuts made in 1991. The Child Poverty Action Group do great work, but their report released today does not highlight the extensive policy work under way and it assumes every recommendation has a finish line. We’ve always been very upfront: these reforms require massive structural change and will take time. Transformation needs to be well thought through and coherent to be effective. Alongside the benefit rise, our progress has included removing the sanctions which impact children the most, investing $5.5 billion through the Families Package, increasing the minimum wage to $20, indexing benefits to average wage increases, raising abatement thresholds, investing heavily in job training, and increasing our public housing supply. There is more to do—I have never shied away from that—but the mahi is getting done.

Jan Logie: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why has she removed many of the 2020 COVID19 supports or made them time limited when these were all recommended by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG) and supposedly accepted in principle by the Government?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I would refute that. I think one of the clear areas of recommendation in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report was around investment in upskilling and training and employment opportunities. COVID and the pandemic in general really did impress on the Government the need to bring forward much of that investment and that work, and that continues to this point and will continue moving forward.

Jan Logie: What is her response to the report, which finds—and I’ll quote—“If [the] welfare reform had happened on the [time line] envisaged by WEAG, communities would have had the financial resilience to face the challenges of Covid-19 [pandemic] with … confidence. As it is, the government’s slow pace of reform is increasing Covid-19-related inequity and distress, jeopardising public health measures.”?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Again, I’d refute the slow pace. I totally would accept, though, that there is more to do, and we certainly at certain points have been able to outline our time frame and what is in the short-, medium- and long-term time frames with regards to implementation of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s recommendations. I won’t deny that COVID did throw a bit of a spanner in the works; it meant that some things came forward and other things were pushed back. With regards to responding to the income needs of families experiencing hardship, particularly those in the welfare system, we did move very quickly to index benefits to wages. We did in April last year immediately implement an increase in benefits, and then again this year through the Budget, which saw an immediate implementation in July, and more will come into effect in April next year. That’s alongside a suite of other measures. Again, I will not deny that there is more to do, but I will refute the idea that we haven’t actioned the Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommendations and that we haven’t been consistently overhauling the welfare system since we got into Government.

Terisa Ngobi: What else has this Government done that responds to the WEAG report and is part of the welfare overhaul work programme?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There is a range of work under way that responds to the recommendations in the report. This work has been carried out across many Government departments. Examples include establishing a new Ministry for Disabled People, beginning a full reform of the health sector, investing more into out-of-school care and recreation and after-school care programmes, supporting families through more lunches in schools, consenting more new homes than any Government since the 1970s, delivering over a thousand new transitional and 8,000 public housing places, and reforming the culture at the Ministry of Social Development and changing the physical environment to make it more inclusive and accessible. I acknowledge there is more to do, but it is important to take stock and acknowledge what has already been done.

Jan Logie: Will she now accelerate WEAG recommendations to further lift incomes in light of the Child Poverty Monitor report, which shows Māori and Pasifika and disabled tamariki are experiencing up to twice the levels of hardship as their peers?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As announced at Budget, there were benefit increases that really do restore the benefit or incomes to a point that fixes what was done in 1991. There’s more to do, but I do want to also state that in terms of addressing child poverty, it’s not just about what happens in the welfare system or with the Ministry of Social Development. It is about ensuring that we have programmes like Food in Schools, that we do address issues like access to period products, that we do address issues like access to healthcare. Many of these things have been addressed and continue to be addressed by this Government, and we do need to make sure that alongside our focus on the welfare system we are looking at other spaces to address child poverty as well.

Jan Logie: How can she claim to be honouring the WEAG when modelling shows that if increases to core benefits in the family tax credit had happened in April 2019, as intended, a family with three children would be $18,700 better off in April next year?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think the most recent information I saw highlighted that a sole parent on benefit now is about $175 better off per week than what they were in 2017 when we took office, and that’s not including the winter energy payment. There is more to do but we have seen significant improvements with regards to income adequacy since we got into Government.

Jan Logie: Does she agree with the comments of the children’s commissioner that an equitable poverty response which prioritises tamariki Māori and disabled children would increase benefits to livable levels and restore dignity to whānau Māori; if not, why not?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We are absolutely focused on Māori, Pacific, and disabled children, and do know what the evidence shows us and what we see, and that is that they are disproportionately impacted by poverty. Many of the changes that we have put in place through our welfare overhaul and in other aspects of our Government programme have been completely focused on addressing those inequities and ensuring that those children are lifted out of poverty. We have made some traction but we acknowledge there is more to do.

Jan Logie: When will we see any of the WEAG recommendations fully implemented?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said at the beginning, this is not a simple tick-box exercise. If I only look at, say, increasing our public housing stock, which was clearly indicated in the welfare expert advisory group’s report, I can say that we have been able to do that as a Government. But it’s not a matter of that job having been completed. We are committed to continuing to build more public housing and continuing to focus on ensuring that we are able to provide the housing for New Zealanders that is needed. But we can’t tick that one off; nor can we tick many of the others, because they are about consistently focusing on those recommendations and ensuring that we are committed to continually responding to them.

SPEAKER: Before I call Dr Liz Craig for the next question, I just want to indicate to members, because I saw some disappointment in one quarter of the House, as to the allocation of the timing of supplementary questions then—I refer people to Speakers’ rulings 180/5 and 180/6, which indicate, first of all, that no one has a right to a supplementary question at all. But, more importantly, the rulings of Harrison and Wall, not the substantive part but the very first line, or line or two, are that it is the practice to give the member who asked the primary question the first supplementary; actually, it’s been my practice to give them the first two, and after that, if other members go for it, I will move around the House. Generally, if members want to have two supplementary questions, I’ll give them straight away rather than breaking it up. I just think the flow works a bit better there. But I did feel some evil looks at me at that particular point.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll just make it clear: more evil looks than normal.

Question No. 6—Health

6. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What medicines has New Zealand recently secured access to for treating COVID-19?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): It’s important that we have a range of medicines to treat those who do get sick with COVID-19. That’s why I’m pleased to say that, on Monday, we announced that the national drug funding agency, Pharmac, has secured from Pfizer 60,000 courses of another antiviral medicine, which, like molnupiravir, which we secured in October, can be taken as a tablet. Both medications stop people with mild symptoms from becoming very sick. Alongside vaccinations, our hospital treatments are already reducing the likelihood of people needing ICU care, with the ICU rate in Auckland dropping to 3 percent of hospitalisations, down from 5.7 percent previously. Of course, vaccinations and following the “scan, mask, pass” routine are still the best ways of stopping the spread of COVID-19.

Dr Liz Craig: How do these medicines support those recovering from COVID-19?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Pfizer’s antiviral drug, which does not yet have a brand name in New Zealand, inhibits replication but in a different way—by preventing the cleavage of certain proteins necessary to create a fully functioning virus. This means you’re less likely to get a fully functioning virus. This is similar to molnupiravir, which works by introducing copying errors during replication, which means you’re less likely to get a fully functioning virus.

Chris Bishop: “Chippy” talked about this yesterday. The House knows about all this.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Just trying to assist Mr Bishop with the science of this virology. Both drugs are still subject to approval by Medsafe, but trials look promising, and, by securing access to both, we are doing everything possible to make sure New Zealanders have available medicines that are easy to administer and prevent most people who contract COVID-19 from being so sick that they need to go to hospital.

Dr Liz Craig: When will these drugs be available alongside the broader COVID-19 therapeutics New Zealand has access to?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Pfizer antiviral is expected to be delivered to New Zealand in April, once approved by Medsafe. These medicines will be an important asset as we continue to prepare for winter in 2022 and will work alongside our wider suite of COVID-19 medicines already secured by Pharmac, which includes baricitinib, remdesivir, tocilizumab, and ronapreve. We’ve made sure Pharmac can continue to secure early access to new and promising COVID medicines as soon as possible, with $175 million allocated for medicines and supply chain costs and another $300 million available for purchasing more COVID-19 therapeutics.

Question No. 7—Prime Minister

7. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement in relation to wage growth rising faster than inflation, “Of course, it has, with wage growth being at around 3.5 percent and inflation around 2 percent”; if so, does she agree with Statistics New Zealand that inflation for the year to September 2021 was 4.9 percent and wage growth was only 2.4 percent?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, and yes.

Nicole McKee: Does she accept that house prices have climbed by almost 30 percent in the past year, and what impact is this having on the cost of living for New Zealanders?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, we acknowledge, of course, what we’ve seen as a result of decades of issues around the housing market, where CoreLogic now are signalling a view that they believe we will start to see a change in the housing market with additional supply. Of course, the pipeline is also likely to improve with the significant increase in consenting that we’re seeing, and at the same time we see the percentage of first-home buyers moving from 22 percent to 26 percent. We know that a number of issues have contributed to the housing crisis we’ve seen, but our view is that by closing tax loopholes, by continuing to tilt the playing field towards first-home buyers and away from investors, through a considerable public housing build programme, and through significant Resource Management Act reform, we are pulling all of the levers available to us.

Simon Court: Does she stand by Kris Faafoi’s estimate in 2019 that the Government’s fuel market reforms would reduce the price of petrol from between 18c to 32c a litre; and, if so, why are petrol prices now at record levels?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That’s because we’ve seen global oil prices rise sharply from US$17.55 a barrel to now US$78.33 a barrel.

Chris Baillie: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Chris Baillie. This is a test!

Chris Baillie: Does she accept that skills shortages and therefore business costs could have been alleviated if the Government had allowed the same level of flexibility at the border for business as they did for The Wiggles?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Over 190,000 individuals have entered into New Zealand since we have had border controls. Of course, we all would have liked a scenario where we could have had the best of both worlds—a COVID-free environment and free flow at the border—but that has, of course, not been possible. We made a call that we would put in place measures to protect the community against COVID. That is what has led our economy to perform better than many others, and, of course, now we’re in the phase of carefully reopening our borders.

Karen Chhour: Is she concerned that the Government just had a record tax take of $97 billion while families struggled to pay for groceries; if so, does she intend to offer tax relief to Kiwi families?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will be aware that we recently passed through this House adjustments to the family tax credit to ensure that families who are in receipt of Working for Families, which represents a large number of middle and low income earners, will see an increase in that tax credit. We see that as critical at this current time in our COVID recovery. That sits alongside the other measures that we have taken to the in-work tax credit, to Government support, to all make sure that we’re doing what we can for low and middle income earners.

David Seymour: If the Prime Minister agrees with Statistics New Zealand that prices are rising twice as fast as wages, why did she tell the House it was the other way around yesterday, and what does that lack of awareness say about her compassion for hard-working Kiwis squeezed from every direction right now?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Unfortunately, it says that the member wasn’t listening to either his own question at the time or, indeed, to my answer. The member asked me about a statement that was made by the Minister of Finance in May of this year, and he asked about wage growth and inflation at that time. I replied, “Of course, it has, with wage growth being at around 3.5 percent and inflation around 2 percent.” And, at that time the member made that statement, that was Treasury’s future forecasting. The member has subsequently presented statistics from September. So the reason I can respond yes to both is because May, of course, precedes September.

Question No. 8—Building and Construction

8. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent reports has she seen on the construction sector?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): I’ve seen a report which shows that activity in the construction sector is strong and is playing a key role in supporting our COVID-19 recovery. The National Construction Pipeline Report shows that, despite disruptions from COVID-19, construction activity is forecast to grow to about $48 billion in 2024, driven largely by our residential sector. The report also projects a healthy increase in infrastructure activity, which is expected to grow from $9.2 billion in 2020, to reach $11.2 billion in 2026, reflecting the high levels of Government investment in this area.

Tāmati Coffey: What does this report show for employment opportunities in the construction sector?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Employment opportunities in this sector are on the rise, with the report highlighting that the industry is now the fourth-largest employer in the country, employing over 281,000 people. This has been helped by the Government’s ongoing investment in skills and training with the Construction Skills Action Plan, which was launched in October 2018. The action plan has a target of supporting 4,000 people into education and employment opportunities in the sector. I’m pleased to report that it has exceeded the target by more than sevenfold, supporting 29,000 people into education or employment opportunities in the building and construction sector.

Tāmati Coffey: What does the report show for activity in the residential construction sector?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: In the year to October, we saw a 26 percent increase in the number of new homes consented. The report shows that this level of growth will continue, with 265,000 new homes projected to be consented across the country in the next six years. The report also notes that the outlook for residential construction in Auckland is positive, with an estimated 11 percent increase in activity by 2026. The growth we are seeing in the sector illustrates the Government’s ongoing commitment to enabling more homes to be built and will support the Auckland economy by providing more jobs and apprenticeships.

Question No. 9—COVID-19 Response

9. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Did the Government receive public health advice ahead of the Cabinet meeting on 29 November 2021 that the hard or enforced boundary around Auckland should be removed when Auckland and the rest of the country move to the COVID-19 Protection Framework, and did this same advice also recommend any regions enter the traffic light system at green?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): In answer to the first part of the question, Cabinet decided to remove the Auckland boundary at its meeting on 15 November. We received public health advice ahead of that that suggested that the Auckland boundary be removed once the whole country moved to the traffic light framework, which would be a minimum of two weeks after all of the Auckland DHBs had reached the 90 percent fully vaccinated threshold. In answer to the second part of the question, the final recommendation in the public health advice provided ahead of Cabinet’s meeting on 29 November was that Auckland and Northland should be placed at red and the rest of the country at orange. We agreed with the public health advice that Auckland and Northland should go into the new framework at red. However, in keeping with our cautious approach, including considering factors such as vaccination rates, health system capacity, and the need to protect vulnerable communities during an increased period of travel, we decided that a couple of other regions should also enter the new framework at red.

Chris Bishop: Why, when the Prime Minister said as recently as Monday that the Government places “a lot of weight on the public health advice it receives”, is there still a hard boundary around Auckland when the public health advice to the Government stated there is no justification to maintain a boundary around Auckland under the COVID protection framework?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t think the member listened to my answer that I gave to the primary question. If we were following public health advice to the letter, the entire country would not yet be in the COVID-19 Protection Framework (CPF); we would still be waiting for Auckland to be, two weeks after hitting the 90 percent fully vaccinated threshold, which Counties Manukau has yet to do. It’s likely to do that in the next day or two, but we would still be waiting potentially up till Christmas to move the country into the traffic light framework if we were following their health advice exactly as it was presented.

Chris Bishop: What regions were listed in the preliminary public health advice he received on 24 November as being able to enter the COVID protection framework at green?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think the preliminary advice that I received suggested that all of the rest of the country outside of Auckland and Northland enter the framework at red. I’m happy to go back and check that, but I’m pretty certain it was that everything else would be at the orange level.

SPEAKER: I think there might have been an error in the beginning of the answer. I’ll get the member to ask the question again.

Chris Bishop: So the question was: what regions were listed in the preliminary public health advice he received on 24 November as being able to enter the protection framework at green?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: None. As I indicated—I might have got the colours mixed up there in my previous answer—but the preliminary advice, if I recall correctly, was for Auckland and Northland to be at red and the rest of the country to be at orange, but I’ll have to go back and check. I’m pretty sure the advice he was referring to wasn’t advice to me; it was advice from the public health unit to the director-general.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm that the statements made by Dr Bloomfield to the Waitangi Tribunal recently were what was then presented in his advice to Cabinet—that, notably, our preliminary view was that the various regions could enter into the CPF on green; however, given our assessment committee’s concerns about the number of areas with low vaccination status, particularly for Māori, and current active cases in several DHBs were not just limited to Auckland metro DHB, this preliminary view was adjusted; the final recommendation was that regions should be placed at orange, except for Auckland and Northland, which was then what was presented to Cabinet?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes.

Chris Bishop: Isn’t it the case that Dr Bloomfield has provided an affidavit to the Waitangi Tribunal that says, “Our preliminary view was that various regions could enter into the COVID protection framework on green.”, and what were those regions?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member has a—I think the Prime Minister has just quoted directly from the advice that Dr Bloomfield has provided in his affidavit to the Waitangi Tribunal, which made it clear that, in considering the public health position and in considering what advice to provide to Cabinet, the public health officials weighed up a number of factors, and the ultimate advice that was presented to the Cabinet is as I’ve set out.

Chris Bishop: Is he aware of what the preliminary advice said in relation to what regions could enter at green; and if he is aware, what are those regions?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m pretty sure the member is referring to the public health advice that was provided from the public health team to Dr Bloomfield, not advice that was provided to the Cabinet.

Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question is very specific, and we’ve just had a back and forth around the fact that there was a preliminary view that was not the final view that went to the Minister, but there was a preliminary view that—and I’ve asked the Minister whether or not he’s aware of what the preliminary view was, and if he is aware, what exactly the details of that are. He’s answering about the final recommendation of public health advice. My question is about the preliminary view of the officials.

SPEAKER: I think the Minister made it pretty clear that notwithstanding what that advice was, it wasn’t the advice that went to Cabinet.

Chris Bishop: Does he know what the officials’ preliminary view was in relation to what regions could enter the protection framework at green?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Advice that the public health teams provided to Dr Bloomfield is, ultimately, a question for the public health officials and for Dr Bloomfield. I’m not privy to all of that advice, but I have had regular conversations with Dr Bloomfield during that time about the advice that he was receiving.

SPEAKER: No—no, it was a very narrow question that time. Is the member aware of the regions?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can’t recall the exact conversations—

Chris Bishop: Oh, come on.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —that I had with Dr Bloomfield. He was sharing with me—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will sit down. If you’re going to yell over the top, that’s the end of it.

Chris Bishop: Hang on. Mr Speaker, it was an exclamation of somewhat disbelief—

SPEAKER: And I was assisting the member to get an answer, and he and a number of colleagues didn’t want to hear it.

Question No. 10—Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities

10. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) to the Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities: What actions has the Government taken to support our ethnic communities to get the COVID-19 vaccine?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Government is committed to ensuring that everyone in New Zealand is supported to access the COVID-19 vaccination. We know that communities access information differently, have varied needs, and that a one-size-fits-all approach rarely works. So, amongst other actions, the Government established two funds that support ethnic communities to both access information and the vaccination itself in ways that are relevant to them. We established the Vaccine Uptake Fund to provide support for activities aimed at increasing vaccination, particularly in our harder to reach ethnic communities, and that has so far been accessed by 51 groups. This is in addition to the ethnic communities communications fund, which supported 71 initiatives aimed at eliminating barriers and countering misinformation faced by our ethnic communities.

Vanushi Walters: Why is this funding important?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Our ethnic communities make up a significant proportion of New Zealand’s population—close to 20 percent, to be precise. Since we know that getting vaccinated is the best way to protect ourselves and others, it’s important that we support communities to get the information they need to get the vaccination. It’s also important that we support communities to lead those efforts, as they are best placed to be able to access harder to reach groups within their own communities. Our ethnic communities have told us that, for example, being able to provide things like transport, interpreters, and collateral in their own languages makes a real difference in order for them to be able to organise vaccine drives that are culturally appropriate. That’s why we created those funds, to be able to support community organisations directly with this. I want to acknowledge that vaccination rates are high across ethnic communities as a whole, but that doesn’t mean that our work is done. We will continue to support everyone who is eligible to access the vaccine.

SPEAKER: Right, I’m going to allow another supplementary, but the answer must be much shorter than those two.

Vanushi Walters: What other work has been under way to support our ethnic communities to get vaccinated?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: The Ministry for Ethnic Communities has been working closely with key stakeholders in communities, DHBs, and in the public sector to boost vaccination rates. Amongst other things, they’ve held information sessions and Zui with communities across the country, produced over 40 videos in over 20 languages with specific information, hosted vaccination days for ethnic youth, and also connected communities with relevant DHBs to help them organise over 16 tailored vaccination drives. I’m incredibly proud of a huge amount of work that has gone into this—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! No, we can tell the Minister’s proud, but—No. 11, Simeon Brown.

Question No. 11—Public Service

11. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister for the Public Service: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions regarding pay and workforce expectations for the public sector?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for the Public Service): Yes, in the context in which they occurred.

Simeon Brown: Does the Minister believe the public is getting value for money with a 49 percent increase in taxpayer funding for civil servants in Wellington since 2017 when Kiwis are facing worse outcomes in education, hospital wait times, and police response times?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m going to give the member a chance to rephrase it in two ways. One, to tie it to the primary question—the statements and the actions of the Minister—and secondly, to drop the British term “civil servants”. We don’t have civil servants in New Zealand.

Simeon Brown: Does the Minister stand by his statement in May regarding pay and workforce expectations and the need for value for money when there has been a 49 percent increase in taxpayer funding for public servants in Wellington since 2017 when Kiwis are facing worse outcomes in education, hospital wait times, and police response times?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: First of all, I think the member confuses where those public servants are based and the nature of the work that they are undertaking. Not all of those public servants are based in Wellington. In fact, a large number of them are spread throughout the country. It includes greater front-line staff for the Ministry of Education, for example, who provide direct support to schools and to children to improve educational outcomes that he has just mentioned. It does include the people working for Ministry of Social Development and the IRD, providing, amongst other things, the wage subsidy, which has kept the economy alive over the last 18 months. It includes extra people working at Oranga Tamariki to provide support and care to some of our most vulnerable children and families. The list of those examples could go on. The members opposite may want to call them bureaucrats; we call them public servants.

Simeon Brown: How many of the 14,000 additional public sector employees that have been employed since 2017 are employed directly as part of the COVID response, and isn’t it true that the headcount had already increased by 5,000 before COVID hit?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It depends, ultimately, how you calculate that. Somewhere between 40 percent to half of the overall number accounts for response to COVID. So that includes people working in things like managed isolation and quarantine, it includes extra people working at the border, the people running the vaccination campaign, the people doing contact tracing, the people managing testing, the people delivering the wage subsidy, and all of those other COVID-19 directly related initiatives. There’s a mix of permanent and short-term staffing involved in those numbers.

Simeon Brown: Why did the Government hire over 500 new public service managers in the last year but not invest in adding ICU beds until month 21 of the pandemic?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, the latter part of the member’s question is absolutely wrong. In terms of the first part of the question, as I’ve indicated, the increased number of public servants has been very closely connected to many aspects of our overall COVID-19 response. For example, to have managed isolation facilities across the country, we need people to manage them.

Simeon Brown: How does the almost doubling of the number of public service employees earning over $400,000 per year show “pay restraint” as required by the Public Service Commissioner’s guidance to Public Service agencies in 2020?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think one of the things we need to do is recognise that the nature of some of the roles being undertaken has changed and that we are ultimately recruiting in a competitive market for those people at senior levels of the Public Service.

Hon Grant Robertson: You don’t want to bag someone’s success. They’ve worked hard.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: But I do welcome—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! Look, I don’t know what, sort of—it’s boys’ day out or something. Can the pair of you just—

Hon Simon Bridges: He provoked me.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: That was yesterday.

SPEAKER: No, no, no. Well, I don’t need the Prime Minister to help either. I could get in trouble if I speculated at what was causing it, and I’ll stop, but the finance spokespeople are both to stay silent until the end of question time.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, what the member misses in his question is that the overall rate of pay for chief executives, for example, at the top of the Public Service has actually decreased under this Government.

Question No. 12—Prevention of Family Violence and Sexual Violence

12. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence: What is she doing to support the UN’s Orange the World campaign?

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence): I thank the member for the question. Orange the World is an international campaign that represents 16 days of activism against violence against women and girls, and I congratulate members across the House today for wearing orange in support of that day. It started about 30 years ago in 1991, and this struggle, this movement, has been happening for so long, driven by so many women and across so many communities. Yesterday, I was proud to launch Te Aorerekura, our national strategy and action plan to eliminate family violence and sexual violence. For the first time ever, we are working across Government, communities, and tangata whenua to address violence. This is an important step towards ensuring the wellbeing of all people, including women and girls. We not only have a strategy; we have 40 actions where we have committed as a Government, which will take us through the next two years as a starting point, and, might I say, those are 40 actions on top of business as usual. Te Aorerekura is the biggest breakthrough we have seen in addressing violence because it elevates the Government’s accountability all across our agencies and our commitment to do things differently.

Ingrid Leary: What changes does she expect to see from the Te Aorerekura action plan?

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Part of the Government being accountable for this work is knowing what this will mean to people in their everyday lives. We heard clearly from the community that we need to achieve both outcomes for people but also changes to the system so that we stop re-traumatising those who need our support. Over time, for example, we expect to see that children and young people understand healthy relationships, how to seek help, and that they can access tailored services. We expect to see that those that use violence are accountable and supported to change their behaviour and address past trauma. Finally, in terms of the system change, we absolutely must see that tangata whenua, Pacific peoples, ethnic peoples, LGBTQIA+ communities, older people, male survivors, and disabled communities can access safe and tailored services that uphold who they are.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How will Te Aorerekura improve the lives of women and girls in New Zealand?

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Firstly, I want to be very clear that no wahine or kōtiro should live in fear of gender-based violence. Te Aorerekura completely acknowledges the gendered nature of family violence and sexual violence, and it includes a broad understanding of who is impacted by it and who uses these forms of violence—go to page 10, for anyone who wants to have a look. Violence against women and children is widespread in Aotearoa. It is unacceptable—full stop. Gender inequities and sexism in our society and the upholding of patriarchal systems, men’s dominance, entitlement, and physical and sexual aggression mean that more men are more likely to use violence. We must accept and better understand the different ways violence is perpetuated and how it impacts differently across different communities. This is so important. In fact, this is the most important thing when we develop effective responses, healing, and prevention, and that is exactly what Te Aorerekura does. Finally, I want to acknowledge that member, Minister Tinetti, for her leadership and commitment to this work, and to acknowledge the important role the Ministry for Women plays in the Public Service, ensuring women and girls are visible and considered in Government policy.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Last Tuesday, the National Party’s Grabaseat sale reached its latest chapter. Chris Luxon took over and upgraded, and I congratulate him on that. But if you’re looking for a man of the people, “Get your power tools at Bunnings” kind of vibe, hiring a black Mercedes to drive across the road doesn’t really fit it, and, in fact, exhibit A, as I have it here, would show you that Mr Luxon’s journey of productivity didn’t start well. [Holds up map of the parliamentary precinct with route of travel highlighted] What would have been a quick, two-minute stroll across the road turned into a four-minute drive, not a productive drive. I do note that it required Mr Luxon to travel straight for 43 seconds before turning right for a minute, turning right again, turning left, turning right again—this will be the pattern of his leadership until such time as he comes to turn the page.

We have heard a great deal of corporate life-coach waffle over the last few days from the National Party. It’s all about turning the page in the National Party’s long-running saga, “Fifty Shades of Beige”. But, unfortunately, the corporate life-coach waffling is now catching in the National Party. Yesterday, Simon Bridges went all Zen on us and said, “Yesterday is yesterday. Today is the future.”, leaving out the critical final line: “And tomorrow, there’ll be another leader.”

But it was for former leader Todd Muller, who took this to a new level, as he spoke of taking off the “backpack of grievance”, and I say good on Todd Muller. Leave that backpack at the caucus door, because there’s heaps of people who want it, and it does beg that question of who will pick up the backpack of grievance and its inbuilt speed dial for the press gallery. Will it be Todd McClay, will it be David Bennett, or will it be Judith Collins from seat 19C, by the aisle, ready to push the call bell? But, unfortunately, she’s already heavily laden down with her handbag of hostility.

But there is plenty of baggage to go around in the National Party. There’s Simon Bridges’ satchel of stolen dreams, Michael Woodhouse’s duffle bag of despair, Paul Goldsmith’s kete of misgivings, and he was able to hand on to Andrew Bayly the bumbag of bungled fiscals, and all of it is kept inside the caucus threadbare sack of unity, because we know that members on the other side of the House will hold it together just for a moment before it’s Grabaseat sale No. 10.

Meanwhile, on this side of the House, we are focused on making sure that New Zealand gets through COVID-19, and I want to acknowledge today the leadership of the Prime Minister in doing so, because throughout the time we’ve had COVID and the numerous National Party leaders who have come and gone during that period, they’ve wanted to open up the border and they’ve wanted to lift restrictions, and all the way through we have had the steady leadership of the Prime Minister. That has led to the lowest mortality rate in the OECD, one of the lowest rates of hospitalisation in the OECD, and an economy that sees one of the lowest unemployment rates, at 3.4 percent—growing in the last quarter at 2.8 percent.

Time and time again in this House, we’ve heard the call from the Opposition to “Open the border.”; “Close the border.” It takes consistency, it takes leadership, and that’s what the Prime Minister has shown and I want to thank her for that.

But, on top of that, I want to thank those people all around New Zealand who are doing the fantastic work to get our people vaccinated. Today, we stand with just four DHBs not at that 90 percent first dose, and I’ve told Damien O’Connor to go out and find the eight remaining people on the West Coast who will get them to that. Those vaccinators all around New Zealand are our heroes. They are the people who mean that New Zealanders will be safe over this summer, and I thank and congratulate them for everything they are doing for us.

SPEAKER: Well, if no one else wants to take the call, we’ll move along—David Seymour.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This has been an absolutely tremendous year, and I want to thank people from right across New Zealand, from right across the political spectrum, from all walks of life, who have come to support ACT, and they’ve come to support ACT for a couple of simple reasons. They see politics not working in New Zealand. They see a Government that leads by spin, that dissembles, and that’s one party, but the other that vacillates and goes from one jibe to the other, sometimes playing “me too” and sometimes criticising with negativity. That’s why people come to ACT. They see that at the end of all this, they have a country that is among the last to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, except maybe China.

The only other country that is trying to maintain an elimination strategy is the Chinese Communist Party - governed People’s Republic of China. We nearly ended up in an elimination bloc of countries where one country’s a communist dictatorship and the other one is China. But we are leaving the elimination strategy, last in the world with a mountain of debt and rising prices to boot, because we’ve been sustained through this pandemic by two oceans—the literal oceans that have kept the virus from our shores. Isn’t it incredible the way the Prime Minister congratulates herself almost daily for quarantining a remote group of islands in the far stretch of the Pacific?

The other oceans that have sustained New Zealand through are the oceans of printed and borrowed money that they’ve pumped into the economy. Well, the chickens are coming home to roost, and New Zealanders—hard-working middle New Zealand—are squeezed from every angle as those oceans of cheap money that sustain this Government’s COVID response start to overwhelm them with rising prices at the petrol pump, at the supermarket. Hell, we even heard yesterday that it could be $7 for a cup of coffee. Isn’t that going to hurt the Labour Party beltway?

We will, as a country, pass through the debt. We will pay it down in a generation. New Zealand has been through this before, but there are so many things we could do to make it easier. And here’s one simple example: we are not going to allow our universities, our schools, our colleges to compete in the world for international students until April, or maybe even August, depending on which country they’re from. In Canada and Australia, the universities, the education sector, have the welcome mat out and are competing for international students right now for the year 2022.

Then there’s the supply of labour for our horticultural industries, for skilled labour, for so many businesses trying to grow—they can’t get people, and when there’s no one to work, the wages are going up and every price with it.

Now, can the Government explain why it’s going to be safe to open up the borders in a month’s time for some people, in four months’ time for others? It’s safe to do it today in New South Wales, but it’s not safe to do it in New Zealand. Of course they can’t, and they do not understand the cost that they’re imposing. But, like I say, we will survive this expensive—you know, the Prime Minister calls it “cautious”; I call it “costly response to COVID-19”. But this country is being damaged in much more profound ways.

You just have to ask yourself, if the Director-General of Health says we don’t need any roadblocks in Northland, why are the police still operating them? Well, the answer is they are there to babysit a minority of so-called leaders from Northland, such as Hone Harawira, who have said they’re going to cause trouble anyway if the police aren’t there. That’s the truth. And the people I represent in central Auckland, they don’t get the cops coming when their stores are robbed and they call them because the police are busy manning borders the public health advice says shouldn’t even exist.

That’s the real damage this Government is doing. Instead of creating an inclusive society, we don’t even know who’s running the cops anymore in this country. There is a better way. ACT offers a better way, and we thank so many people who have come to support us as they see it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Mr Speaker. You know, in the midst of advice and theory and speculation, nobody really knew how this country would respond post COVID lockdowns. One sector that has done extraordinarily well—despite all of the issues that have befallen it—is the construction sector. The construction sector has gone to extraordinary lengths to build houses and to build infrastructure. It’s with the proactive support of this Government that our construction sector has thrived in this environment. Those that we expected to be most impacted by COVID have been most impacted by COVID: Māori, Pacific, and women. And yet, in the construction sector with the use of the Construction Skills Action Plan and the partnership with the Construction Sector Accord, those groups in particular have been so well represented that the numbers of those Māori, Pacific, and women in the construction sector have increased.

If I can just share with you some of the fantastic news that has happened in the sector, and I shared a little bit of that earlier today. We have gone from using the Construction Skills Action Plan, which had a target of 4,000 people into education and employment opportunities in the construction sector—that has exceeded the number of people in the sector by seven times to 29,000, and that’s just one opportunity that has been taken advantage of. Very early on in the development of the Construction Sector Accord, the partnership between the sector and the Government—when we were plunged into our first lockdown, the relationship that we now have with the construction sector is such that we were able to develop with them a way to safely bring the sector back on board at level 2. So one of the few sectors that opened up after the first lockdown was the construction sector—able to then continue on the massive house build programme that is being undertaken in this country. A record number of consents across the country and an unexpected, really, return to some great work in the sector.

And what else is happening to support the sector? So there is other work that we are doing to support the sector by a legislative reform. One of the pieces of work we have done is to ensure that we can build faster through the changes we have made in the modular construction framework. So we’re able to build faster, but not only that, we’re now supporting—

Hon Member: Are you the Minister of Police or not?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I am actually the Minister of Police, but I’m also the Minister for Building and Construction and I just want to tell you about the magnificent work that the building and construction sector is doing. And the work that we’re doing around Licensed Building Practitioners. We know that in Christchurch, for example, that we a huge issue with the ability to know that our engineers were actually registered and working to their practice. The work that we’re doing around supporting the development of some key criteria around Licensed Building Practitioners will give the sector some sense of security that we’re able to continue to do—

They are a real rabble today, Mr Speaker. I’m not sure if you’re getting this, but they are a little bit of a rabble today.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I’m recording this, sell it as a cure for insomnia!

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Oh, are you falling asleep, Mr Brownlee! Let me help you with more good news then, shall I? The diversity into the—

SPEAKER: Well if he is, the member’s sleep talking pretty loudly!

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Yeah. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Let me just say that there are some amazing opportunities today—as we celebrate oranging the world for women—in the building and construction sector. The Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation apprentices say that about 5 percent of women apprentices in the BCITO are women. That’s up from 3 percent in 2019. [Opposition members applaud] Oh, thank you! What a disgraceful bunch of people.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition): Well, what a difference a week makes. That’s all I can say, is what a difference a week makes, because, finally, Grant Robertson does some work. He puts it into his speech—sadly, not into the economy. “Mr Business Premier” thinks it’s all about Business Premier, it’s all about the economy, it’s all about the people of New Zealand. He goes up and gets stitched up—the Labour Party leadership transition—so he’s all ready to go. I think that’s a shame, because poor Chris Hipkins doesn’t get a go, lovely Michael Wood doesn’t get a go. I reckon it would be a lot more fun if Willie Jackson had a shot at it. He’d make it interesting for us. Mr Mallard, maybe?

But what I want to say is that New Zealand—don’t you feel New Zealand’s a great country? I mean, I’ve lived and worked all round the world, and I can tell you this is the best place on planet Earth. But what I can tell you is in this place we also have a little bit of straight talk and we say it as it is, right? What we have to say is that New Zealand is losing its way, OK, and I can tell you why—I can tell you why. It’s this Government here. You see it in their eyes. They look tired. They’re looking forward to Christmas. Kris Faafoi’s there—look at him. I mean, he’s tired. He’s waiting for Christmas. The reindeers are running out of puff. He’s running out of puff. He’s lost the way. What I want to say—you can just see it. What’s happening is this is a Government that does the PR, it likes the spinning but it actually doesn’t deliver and it doesn’t get things done.

We heard about that today. We heard about the everyday New Zealanders who are out there waking up this morning, going to work, paying their taxes, getting their kids to school, dealing with the congestion, and they can’t get ahead. They can’t get ahead, because why? Because wages are half the rate of costs. Costs are up twice the rate that they’re going. I want to tell you that parents, when you talk to the mums and dads, they’re worried about education. They know that they need their kids to have a world-class education. But what’s the Government doing here? Absolutely nothing. Sixty percent of our kids make it to school regularly—unbelievable. We’re in the bottom in maths, reading, and science in the world. So that doesn’t set their kids up for a world-class education, either.

What’s very obvious to us is this Government doesn’t care about small business. They seem to think that sitting here in Wellington, they get to make everything happen in this economy. They don’t realise that it’s the punter that wakes up each morning, takes a risk, gets out there, makes something happen, wants to get ahead for themselves and their family—

Hon Member: A battler.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The battler—exactly, that’s what it is. It’s a battling New Zealand that’s out there who wants to go make it happen. What we’re watching here is a Government that’s not supporting them. They think they create the jobs, but it’s actually that individual, that small-business person, that actually employs the people, makes it happen. What we’ve seen here is a great leap backwards to centralisation and control, back to the 1970s, back to centralised Fortress New Zealand. That’s essentially what’s happening, and that’s a shame. It’s a shame when you see enterprise taken out of the lifeblood of a country like New Zealand. People lack the confidence to go out there and give it a go, lack the ambition. They say, “Why do I bother?”, because of what this Government does in terms of treating economy and small business.

But there’s another group that this Government doesn’t care about, and it’s our rural communities. I’ll tell you what: they really don’t care about or value our farmers. They’re not their people. It’s very obvious. I can tell you farmers aren’t villains, because, actually, they generate $9,000 on export earnings for each and every New Zealander in this country. They’re the people that drive 80 percent of our exports. They employ 350,000 people. But I can tell you they’re doing it really tough under this Government, because they don’t care about them. They just load them up with costs and regulation. Think about it: significant natural areas, the Water Services Bill, slope rules, wetlands, freshwater regulations, and, literally, the farmer is sitting there on the other side of a tennis net being served 10 tennis balls at a time and they don’t know which one to hit. I can tell you that industry is very, very special. The people are strategic. They care deeply. It’s an incredible industry to be part of. They synthesize economy, agriculture, sustainability.

But the worst thing is this Government’s become arrogant. It’s become really arrogant, and it’s become arrogant fast. You know, the reality is they had lots of promises, lots of announcements, lots of spin—no delivery. Lots of wasteful spending, lots of bloated bureaucracy, lots of centralisation control, “we know best”.

But what I want to tell you is that there is hope. I want to tell New Zealanders that there is hope. Hope is coming to a town near you, and it’s in the form of a refreshed new National Party. We’ve reset. The National Party is back. We know how to put aspiration, ambition, confidence, and mojo back into this country. We’re not going to go play a small, fearful, inward-looking game. We’re out there in the world going to happen to our future rather than let it happen to us. So, New Zealand, the National Party is back. We’re reset, we’re united, we’re focused, and we’re ready to go.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): It’s the last general debate of the year; so I would like to acknowledge the new Leader of the Opposition and wish him the appropriate amount of luck. The former chief executive of Air New Zealand—my only substantive interaction with him when I was the member of Parliament for Mana was when we was cutting flights to Kāpiti Airport. So the man who just told us that he cares about the regions, about small-town New Zealand, was cutting flights to Kāpiti, cutting flights to Nelson, cutting flights to Gisborne. That is exactly his background in corporate New Zealand. But, again, I wish the new Leader of the Opposition the best of luck. A week is a long time in politics. I look forward to next week in the National Party caucus!

It is the last general debate of the year. So we deserve some acknowledgments. I want to start with my colleague Marama Davidson, the co-leader of the Māori Party, because it is a very special day and we are marking it by wearing orange. I want to acknowledge the work that she has undertaken to get to the point where Te Aorerekura was launched earlier this week in order to make sure we are eliminating sexual and family violence in New Zealand. That hard work over many, many months and years has come to fruition, and it will make a big difference to our families and our partnerships in New Zealand, and I want to acknowledge the hard work to get to the point where we are today.

It has been a difficult year but a year where the leadership of the Government has made a huge difference to the lives that New Zealanders live. The leader of the ACT Party was saying it’s been a costly year, and it depends on how you look at cost, because we’ve got the lowest rate of hospitalisations, the lowest number of cases, and the lowest number of deaths in the developed world, per capita, here in New Zealand. So, if you want to talk about costs, what is cost? Would the ACT Party prefer it if we had more hospitalisations? Would they prefer that we had more cases? Would they prefer that we had more deaths due to the COVID outbreak? Because that is a cost that this Government isn’t willing to entertain, and actually I want to acknowledge all the New Zealanders, and especially Aucklanders, who have got us to this stage where we are right now, where, in a week’s time, they will be all free and we will be able to enjoy a relatively normal Christmas compared to what we have had over the last six months in those conditions.

I want to acknowledge all the hard work of the people at the front line: the people who are doing vaccinations, the people who are helping us scan, the people who are helping us with our COVID vaccine passes, and the businesses and the organisations who are making sure that they adhere to that. And I acknowledge that, because we’ve been through nearly a week of life with the COVID vaccine pass, and I’m sure many members around the House and people who may be listening and watching have actually found that most New Zealanders get it. So don’t listen to the negativity, and increased negativity, from the other side of the House, because New Zealanders have got this. They realise that the decisions we’ve been making over the last 20 months have kept us safe, and they want to continue doing it, because everyone has worked hard to make sure we can do it. When you go to a basketball game to watch your kids, and they’re over 12, everyone gets it. If you want to go into the gym and you’ve got your vaccine pass, they scan it and they let you in. New Zealanders get it, and we’re transitioning into that new world of making sure that we can keep Delta at bay from our communities, making sure we’re keeping New Zealanders safe and New Zealanders healthy, and New Zealanders get it.

I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague Aupito William Sio as well, and my Pacific colleagues as well, because, for a community of Pacific Islanders here in New Zealand, we thought there were going to be big challenges to get us vaccinated. We’re now at the point where we’re 92 percent first-dose vaccinated across the country, and that is huge. But the work is not over. We’ve got to keep having those discussions, having days like Barbara Edmonds organises in Porirua, to make sure we’re getting those second doses, getting those boosters, having those conversations with our families to make sure we’re keeping ourselves safe.

So my final message isn’t one for the people in this room; it’s for the people outside of this place, to make sure we keep doing what we’ve done for the last 20 months. We got to stay the course, we’ve got to keep vaccinated, we’ve got to keep doing the simple things that are keeping our children and our families safe, to make sure that we can have a Christmas, to make sure that our elderly are safe from the ravages of COVID, those who have pre-existing conditions in our communities are safe from the ravages of COVID. We have worked hard to get to this point, and we’ve got to stay the course.

So I wish you all a very merry Christmas, but, while we’re having that merry Christmas, keep our families and our communities safe by making sure you do the right thing, that we’ve done over the last 20 months because of the leadership of this Government.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Thank you. Well, we’ve heard a lot about changes to do with COVID and the economy, but in actual fact nobody is actually talking about the most racist legislation in this House, which is the electoral law. The electoral law for a long time has locked Māori out from participating in this country’s democracy for over eight years at a time. So if I take, for an example, the last time you could change on the electoral roll was 2018. Between 2018 and the 2020 election, 16,000 people got in contact with the Electoral Commission to change rolls. They cannot change rolls until 2024, so they’ve missed the 2020 election, they will miss the 2023 election, and the next election that they will be able to vote on is 2026.

This has been suppression since 1867, when the four Māori electorates were set up to limit the representation we had in this place. Māori were 47 percent of the total population at that particular time. If it was a democracy then, it would be a different story, but at this particular time, I want to highlight to this House that under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, we should have 50 percent representation in this House. Under equity, we should have 25 percent in this House. Under equality, if we are 16 to 18 percent of the population, we should have that percentage in this House. We don’t get either one of those—we don’t get either one of those.

So what I’m saying today is that I have submitted my member’s bill today. That member’s bill specifically talks about allowing Māori to change between the Māori and the general electoral rolls at any time; to change the periodic requirement to redraw electoral boundaries from after each census to a set date two years after each general election; to set a legislation requirement that if someone stipulates they are Māori when enrolling but doesn’t choose an electoral roll, they are placed on the Māori electoral roll; and change the name of the general electorate district to the non-Māori electorate district. This is the problem: you’ve got a Māori roll and then a general roll, and then you hold the general elections.

This is why this whole electoral law—well, I’m glad Mr Faafoi’s walked back in here so he can hear this—needs to be changed, but it needs to be guided by Māori to allow us a greater participation in our democracy, because we do not get it. It is the only law that locks indigenous peoples out for an eight-year period. Where are you going, Mr Faafoi? You’re supporting. He gave me a chest pump. I look forward to when he makes those changes within that particular ministry.

The bill would amend the Electoral Act 1993 to enable Māori voters to switch between the Māori and the non-Māori electoral rolls at any time. This is the problem. It is not allowing us to do that at any time. We still have prejudice when we have our tamariki trying to sign up to an electoral roll that has already been predetermined. It is already ticked on there, “I am Māori and choose to go on the general roll.” We have evidence of that, because we have people send us those things on a daily basis. As they enrol onto a roll, it’s already got a pre-ticked circle on their enrolments. This is the disgrace that our people face every time they go into this electoral process.

So we get this every three years. The problem is, it also determines our participation at local government elections. We all need to take responsibility for this. It’s high time that this country and the parties in this House start to take responsibility for the changes of that bill and support it. By not supporting this bill, it will continuously and consciously choose to actively participate against a Tiriti-centric Aotearoa. We need to recognise the mana of Te Tiriti o Waitangi that our ancestors, both mine, both tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti agreed to. Our ancestors signed this together. If we look at it as a waka hourua—a waka hourua, a double-hulled waka. On one side, you have Kāwanatanga; on the other side you have mana motuhake. One side is tangata Tiriti; one side is tangata whenua. The thing that joins that waka hourua, that double-hulled waka, is Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We must grow this together. This is not about a difference between us—

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

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa. Greetings. Afternoon, everybody. It’s really wonderful to have this opportunity in what I think will be my last general debate speech for the year. So in case I run out of time at the end, I want to say it at the beginning: meri Kirihimete to everybody. It has been a really long and challenging year. I’m really looking forward to the Christmas break and some time up North with my family.

But I want to talk about our move to the COVID-19 Protection Framework and the traffic light system. For COVID, there has been no playbook—we’ve heard this—but I’m so proud of our team of 5 million. To my colleagues who are in Cabinet and to every single one of us who have worked together to protect one another, we’ve done that by lockdowns, by wearing our masks, by scanning in, by getting vaccinated, to protect not only ourselves but to protect our communities. And thanks to our successful response, we have protected lives and livelihoods. We have the lowest number of cases, hospitalisations, and deaths in the OECD, and we should be really proud of that, because we have worked so hard to protect those lives and to protect livelihoods. Our economy is in good shape. So I want to mihi to all of our teams who have been out there vaccinating.

As I have travelled around Te Tai Tokerau in the last month since my last general debate, I have seen vaccination waka outside Roma Marae in Ahipara, at the Kaeō rest area as I was driving through last Friday, at the Moerewa Christmas vaccination event, at the Taipā Point Reserve Maheatai visit that we had recently, the doctors’ surgeries, pharmacies, our DHBs popping up all over the place, as well as our Māori providers. It has been a huge effort. I’m really pleased to say that the Northland DHB advises that we are on the brink of 80 percent double vaxxed in Te Tai Tokerau, and that is a huge achievement for us. We are apparently—hopefully, fingers crossed, continue to do the mahi—going to be 90 percent first dose by the end of December. We only need another 5,500 more. So to anybody in Tai Tokerau listening today, please be one of those 5,500.

I’m really proud and pleased to know that 93 percent of our Pasifika community are single vaxxed so far and 80 percent of Māori. But Delta is here now, and our strategy has had to change. And as the virus adapts, so too must we adapt, and we are doing that. We’re doing that by safely reopening, by moving to the COVID-19 Protection Framework, otherwise known as the traffic light system. And being in Northland, there is some concern in our community. We do have the lowest vaccination rate in the country, and we have many small, vulnerable communities.

I was reminded of this just last week during recess when we had the first COVID cases self-isolating in the small community where Dr Shane Reti and I come from. It was difficult for the community. This was a first for us. We had to respond. We had no notice, no warning, but I’m proud of how our community came together to yet again come up with a strategy and a plan to protect one another. What they did was within the same day we had pop-up testing in this small community, and the people turned up to get tested. By the end of that week, we had a vaccination bus returning to vaccinate in our community where there were a number who hadn’t yet been vaccinated. We also wrapped awhi and support around that whānau who is self-isolating, and so far we have not had any further spread. So it is a real risk and a real challenge for us in Te Tai Tokerau, and I just want to acknowledge again the hard mahi that everybody is doing to ensure that we continue to save lives and livelihoods.

I do want to use the last 30 seconds to talk about one other highlight from my recess, and that was selecting my youth MP. I am proud to announce my youth MP is miss Tyissa Hape, who comes from Bay of Islands College—my former high school. I’m really proud in being able to select her. I look forward to her getting an opportunity to participate in the Youth Parliament programme. She is looking forward to that opportunity. It also coincides with her final year at Bay of Islands College. Her kaupapa is around kapa haka and how it supports mental health and wellbeing and is also good and transformational. Nō reira e te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): New Zealanders are sick of hearing about how good they’ve got it from a Government who talks the talk but cannot walk the walk. Instead of indulging in self-congratulations about how good their COVID response has been, instead of back-slapping each other over their latest announcement and getting sucked in by their own spin, Ministers and members opposite need to understand what it is really like for struggling Kiwis right now.

I want the members opposite to think about the Aucklanders who have spent more than 100 days in lockdown. Many still don’t have their kids back at school full-time, and to learn today that the Director-General of Health said they could’ve been out of those restrictions. I want members opposite to think of those who are in Auckland and still can’t leave for a funeral or a wedding of a loved one. I want members opposite to think about the businesses who are continuing to struggle under restrictions with no certainty about when those restrictions will end. And when they’ve done thinking about that, I want members opposite to think about what it’s like for Kiwis when the cost of living is outstripping wage growth 2:1. How does that feel at the supermarket each week and at the petrol pump each fortnight? I want members opposite to think about what it feels like when rents go up $90 a week under Labour—that makes it tough—and when house prices go up $170,000 on average a year. How does it feel to be someone who wants to buy their own first home in this country? It feels like it’s impossible under Labour to climb that mountain.

When members opposite talk about how they’ve done a great job, I want to remind them of this: they took $50 billion of New Zealanders’ hard-earned cash and they said they’d spend it on COVID recovery. So did they spend it on a single extra ICU bed in our hospitals? No, they didn’t. Instead, they spent it on a private Green School in the Taranaki, and $27 million for wallaby control. Members opposite need to remember that that is not their money they are spending. That money belongs to hard-working New Zealanders.

All of that is pretty bad—the Government’s not getting the basics right, so you ask yourself, “But are they doing what they promised they would do when they were elected?” And this is where the failures are writ so large. Let’s talk about housing. Let’s talk about the hundred thousand KiwiBuild homes that were promised. How many have been built today? It is a disgrace—the number is 1,230. There should have been 20,000 by now. What a disgrace. There are now 19,000 more people on the State house waiting list. That’s the homelessness that the Prime Minister said she was going to solve—19,000 more people waiting for a house.

The Prime Minister said that the real reason she was in politics was because she was concerned about child poverty. Well, I’m concerned about the cycle of dependence that this so-called kind Government is entrenching, where there are 70,000 more people on a job seeker benefit during a time of high employment. Do you know what the real result of that is? The real result of that is more children growing up in benefit-dependent households, dependent on the State, growing up assigned to material hardship. Thousands more children in those benefit-dependent homes, and there are 5,000 families raising their children in motel rooms—this under the administration that said it was here to solve child poverty.

They also said they were here to solve the climate change emergency, didn’t they? Well, since they made that declaration, guess how many tonnes of coal they’ve imported into this country: 931,000 tonnes of coal. It’s a record—and that’s their response to the climate change emergency.

What we have opposite us is a Government who have announced announcement after announcement. They have spoken from the podium of truth but have not delivered for the people they are here to serve. We’re National, we’re back, and we’re going to make sure that Kiwis get a much better deal come 2023.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Fa‘afetai lava mo le avanoa lau afioga le fofoga fetalai. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on this general debate securing our recovery. Just like member Willow-Jean Prime, I would like to also say: manuia le Kerisimasi ma le tausaga fou. Have a merry Christmas and a happy New Year to all our colleagues in the House.

I want to use this time to also highlight the wonderful and tremendous work that’s been done on the ground at our vaccination stations, but also our testing stations, managed isolation and quarantine, and also now with the workforce with the community again being cared for in isolation. I also want to highlight the milestones that have been recently achieved, with the 85 percent of eligible Māori and 92 percent of eligible Pasifika having received their first dose as well.

Specifically where I’m from, South Auckland, Counties Manukau are at 93 percent of first doses and 89 percent of second doses. So we’re almost there, so just a plug for our whānau in Counties Manukau to please come forward to get your first, second, or your booster shots done this week. There are plenty of places to do so. Also, across the motu as well, there are more than 3.7 million people who are fully vaccinated, and that’s 88 percent of the eligible population as well.

The wonderful work of not only my colleagues out in the workforce but also the social providers, the youth groups, the churches, the temples that have really done the hard mahi, the hard work, in order to increase our rates across Aotearoa, but especially where I’m from in South Auckland. One of them being South Seas Healthcare’s le afioga ia Lemalu Silao, the CEO there, and their crew working tirelessly in Ōtara, with the vaccination centre there at the Manukau Institute of Technology, alongside the testing centre that’s next door to the vaccination centre. Also, the Whānau Ora food parcels that are used as well, because it’s not only the priority of getting the vaccination; it’s also the social wraparound service that’s needed.

Our Bubblegum crew, the youth initiative that go and engage with our youth—they’ve done a tremendous job as well, so I send my aroha to them.

Baderdrive Doctors, who are based in Manurewa, Māngere, who also get around and look after our Pasifika whānau, families. The many Pacific-centred - targeted vaccination stations that they’ve been helping out—I also want to say thank you to them.

Our local Takanini vaccination centre—a big shout-out to George and Raewyn and the crew there, on Saturday, on the Super Saturday event. Just this past Saturday as well I went and got my booster shot, and I want to say thank you for their work. They provide buses that can help our whānau get to the vaccination centre in the first place, so I thank them for their mahi.

Our local marae that surround Takanini as well—Manurewa and Papakura marae, the tremendous work that they do in reaching out to our whānau has been tremendous. During the lockdown, I had the opportunity to volunteer alongside our medical crew from those marae—Manurewa Marae—and doing the mahi next to them has been a privilege, not only to get our vaccination rates up but also to have that sort of relationship-building with our clinical staff there.

Our vaccination buses that go out—our Shot Cuz bus, that goes out to Randwick Park.

Hon Member: Yay, Randwick Park!

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA: One of the areas—yeah, that’s right; Randwick Park. Thank you to the Minister, as part of that community, the Manurewa community, the amount of work that they do in order to supply that. I know our Shot Cuz bus was recently at Alfriston College and engaging our youth there. So I’d like to say thank you to them as well.

Also to our Pacific workforce and our clinical nurses that do the work there as well. I want to do a shout-out to my colleagues from our Pacific peer group that not only are doing business as usual in the clinics but are out there doing the testing and the vaccination but also the online MIQ work that they do to look after—once you do get a positive, to make sure that our whānau are being well looked after and being able to speak your own language; that’s been really good in terms of engagement.

Also, lastly, our Takanini Sikh temple in reaching our ethnic community, our Sikh community, the amount of work they do—it’s almost like every week they do a food drive in order to support our community and also the vaccine uptake there. So that’s why this Government has done so well in this pandemic. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): You know, it’s been a relatively amusing debate, I have to say. Grant Robertson gave a good speech; Chris Luxon’s was better, I have to say. But I would reflect on this: while Grant Robertson is over there sitting in “comfy class”, I think over the next year or two he’s going to start getting very, very uncomfortable as interest rates and inflation start prodding him in that seat, and he starts actually hearing about the real pain that New Zealanders are going under.

He’s also going to be grumpy, and I’ll tell you why. That’s because under Chris Luxon’s fresh, clear, resolute leadership, we’re going to be resolutely focused on the economy and what matters to New Zealanders. Because we know, on this side, we’re not complacent. We’re not patting ourselves on the back while wage growth is 2.5 percent but inflation is 5 percent, sending New Zealanders backwards. No. We understand what it takes and what you need to have a strong economy in this country.

This austerity nonsense scare tactics from the finance Minister is just that: it’s nonsense. We understand the importance of health, of education, of police. I’m delighted to be finance spokesperson for Christopher Luxon’s refreshed New Zealand National Party. I know the value of health and education. I said in my maiden speech they are the meal tickets. They were the meal tickets for me; I wouldn’t be here. I wouldn’t have had an education if it wasn’t for the public system in this country. I want to acknowledge what an amazing job Starship Hospital has done for my son Harry in the last week or so.

We get it. But the problem is while $70-odd billion is being pumped like steroids into this country by Grant Robertson—it may have been OK at the start, may have had some COVID purposes at the start—right now it’s at the point of ridiculous. Right now it’s at the point of Grant Robertson over-cooking the Christmas turkey that is our economy. It’s a burnt bird, actually, is what we’ve got right now. He is turning up the heat on that bird, and poor old Adrian Orr. I haven’t always been particularly kind about Adrian Orr. Poor old Adrian Orr—he’s vigorously trying to turn it down. You know, we’ve got fiscal and monetary policy going at each other because of the reckless, wasteful spending by Grant Robertson that’s coming to fruition in this country right now—wasteful spending, which is leading, not entirely but in large part, to a good degree of inflation in this country, making New Zealanders poorer and interest rate rises that Adrian Orr actually has to do because Grant Robertson’s doing what he’s doing. It’s fiscal and monetary working against each other.

I actually feel sorry for Adrian Orr, given where we’re at on these things. And if you don’t believe me, look, the ANZ just today has said how overheated the New Zealand economy is and the spending from Grant Robertson is just going to make inflation worse and make the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) do much more work than it needs to do. The RBNZ have said that “The economy is working above its current potential.” Well, you wouldn’t want that on a school report, would you—“above its current potential”. I wouldn’t have thought so, but that’s what they say.

Angie Warren-Clark: I would. I’d want that.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Inflation four point—well, the member opposite is at above her current potential, but we won’t go there; that’s just cruel. Inflation 4.9 percent, wage growth 2.4 percent. That means New Zealanders right now under Grant Robertson and Jacinda Ardern are doing it tough. Look, forget the Christmas turkey. Actually, as I asked him today, fruit and vegetables are up 9 percent this year, right? That will bite at Christmas. Petrol’s up, I think I heard Chris Luxon say, $90 a week; housing 30 percent.

These are the components that with wage growth not nearly as high as it needs to be to combat that fuelling, that injection of fiscal steroids that Grant Robertson’s overdoing, that burning of the turkey is making things worse, that fuelling of Government spending. And of course, it’s not just inflation, I made the point, but it’s the interest rates that are going to rise and rise and rise given what Grant Robertson is doing. That is hundreds of dollars a month for many New Zealanders, for those Aucklanders. Not just Aucklanders; people in Tauranga, people in Wellington, people actually all over New Zealand now with hundreds of thousands of dollars of mortgage.

New Zealand needs Chris Luxon’s National Party so we’ve got a more productive country that invests not wastes and that’s going to deal with inflation and interest rates and get them under control.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): It’s a real pleasure to stand and take a call in the last general debate of the year. I want to acknowledge, first and foremost, and congratulate the new leader and deputy leader of the Opposition. I’m also very much looking forward to the members Simon Bridges and Todd Muller turning up to a meeting together.

I would like to acknowledge what a hard year it has been for many this year. Each and every person in this country has struggled in their own way, and we’ve all worked hard to battle Delta. It hasn’t been easy for any of us, and I want to acknowledge the leadership of Jacinda Ardern for holding the ship steady at a very difficult time; in fact, it’s been frightening at times. It’s been a difficult time for us all and none of us here underestimate the cost of Delta in our community. I want to thank each and every person who has committed to making a change for the better, to getting vaccinated, and to working hard with us all just to try and solve this issue. Ninety percent of our eligible population has been fully vaccinated. This means that we can look forward to a good summer. We have the lowest number of cases, hospitalisations, and deaths per capita in the OECD, which does not deny the fact of how difficult it has been for us all here.

I wanted to just share with you all, very quickly, a wee hack around vaccination passes. I am saying this because I am not an iPhone user; I’m an Android phone user and I have had a little bit of difficulty finding the folder on my phone. So one of the things that I can recommend and suggest to you all is to take a photo of your vaccination and put it on your wallpaper on your phone. It is the easiest way, and I have this week used my vaccination pass a number of times and it works perfectly. So, a recommendation—unlike the Prime Minister who suggests putting it at the back of her phone, I suggest putting it on your wallpaper. It’s a helpful hack from me.

As a Zontian, as a feminist, and as a staunch advocate for the elimination of gender-based violence, I have to acknowledge the launch of Te Aorerekura. This is our first National Strategy to Eliminate Family Violence and Sexual Violence. I want to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Marama Davidson, for her work, but I also want to acknowledge Jan Logie for her work in this area, and I want to acknowledge everyone in the House today who is wearing orange. So we are all wearing orange in the House today—including yourself, Mr Speaker, thank you, we acknowledge and appreciate that—around the Orange the World campaign. The Joint Venture for Family Violence and Sexual Violence has done some outstanding work on Te Aorerekura. We have a 25-year strategy around family violence and a two-year plan around some of those solutions. I’m really looking forward to seeing this roll-out.

As we head towards Christmas—traditionally a very busy and difficult time for family violence services and family violence in this country—I would like to ask each and every member here in the House, and those listening, to be part of the solution to end gender-based violence against women and children. I want us to speak up and I want us to speak out when you hear or see violence. To do this is the best Christmas gift that you could give anyone in your family. I want to acknowledge the work, the hard work that will happen over the Christmas period with the families, with the services who will be working 24/7 to keep families safe. Mr Speaker, Merry Christmas. I wish you the best.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. That was a perfect lead-in from my colleague Angie Warren-Clark because I want to stand, in this time, to acknowledge that yesterday was a big day for the work to eliminate family violence and sexual violence for so many, over so long—many, many decades—who have been attempting to do this work for so long. The strategy Te Aorerekura that we launched yesterday is a start of a 25-year plan that we have never had before. Successive Governments, decades and decades of lesser attempts, have failed to reach the vision that I know we all want, which is for everyone to be able to live in their homes and communities in peace and free of violence, to be able to put your hand up when you need help and expect to be believed, to be respected, and to be given the support you need when you need it and for however long you need it. And this strategy is doing things differently because we need to.

I am so proud, as the first Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, to have been able to lead and launch the strategy that was the culmination of the work of so many, including my ministerial colleagues and our MPs, like the member Angie Warren-Clark, who have long-held work, insight, and experience in this work. And there are so many others—the work that was led out by my colleague under-secretary Jan Logie last term, and the sector, the experts, tangata whenua, and community, our agencies working together. That is something that we have never seen before in the work to address family violence. And, yes, this is the start line, but it is a start line that we have never had. I am so proud and pleased because this strategy was created by the sector, by community, with tangata whenua, with our agencies, and so I am proud of the feedback and the hope that it has given to people, to the sector, to ordinary people for their lives and how it is going to improve.

We have not ever had a coordinated approach to eliminating family violence and sexual violence. We have not had leadership and accountability that is clear and collective across our agencies. We have made accountability for our systems to make sure that they do not re-traumatise and cause further harm for victims and survivors. We have put that line in the sand very clear in Te Aorerekura.

I want to also emphasise that, for the first time, we are focusing on one of the big shifts, which includes a prevention focus and a healing and restoration focus. For far too long, we have had a workforce that does not understand trauma-informed approaches, and that is across the board, whether it’s education, health, police, Oranga Tamariki, the Ministry of Social Development. All across the board, and in our community and sector, the people were very clear: we must have more trauma-informed approaches, more focus on preventing harm from happening in the first place, and people to be able to help everyone on their journey of healing and restoration.

This strategy also makes it clear that we need to provide support for people who use harm, have used harm, or are having thoughts or inclinations to using harm. People will see, in this strategy, very clearly that people who have attitudes or inclination to use harm want help to stop, want help to not go there, want help to understand where their attitudes and behaviours are coming from, and that requires us to move away from an adversarial approach to justice, because we want people to understand that they can put their hand up without shame and stigmatisation, so that they can stop using and causing harm.

The strategy Te Aorerekura also comes with an action plan of 40 actions. It is not just a strategy, because we also acknowledge that there are service gaps. There have been service gaps for decades. We have not properly served ethnic people, Māori women, Pasifika people, rainbow people, disabled people, trans people, older people. We have not served many well. So I am proud of Te Aorerekura. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the debate on the Government motion to extend the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, the committee stages of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill, the third reading of the Education and Training Amendment Bill, and the first readings and referral to select committees of the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill and the Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill

First Reading

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill.

I rise in support of this bill from my local council. I have to say that being a member of Parliament obviously is littered with a number of firsts. Having a bill drawn from the biscuit tin is one, and I can very gladly at this stage tick that box, and now having a local bill as part of the proceedings today is another.

Legislatively, this issue before the House today stems from 1922—some would argue before that when we look at the ownership of the land in question. But specifically the Palmerston North Reserves Act of 1922, historically nearly 100 years in the making, meant that the Palmerston North City Council holds or owns certain lands in the area. That 1922 Act identified that certain specified land could not be sold, and those were identified by way of a list in the Act and by way of a Schedule as well.

The situation that my local council, or the Palmerston North City Council, finds itself in is that if any of that certain specified land becomes surplus to requirements, which I accept can be a subjective consideration, then it needs to go through a legislative process through the Parliament, not simply something that the council can manage and determine itself in order to be able to sell the land or lift the status of the land so that it could be potentially developed or sold. That essentially is the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Act of 1966. This local amendment bill seeks to do exactly that.

The land in question here is locally or colloquially known as the Huia Street Reserve. Now, Huia Street is actually the roadway or the street that runs between the local tennis club and Palmerston North Girls’ High School. Actually, those that have a look back through the parliamentary record will see that this Act has actually been amended in the past to provide for some land to be transferred over from the Crown to the Palmerston North Girls’ High School. The land in question here obviously has a legal description. I’m advised that it’s 1.6032 hectares in size, but essentially it is a parcel of land situated on the corner of Fitzherbert Avenue and Park Road. Now, those travelling into Palmerston North from the south-eastern entrance—and yes, we have more than one entrance into our fine city. Actually, you can get there through the north-eastern, the north-western, and the south-western entrance. But those travelling the south-eastern entrance coming across Fitzherbert Bridge, over the Manawatū River, will notice that it’s actually parked up on the left-hand side as you enter the city. Actually, it’s halfway between the river and the square, Te Marae o Hine. So it is centrally located and an ideal location.

Now, I, along with others, were born in Palmerston North, so I grew up fairly familiar with this piece of land and the use over the years. And I know that others will be familiar with it as well. My colleagues Deborah Russell; Rachel Boyack, who may wish to take a call; Teanau Tuiono; Mr McKelvie, I acknowledge in the House—he is familiar with it as well. But also—

Simeon Brown: I think I drove past once.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order!

TANGI UTIKERE: And anyone’s happy to have a drive past in Palmerston North to check this bit of land out.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order!

TANGI UTIKERE: Madam Speaker?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Is also familiar with Palmerston North, please don’t leave me out.

TANGI UTIKERE: Oh, my apologies. And can I just acknowledge Madam Speaker, who has a fine history with my former school—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Only born and bred.

TANGI UTIKERE: —Freyberg High School as well. So my list is not an exclusive one; it is one that reflects the fact that there are members in this House who are very, very familiar with this fine city of Palmerston North.

But what I would say is that there has been a lot of chat over the years that this prime site would be developed in particular ways, for a petrol station and the like—there’s many there. But it’s been known as a bowling club, occupied by the Manawatū Bowling Club, alongside petanque opportunities, and currently it sits vacant. And it actually has been vacant since 2005, so some 16 years. So the local council, via this local bill, wishes to explore future options around residential development of the site in question.

This is not the first time, however, that this piece of land has been subject to the parliamentary process. In 2007, the member for Parliament North at the time, the Hon Steve Maharey, introduced an amendment bill that went through first reading and went to the select committee. Now, the outcome of that select committee process was that the bill, as I understand it, was discharged. It’s fair to say that there were a few hiccups along the way. So I’ve had a look back through the Hansard at the comments from Mr Maharey at the time, because I have been keen to ensure that those hurdles are not hurdles that may, from a process perspective, get in the way of the select committee and its determination if this bill proceeds beyond first reading. So when I have a look at the comments from the Hon Steve Maharey, he says in the Hansard “that it is the parliamentary convention that the local MP sponsors bills of this nature through the House. It provides a mechanism whereby people can make sure that legislation is passed from a local point of view. In this case it is the Palmerston North City Council that wants this legislation to be passed and it is my duty to ensure that it is advanced so it can be discussed.”

Now, I go a little bit further than one of my predecessors—Mr Maharey—in that I think before that duty is discharged, it is the responsibility of a local member to satisfy themselves that the relevant processes by a council have actually been followed. So I do want to just acknowledge the Palmerston North City Council—in particular Desiree Harvey, the legal counsel, David Murphy and Michael Duindam—for the preparation that they’ve undertaken in this particular regard.

In looking at this local bill and back to the issues raised at the time, there were four. The first is concern about the notification process: the lack of a community mandate for any future development back in 2007. The council, in my view, has commenced a process. It has produced for me and for the Clerk a council resolution. It’s not a unanimous resolution. It was, as I understand it, a 12 to two vote in favour. I have to say that I was acutely aware of this, because I was the deputy mayor at the time that the consultation process was undertaken. However, as the council’s planning and strategy committee considered this position and voted on it three days before the general election, out of an abundance of caution I withdrew from considerations, so there is no conflict of in that particular regard.

The previous Hansard does indicate that the former member for Rangitīkei Simon Power also had some concerns about the process being followed. The council informed me that Mr McKelvie and also the member for Te Tai Hauāuru, Adrian Rurawhe, have also been notified and kept informed of this throughout the entire process. I also note that concerns previously around the tennis club have also been advanced as well.

The second issue was a concern that the select committee had a number of city councillors who fronted up to the select committee, and so the council needed to be very clear that its justification for proceeding was there.

Number three as a concern was about an insufficient amount of reserve land as a result of a potential change in the land’s status. Now, I would suggest that there is a significant amount of green space. I’m advised that it’s around 80 hectares in the immediate vicinity of that area. When we talk about Ongley Park, Manawaroa Park, Fitzherbert Park, the Victoria Esplanade, which is iconic and a jewel in the city’s and region’s crown as well, alongside, obviously, the Manawatū River pathways and He Ara Kotahi. So those considerations, I’m sure, will be addressed by the select committee, but, in my view, they need to be balanced alongside the fact that there is around 50 hectares of green space in immediate surrounds of the Huia Reserve land.

And the final concern at the time back in 2007 was raised by the Māori Party, which was concerns around the lack of engagement with local iwi, Rangitāne. I actually want to acknowledge the strong relationship that the Palmerston North City Council has with Rangitāne. It is something that has been worked on and developed over many years. I have to say that I have also been advised that Rangitāne are aware of this and that this will not come as any surprise to them as the bill works its way through the select committee process.

So considering those four hurdles that were fairly clear when this bill came to the Parliament last, I am satisfied that, yes, it is my duty as the local member for Palmerston North to proceed with this bill and, having those four hurdles cleared, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to be able to be in a position today to say, yes, we’ll await the next process if this does pass first reading this afternoon, but on that basis I am delighted to be able to commend this bill to the House.

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

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill and to follow the member Tangi Utikere for the second time on a bill he’s introduced to the House in the last few weeks. He’s outlined it extremely well, and I was wondering why it hadn’t come to the Governance and Administration Committee until he claimed the fact that last time it went to the Governance and Administration Committee, they sent it back. So he won’t be sending it there this time, and probably for very good reason.

It is an interesting piece of legislation, because one of the great frustrations for councils right around the country is the fact that they have these reserves that they’ve been accumulating, in some cases, over hundreds of years, which, when they sell them, the Government either confiscates half the money and uses it somewhere else, or otherwise they just hold them because they don’t want to give the Government half the money, which is very unfortunate. It’s interesting in this case. It’s a little bit different because Palmerston North has a couple of Acts of its own which enable it, through this mechanism, actually, to get to the point where they can, if they wish to, sell that piece of land and reinvest it in further, I guess, green space, or parks and reserves, for the use of the city.

Palmerston North’s quite an interesting place. It’s had a lot of names in my time. It was called the “Rose City” for a while, and, actually, it’s got 5,000 roses in its rose garden—imagine trying to prune them. The most famous of them is named after another name that it was called for a while—and, actually, I think it’s been rejuvenated now—which is the name of “Palmy”, and that’s the Pride of Palmy, which is a bright yellow rose. It’s very pretty, actually, and that’s just been released, I think, last year and planted in the Palmerston North rose garden.

It’s also called the “Student City”, and it’s had a lot of names, but the most famous name of all was John Cleese’s name that he gave it, which I won’t repeat in here. But he then had the rubbish dump named after him, so you can imagine it was quite an appropriate name they gave him. He won’t be invited back to Palmerston North, I’m quite sure.

But, as Tangi Utikere explained, there is an enormous number of reserves and very attractive public areas in Palmerston North, and particularly in this part of town because, as he explained, this reserve is adjacent to the Palmerston North Girls’ High School, which is, in turn, adjacent to the Esplanade and Ongley Park, which are massively big pieces of reserve land. That, of course, is then adjacent to the Manawatū River, which, aside from in 2004, usually behaves itself, and you can get from Ashhurst all the way to Longburn down the Manawatū River, which is most attractive and has been beautifully tracked by the Palmerston North City Council. So there are plenty of opportunities, in my view, for alternative reserve facilities in Palmerston North.

Whilst there’s always opposition to city councils or to councils of any sort selling off public reserves, and you can understand why to some extent, I think the Palmerston North City Council is particularly cognisant of its reserves. It makes a great effort to make sure that those are available to the public, and there’s plenty of space available for that. So I think it’s a very good use of this land for it to be redesignated, and if, in fact, the council want to sell it in the future, they can, and if, in fact, they want to redevelop it themselves, they could. They may well do that, I imagine, because it is an ideal place for housing. It’s on a main traffic thoroughfare, it’s very close to the CBD, and it’s ideal for the kind of development that they clearly have in mind for it.

It’s an interesting process, bringing Acts through this Parliament. I, in fact, myself was the mayor of a council that brought an Act through here called the Manfeild Park Act in 2006, which enabled Manfeild Park to be converted. The reason for that was it was taken from being a racecourse and, effectively, transferred into a reserve in the Manawatū District, and that’s a very big reserve just adjacent to Feilding.

So I think the member for Palmerston North has framed the process very well. I think it’s worthy of support, this kind of legislation going through the House. I think, in a funny way, it’s unfortunate that we have the legislation in the manner it is, because it does, as I said earlier, inhibit councils and communities from doing what they want to do with land. But, at the same time, we have to have a balance and a safeguard from that type of activity, so it is a fine balancing act. But I won’t say any more today. As I’ve said, it’s worthy of support, and I wish them all the best as they get this through the select committee process. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I have a confession to make, and that is that I am from Palmerston North and I am proud to be a Palmy girl. In fact, I went to Palmerston North Girls’ High School, which is the fantastic school that has been spoken about, and used to walk and cycle through Huia Street to the back of the school, which was the music department. So it is a real pleasure to take a call on this bill.

As members have noted, local bills are a bit rare. They are a bit unusual. And so I want to commend my colleague Tangi Utikere who went to intermediate school with me at the mighty Ross Intermediate back in the early 1990s. Even then, my colleague was called on to deliver all the thank-you speeches. So he was always bound for leadership. I just want to congratulate him on bringing this bill to the House on behalf of Palmerston North City Council. In fact, the previous version of this bill was introduced when my step father was the deputy mayor of Palmerston North, a role that Tangi Utikere also used to hold, while my colleague Ian McKelvie was the mayor of the neighbouring Manawatū District Council.

So, look, I must admit when this bill came through, I said, “Please, can I speak about this bill?”, because it’s a great bill to talk about the place where I went to school. This is an ideal place for housing to go. It is right next to the fantastic Fitzherbert Park near the Lido swimming pool, the Manawatū rose gardens, the Blue Moon Dairy at the BP station, which gives out fantastic ice creams—

Barbara Edmonds: What’s your favourite flavour?

RACHEL BOYACK: Oh, goody goody gum drops. They were great at the Blue Moon Dairy. And look, it is an ideal place for housing and, having had a look through the proposal from the city council that is out for consultation, one of the things I note is that it could potentially build up to 80 apartments, and that will make an enormous difference—an enormous difference—to the housing needs in Palmerston North.

Palmerston North and Nelson, where I am proud to be the MP, they have a lot of things in common. They have a lot of things that aren’t in common: it’s sunny in Nelson; it’s quite rainy and windy in Palmerston North—the rule is that if you’re from Palmerston North, you’re allowed to dis it, but no one else is. But look, it is a provincial centre that, like many of our provincial centres around New Zealand, has challenges around housing. The council has an opportunity as well to join the legislation that’s currently going through the House as a tier 2 council just like Nelson. Earlier this year, along with colleagues, we visited some of the Palmerston North City Council flats that have just been redeveloped, and it was really good to see what the council had been able to do to take that land and actually develop it further and get more units on that bit of land. And it was wonderful to talk to the residents about the impact that had made on their lives.

This is an ideal piece of flat land. Palmerston North is flat. It’s actually very easy to find these pockets of flat land and build. In Nelson, unfortunately, we have a different set of circumstances in that in the Nelson City area, it’s actually very, very challenging to find flat land. And Nelson City Council has recently gone through a similar process where the council has consulted with the community to potentially sell some inner city land to Kāinga Ora where we may be able to build up to 200 units of both public housing and houses for first-home buyers. Thankfully, because that land wasn’t in reserve land, Nelson City Council didn’t have to bring an Act of Parliament like this one to the Parliament in order to amend the Reserves Act. So we have been lucky in that regard. But I do want to commend Palmerston North City Council for taking this initiative, for putting an opportunity for housing in one of the best parts of Palmerston North, right next to one of its very best schools, next to local schools, close to public transport, close to the inner city, close to—well, they don’t have a beach; they do have a fantastic river in the Manawatū River. I think that this build will present an enormous opportunity for Palmerston North. I congratulate the city council, congratulate my colleague, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Thank you. The Green Party will be supporting the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill. I don’t have the nostalgic memories that Rachel Boyack does and am not able to describe the area in quite such eloquent detail. So my research was looking at the location of the Huia Street Reserve on Google Earth and Google Maps, and noting that it is only five blocks from the square in Palmerston North and it’s on quite a prominent intersection and that it is quite close to quite large areas of open space—Ongley and Manawaroa parks—and, also, the council has noted its proximity to the Victoria Esplanade and the Julia Wallace park. So the council has concluded that there is quite significant public open space within the vicinity that justifies this local bill. It will be, obviously, for the select committee to hear submissions, and I am pleased that it’s going to the hard-working Environment Committee.

I would just note, though, that there has been quite a lot of community concern about the potential loss of the reserve. The Railway Land Action Group, Environment Network Manawatū saw there as being value in the reserve remaining as open space and wanted to protect it as green space. I think Environment Network Manawatū sees the potential for it to have things like a plant nursery, demonstrations of renewable energy, an eco-house, and hope that in determining the future of the land and its future uses, that the city council works with those community organisations and their aspirations to have areas where sustainability practices are able to be experienced and shown to the public and to find suitable land for that to happen.

Yes, the land has been vacant—was formerly the Manawatū bowling club, I understand—and it’s been vacant since 2005. The proposals that the council has made for potentially using it for housing noted that there were a range of options; not all of them were promoting the sort of medium- and high-density housing and variety of typologies that would be most suited to this site so close to the central city. So I hope that the council, when it does make a decision, does look to maximise the range of houses there, the range of affordability, and really does do medium- or high-density well and not just allow a developer to buy it and then turn it into something that’s not really encouraging urban renewal and urban intensification. But that is a decision for the council; it is not for the Parliament. This bill is simply enabling the Palmerston North City Council to choose to sell it if it wishes to, because at the moment, as Tangi Utikere noted in his speech, it is held as reserve status, and there is not an ability to sell.

So I look forward to submissions on the bill and all the views that they will bring to bear. The Green Party supports the bill.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. It gives me great pleasure to rise and take this call on this really lovely little bill put forward by my colleague and friend in the class of 2020, Tangi Utikere. I have a confession to make, too: I was not raised in Palmerston North. In fact, I have been trying to dig back into my memories and I thought for a while there I had never been to Palmerston North and I was feeling deeply ashamed, but then I remembered the occasion of my uncle Simon’s marriage to my aunty Jenny when I was about 11, which was marked—and I’m sure this is why I otherwise failed to remember the amazing rose garden of Palmerston North and its many beauties and treasures—by the unfortunate fall of my little sister Georgie from a jungle gym in the camping ground we were all staying in for the wedding, when she broke her arm in two places.

But that trauma aside, what we see here is the potential of the healing, the healing of the bones of the community, which is housing. I am—no chuckle for my metaphor? Not a single chuckle for my metaphor?

Angie Warren-Clark: I chuckled.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: There was a chuckle—thank you. What excites me about this bill is that here we have another town a little bit like mine, a similar size to my Whangārei, in some ways a similar situation in that it’s a mix of the agricultural and the business and the innovation. They, of course, have major universities centred there, which we do not. But they do have this reputation for innovation, and I thought it’s really interesting to see a council that is prepared to take the initiative in bringing forward land that is otherwise locked away from development for the purpose of housing. It is a difficult thing for a little local council to do, because they are exposed to the intensities of local reaction in a way that sometimes as MPs in this House we are not. So I really do commend the Palmerston North City Council for bringing this matter to this House’s attention for, hopefully, a resolution where all aspects of its community will see this as a positive step.

When I look at the possibilities for this bit of land, which, as my colleagues have already described, is surrounded by amenities, is surrounded from the wonderful rose-named Blue Moon Dairy through to parks and the open space that you need around any intensive development, the potential to take this block of land and turn it into a great place to live, but also—and I’m going to echo our colleague Eugenie Sage—to look at using some medium density there so that we can house more of our people.

I spent a period living in the UK where my family of four kids, my husband, and me lived in a little two-up, two-down house in a dense college where you had a little quadrangle of flats full of children and their parents around green space, and it was one of the best ways we’ve ever lived as a family. The ability to build community connections, to have that support from your neighbours, to have a real sense of place and of each other, it was a marvellous way to support each other as parents. There was no loneliness in a well-designed medium-density villagette. That, I hope, is the sort of thing that our councils up and down the land will look at taking forward, and they can do so now under the housing intensification plans that were brought forward by this House only this week.

So it is with excitement and hope that I look to see what happens with this bill and excitement and hope that I look to see what happens right through our provincial towns like mine, where I hope that our councils and our developers will take leadership and we’ll imagine, together with their communities, a new way of housing that will look after our people as they have not been looked after for many years, but will do so in a way that is environmentally sustainable and builds good communities. I commend this to the House.

SIMON COURT (ACT): ACT supports this bill. The Palmerston North council have every right to use their land and their assets as they see fit. After all, they are community assets which the community has purchased and the council has a responsibility to manage them for the best outcome for the community. That’s quite different from the way the Government sees three waters assets, which also are owned by communities but the Government has seen fit in that case to propose to take them from communities and install them in some remote corporation with an arcane and inefficient governance system. The benefits of that are not well understood.

The core issue that this bill addresses is that local government really, really struggles to repurpose, re-allocate, and recycle land that was originally dedicated to one purpose, like a reserve—in this case, a bowling club—and forgive me, because I’ve never been bowling and I’ve certainly never been bowling at this club. I understand that for decades people enjoyed going bowling but what the Palmerston North council’s identified is that this land would be better used for housing, and so because they are the local council and they are best placed to understand local issues, it’s good that Parliament is trusting them to know what to do with their land and assets. And, again, it’s a huge contrast with the way the Government has persecuted and prosecuted its three waters agenda against local government and their water assets. So I’ll just let that one sink in for a moment for the members in the Government over there.

The reason that Palmerston North council wants to repurpose this land is because it has a higher value. They want to potentially re-zone it for housing, and we’ve heard that up to 80 high-quality housing units may be developed on this site. The council has undergone a process. They’ve undertaken a process of consultation with their community, and while there were many different proposals for how this land might be used, it’s quite likely, given its location and its suitability, that a high-density housing subdivision and development is the best use for it.

ACT supports this bill because it is a locally elected council deciding what to do with its assets. We think that’s a good idea and that the Government should leave councils alone to use their assets, as long as they’re using them wisely, and support them. But we must ask: is it actually the role of councils, having repurposed the land through zoning, to then develop and build houses, own them and maintain them? The ACT Party would contend that councils don’t necessarily have the skills to own and operate and maintain property and to act as landlords, to manage tenants, and to manage the maintenance of housing developments. That is well outside their remit and their core skillset.

So the ACT Party wants to raise the issue of risk. Despite the fact that we support this bill, we would be very, very concerned if councils like Palmerston North council then took it upon themselves to begin to act as property developers, to compete with the private sector for the provision of homes and as property managers, and to engage in activities which, really, they have no business engaging in. They don’t have the skills, they don’t have the capacity, and while they might like to think they can, it’s clear they can’t. Community housing associations and community housing providers don’t believe this Government can either, which is why they’ve been asking Kāinga Ora and Housing New Zealand to hand over their assets to community housing providers to deliver housing in regions like the Manawatū. So we would ask that the Government consider that in far more detail and listen to those people in communities who know what their communities need because they’re local and they’re close to those communities. ACT will support this bill.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker, and thank you for this opportunity to speak on this local bill. And congratulations, Tangi Utikere, MP for Palmerston North. Who would have thought Palmerston North would get talked about so much in this House on this afternoon, but here we are chatting away.

Now, I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, my 21 years living in New Plymouth and now being the MP for New Plymouth, Tangi Utikere and I have some similarities. We get confused quite regularly. I know we look very similar. But being MPs, often Palmerston North and New Plymouth do get mixed up, but they’re both beautiful, wonderful cities. One has a mountain and a beautiful ocean; the other’s Palmerston North. But it is a beautiful place and I really do love it. In fact, trying to sort of connect to Palmerston North, as people have this afternoon, my mother actually is from Foxton, and she used to bus every day to Palmerston North to go to Palmerston North Girls’ High School right next to this piece of land. So suddenly I am connected to this place.

Now, I trust Mr Utikere. I trust him as he was a councillor and deputy mayor of Palmerston North City, so he knows this piece of land. He knows this piece of legislation. He knows what this local bill will do in terms of housing, in terms of development, in terms of easing some of the challenges that face the people of Palmerston North. And just like me as a local MP, we’re doing work in New Plymouth around our housing situation, and our council is working hard with local providers, with iwi, and also within their own selves in terms of what land they have that potentially could be available for the development of houses to ensure that our growing beautiful cities continue to be beautiful and cared for.

Now, the question I do often ask is around green spaces, because the last thing we want is for our cities to become clogged and jammed and too full. So I was encouraged to hear Mr Utikere talk about the fact that around that space, around that green space, there’s a mass of hectares of area that is already green space, is already beautiful, and so this will not impact on the beauty of Palmerston North City in its CBD area. I’m also aware that it’s been 16 years—16 years since anything happened on that land. So if we talk about green space and the loss of it, it’s actually just sitting there. It’s actually growing weeds, I’m guessing. I did do the Google search and saw it. It is just sitting there and not being used. So therefore, let’s use it and let’s get on with it and let’s ensure that some houses can be built.

Now, what I like about a progressive council like Palmerston North City Council is that they are looking at all the options. They’re not looking at just building what you always build, and they’re not just looking at doing what’s always been done; they’re being innovative. Also, I’m really proud of the Palmerston North City Council to see that the majority of councillors, when I was reading up about this, said that they need to take leadership in this space. They need to provide land for housing and showing how more homes could be provided by moving away from traditional-style subdivisions. So they realise that as a council they have a leadership role to play and they will play that. And this piece of legislation will ensure that that happens.

I’m also glad that democracy is a wonderful thing in how it works. And back in 2007, when the Hon Steve Maharey did bring this to the House, there were conversations had in the consultation space. There were concerns there hadn’t been enough discussion, and so it was put on hold. And here we are again, 15 years, 14 years later, and those conversations have been had and this is ready for development and ready to be done.

But my final thought around the Palmerston North City Council and, you know, feeling like I need to also encourage my local council as well—but the fact is that this isn’t just a fait accompli if this piece of legislation goes through, the plans are drawn, up go the houses; it actually has to go back through council through process. In a public meeting decisions will be made around what happens on this piece of land. So, again, democracy in action. Palmerston North City Council is doing some good things. They’ll continue to do more good things. I congratulate Tangi Utikere, MP for Palmerston North, and I commend this bill to the House.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to take a call on the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill. Now, it looks like Palmerston North has a good history of sending fine people to this House—including yourself, Madam Speaker, and my good friend Tangi Utikere. I know that a lot of people have claimed to have something to do with Palmerston North, but the only thing I can claim is that I have visited Palmerston North quite a few times, and the last time being at the invitation of my good friend here, Tangi Utikere. The day that I spent was quite a significant day, and one of the things that we did was visit the bridge that is near to this reserve place called He Ara Kotahi, which is a beautiful bridge that the Government spent millions of dollars on. I thank my friend and the member for Palmerston North for his generous hospitality.

Now, the heart of this bill is the land that has been sitting there and not being able to do anything with, because it’s been reserved until the Act of 1922. So, under this Act, this land cannot be sold, cannot be developed—it’s just sitting there—and what a waste. So the council has stepped up and is being innovative and trying to do something about it that is, of course, supported from the local community. There are views on both sides, but those views will be neutralised when the bill goes through the select committee process.

My good friend Rachel Boyack mentioned how, if this bill passes, up to 80 apartments can be built on this land, and what a significant difference that’s going to make in the Palmerston North community. There is no denying that we have got a housing crisis throughout the country, and Palmerston North might look better than some places, but it still has its own issues, and this is going to make a huge difference. The reserve was originally given to the city in 1876 by the Wellington provisional Government as a public park and recreation grounds. It’s no secret that New Zealand has, like I said before, a serious housing crisis, and now, despite residential building consents increasing to levels seen only in 1970, the council plan has been limited by this Act, and the development of opportunities are being denied as a result. Evidence shows that removing overly restrictive planning rules leads to more affordable homes being built, and this is much needed.

I’m going to put my ethnic lens in and talk about the diversity and multiculturalism of Palmerston North. The times that I visited, I visited a lot of communities. It’s a vibrant city, it’s every day increasing—people coming from different parts of the world as refugees, migrants, skilled migrants—and families want to move to Palmerston North because it’s alive, it’s beautiful. So the council needs to be equipped with legislative powers to keep enriching the city and commit to diverse population growths. The potential development that would be able to go ahead with this minor amendment would make a dramatic and positive impact on Palmerston North. Whether it’s to build houses or community centres or recreational places, this will be in the hands of the local decision makers, and the city will be able to grow and meet its special needs.

So now I commend, like many others did, the Palmerston North City Council for being very innovative and very creative by, I think, going against all odds, I think, because sometimes the land issue can be complex—it can be difficult at times—but the Palmerston North City Council is going above and beyond to resolve this issue. So, finally, I commend Tangi Utikere for again bringing yet another simple and small piece of legislation, but yet very significant and important, which is going to make a difference in his city that we all love to visit. I look forward to more invitations, and maybe even some dinners as a bribe so I can keep coming! I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I rise to talk on the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill. I thank the member Tangi Utikere for bringing this local bill to this House.

I, unlike many in this House, don’t reside or come from Palmerston North, but I did, as part of my deep research for this short call today, do some research and find that it is the home of the Rugby Museum. Obviously, as a keen member of the parliamentary rugby team—and I look across the House and I can see the very light-footed but very fast Kieran McAnulty, who plays on the wing for that team, and the Hon Michael Woodhouse, who’s our fly-half and the second row of which I play with Mr O’Connor—I reflect that the Rugby Museum in Palmerston North is a key part of that city. But, of course, this bill is about a lovely reserve related to a part of our local government area and a reserve that is obviously going to be sold for development into housing.

National supports this bill. National stands up for councils and National stands for keeping the “local” in “local government”. National supports local councils and local governments to make their own decisions, and this is an example of a decision that is going to be able to be put into that council’s hand to be able to do what will be a positive thing in regards to future housing development. National supports this bill as, obviously, not only will this create housing development but also it will create community facilities in developments for that local community, and that is a good thing.

We’ve heard from prior speakers that this land has been vacant for nearly 15 years, so it seems sensible that that will transition back out. It’s been through a thorough consultation process, and, again, I thank the member for providing detail around that. Of course, it will go through a select committee process as well to ensure that the issues are dealt through.

I acknowledge there was some feedback that was in opposition to this bill, but as it has been through a reasonable degree, or a higher degree, of consultation, I think most of those issues have been mitigated, and I look forward to seeing this bill pass through.

I lastly say that, actually, there are a number of examples of these types of bills around the country. I’ve actually got one in my local electorate. So I look forward to the future when we can bring that to the House. I commend this bill to the House.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on this local bill, the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill. I commend the member who has sponsored this bill, the local MP for Palmerston North, Tangi Utikere, a good mate of mine and a really hard-working MP. Look, I mean, we’re all guilty of saying that about our colleagues from time to time, but in this instance it happens to be true. He is a very hard-working member of Parliament for Palmerston North. I say to the good people of Palmerston North, they are actually very fortunate to have Tangi as their MP.

I really like local bills. Not everybody understands, I don’t believe, the difference between a local bill and a member’s bill, and why local bills get precedence on a members’ day against those bills where members have come up and put it in the ballot and had the luck to get it drawn out of the ballot and then have it debated on a member’s bill. So normally you would imagine, considering the situation that we have here, that the council would be able to make this decision for themselves. But because the land in question happens to have been named in the Palmerston North Reserves Act 1922, the council requires an amendment to that or a bill to come through Parliament and be passed in order for them to make the decisions that they wish on this land.

As other members have mentioned, that, of course, this isn’t some roundabout way to try and subvert the process. This just allows the process to happen, because at the moment, the Palmerston North City Council can’t do what they wish. They can’t follow the process that they normally would. This bill and the work of Tangi Utikere—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! With apologies to the member, could members on my left, if they wish to have a conversation, could they be seated? Thank you.

KIERAN McANULTY: I don’t blame the members. I’m just as excited about this bill as they are, and we’re all very excited to see it passed. Absolutely. I mean, the point being here is that what the council have indicated that they hope to use this land for is housing. At the moment, I couldn’t think of a better use for a piece of land. This isn’t a controversial proposition. This isn’t some reserve that’s full of native bush or anything like that. This is a piece of land that currently isn’t being used, and it hasn’t been used since the local bowling club, I understand, closed down. The use of this land has been heavily restricted because of the situation that they find themselves in.

It is a shame, I think, that some members have tried to use the debate on this bill to try and make some points about other things, such as the ACT member Simon Court raising three waters. I will point out to the member that the Palmerston North City Council actually supports three waters, so thank you for giving us the opportunity to raise that point in the House.

The point here is that there are many members who have highlighted their love of Palmerston North. As a proud Mastertonian I’m not all that fussed on Palmerston North. The people that live there are lovely, but we have a friendly rivalry. But what we do not want to stop is the opportunity to develop housing. There’s been talk of up to 80 dwellings that could go on this site—all different types, including apartments and medium density. Of course, that’s exactly what all of us here in Parliament should be striving for—the opportunity to see development, the opportunity to encourage houses being built wherever we have that opportunity.

Indeed, just this week, we had the opportunity as members of Parliament to support a piece of legislation that would allow just that. I note that actually it was the ACT Party was the only party that voted against it. Despite proclaiming to be the party against regulations and against red tape and against Government interfering in things, it would appear that unless it comes to the situation where the voters of Epsom don’t like it, then they change their values.

So what we have here is another opportunity for members of Parliament to actually get behind a straightforward, basic, simple piece of legislation.

Hon Member: Well, imagine if Resource Management Act reforms were like that.

KIERAN McANULTY: All that this would do is—I might have struck a nerve. They haven’t said much all day and now they’re trying to shout it down. But the point remains, I hope that the ACT Party does vote for this bill, because what this bill will do is actually allow the council to start a process, and, I suspect, from what we’ve heard tonight and from what the local MP Tangi Utikere has said, that the council will get community support to allow these houses to be built, but they can’t even seek that support unless this bill gets the support of Parliament. Again, I commend the member for bringing it, working with his council, bringing a local bill forward, and I also commend this bill to the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I thank members from right across the House for their unwavering support, it seems, for this local bill. And, Madam Speaker, can I acknowledge you, because I know that you have a connection to Palmerston North, and you’ll be pleased to know that I will be visiting your old high school, Freyberg High School, on Friday. Each time I do, your photo hangs on the wall in the reception area as one that they particularly like to reflect upon, so I acknowledge you and your connection to my fine city.

I want to just reflect on the contributions from around the House this afternoon and to thank members. My colleague Rachel Boyack, obviously a local advocate for her former city, Palmerston North, and the connection with Palmerston North Girls’ High, which is obviously extremely close to the piece of land that we are referring to, and also reflecting on her comments that the caucus committee around Government and local government were able to visit Palmerston North earlier in the year and were able to see the partnership opportunity that the Palmerston North City Council has in terms of a housing development at Papaioea Place. So that’s a very strong connection.

Can I respond to the comments expressed by the Hon Eugenie Sage in that she is right: partnerships are very important, and what the select committee process does allow for is for the community and the council to demonstrate a level of support but also acknowledging that from a process perspective, this is about changing or lifting the designation of a piece of land so that the council will be in a flexible position to be able to do something differently if it so chooses to go down that particular path.

Can I also thank colleagues for their comments—their reflections, I guess—in that this piece of land is in close proximity to a number of amenities, a number of recreational spaces. The member for Rangitīkei referring to the rose garden, the Dugald Mackenzie Rose Garden, which, yes, did, as he suggests, celebrate the Pride of Palmy, which was actually a specific rose that was released recently in recognition of the city’s 150th—sesquicentennial—anniversary. I have to say I’ve got two of them growing in my garden and they’re doing very, very well at the moment as well. But this is about an opportunity to support a council that is wishing to be progressive, wishing to be innovative, that is vibrant. Those are three words that I’ve heard around the Parliament this afternoon. When we step back and have a look at what is proposed, we do need to appreciate that this will be subject to the select committee process.

Just on that point, I know that Mr McKelvie was questioning why this may not be going to the Governance and Administration Committee. I have to say that, to be fair, it probably could go to that or it could go to Environment. I reflected back into 2007, when this bill was last before the Parliament, on where it went. Unfortunately, it’s not helpful that it went to the Local Government and Environment Committee. So it did mean that there has to be a separation here, but I do think that the Environment Committee is the appropriate place, given that it’s dealing with a reserve status of land. I do in advance, though, apologise to the hard-working members of the Environment Committee for yet another piece of important work that they will undertake, but I’ll be with you as part of that.

What I do want to indicate in closing is that this process will be subject to a public process. If this bill does make it through select committee, second reading, committee of the whole House, and then through to third reading, the council will still be required to make a decision at a future date, if they choose to, in a public forum. So this is not effectively indicating that it’s a done deal; it’s indicating that this is something that the council have approached me as the local member that they wish to pursue this, that the local bill avenue is the way in which local councils and territorial authorities seek to pursue that, and that there is a process that will form part and parcel of all of that.

I repeat that I’m satisfied that many of the hurdles that we have identified in the earlier contribution around, you know, engagement with Rangitāne but also the level of notification, the level of community engagement, and also the proximity to reserves within the area have satisfied me that those are issues that won’t hold this up from a procedure or a process point of view. I’m delighted to, if the Parliament is of a mind, effectively approve the first reading, see this through the select committee process. Again, I commend this to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill be considered by the Environment Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Environment Committee.

Bills

Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill

First Reading

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I move, That the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill.

Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Aoraki maunga te paparahi o Te Wai Pounamu, ngā Papatipu Rūnanga, Ngāi Tahu whānui, aku tini whanaunga, tēnā koutou. Te Kaunihera Taiao ki Waitaha, nāu i kawe nei i tēnei pire ki te Whare nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings to you all in the House. To Aoraki, the foundation of the South Island, to the tribal authorities, to Ngāi Tahu in general and to my many relatives, greetings to you. To Environment Canterbury, who brought this bill to this House, greetings, greetings, greetings one and all.]

I am delighted to speak as the support member for this bill, the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. This bill reinstates mana whenua representation on the Canterbury Regional Council in the form of two Ngāi Tahu councillors from the 2022 local body elections. I want to acknowledge the Canterbury Regional Council, also known as Environment Canterbury, for bringing this bill to the House in collaboration with the Papatipu Rūnanga of Ngāi Tahu, who I know are tuning in from HQ there in Ōtautahi, so I mihi to them all.

This arrangement of Ngāi Tahu councillors was first put in place by the National Government in 2010, when it installed commissioners on the council. The introduction of Ngāi Tahu councillors proved truly insightful, and I commend the National Party for its foresight in doing so. This House will recall a similar local bill that was introduced in April 2019, intended to continue the mana whenua representation on council prior to the 2019 local body elections, but unfortunately that was defeated at first reading.

Disappointed, but not discouraged, Environment Canterbury worked with the Papatipu Rūnanga to explore other opportunities, and that led to the appointment of mana whenua Tumu Taiao—mana whenua experts who were appointed in 2020 to advise councillors on the interests of mana whenua. However, the Tumu Taiao do not have the ability to vote at council meetings and, ultimately, legislative change is required to provide for the mana whenua voice at the council table. This bill reflects Environment Canterbury’s commitment to securing Ngāi Tahu representation. I commend Environment Canterbury’s councillors for recognising the value in mana whenua representation and acknowledge that this benefits all ratepayers, not just Ngāi Tahu.

There are two key differences between this local bill and that previously debated in the House, and these changes relate to Māori constituencies or wards and the issue of remuneration, which I’ll briefly address. This bill explicitly provides that Māori wards are not prohibited, meaning that the council may still choose to introduce those in the future. However, Māori wards are not considered to amount to mana whenua representation, hence the promotion of this bill, which is very much a local solution for local issues.

In terms of remuneration, this bill provides for the appointed Ngāi Tahu councillors to be remunerated—including allowances, expenses, and fees—separately from the pool allocated by the Remuneration Authority, but otherwise on the same basis, given that the appointment of Ngāi Tahu councillors will not reduce the workload of the existing elected councillors. As stated previously, this bill is a local solution for local issues and would simply reinstate what has previously worked exceptionally well. It is not a model that will work in all regions of Aotearoa New Zealand, but it reflects a tried and true arrangement in Canterbury that ensures the values and concerns of mana whenua are given full expression. Environment Canterbury is not urging this model be adopted by others, but it does ask this House that it be allowed to have a system that it believes is right for Canterbury.

Environment Canterbury is responsible for not only environmental outcomes, but also social, economic, and cultural outcomes in a 45,000 square kilometre area of the South Island. It is an area that includes many of New Zealand’s iconic landscapes and majestic vistas, from north of Kaikōura to Waitaki in the South and inland as far as the Southern Alps, including the spectacular braided rivers and the mighty maunga Aoraki / Mount Cook. Ngāi Tahu, of course, are the original people and kaitiaki of much of that area, having had an intimate connection with it since the ancient migrations of Waitaha, Ngāti Māmoe, and Ngāi Tahu. Generations later, the sense of kaitiaki responsibility that Ngāi Tahu has for the natural environment has not diminished. To the contrary, it remains vital and strong and increasingly relevant. Ngāi Tahu is increasingly recognised as a strategic partner in the Canterbury region.

Indeed, I submit Ngāi Tahu should have a seat at the decision-making table. Opposition to this bill will likely include the apparent concerns that it’s not acceptable to give Ngāi Tahu special treatment—and let me say to those people that this bill is not about special treatment; this bill is about ensuring there is enhanced representation in an age where a mana whenua voice is critical, in which Ngāi Tahu councillors have previously demonstrated the value they have added to a range of Environment Canterbury’s work. To those who say this is a special privilege for Ngāi Tahu, I say: you’re looking through the wrong lens. This bill is about recognising the responsibility that Ngāi Tahu has as kaitiaki of the air, waters, land, and coast of the region and enabling them to perform that duty. That responsibility lies with Ngāi Tahu directly, not with Māori generally. To those who say this bill will adversely impact on representation and democracy, I say this: this bill will ensure that more, not fewer voices will be heard at the council table, and because of that, it provides an enhanced additional level of representation informed by generations of knowledge and environmental awareness. There can only be advantage and value from such inclusiveness and mutual understanding. That is a fundamental element of this bill.

This nation has come a long way, but our journey—of which this bill is now part—is far from complete. Aotearoa New Zealand and the modern progressive nation we wish to be—in our nation, a Te Ao Māori worldview is an essential part of decision making. Ngāi Tahu representation on the council ensures a position of influence for mana whenua values, and it creates a governance structure that reflects the spirit and commitment to work together and is a big step forward toward true collaborative partnership between mana whenua and the council in the work it does. Ngāi Tahu councillors have played a pivotal role in building the social capital and community ownership of solutions that underpin water and land management in Canterbury. They provided confidence to Papatipu Rūnanga and wider tribal members that their voices, their environmental and societal vision and concerns, were heard at the highest level. The practical benefits were not least the greater efficiency in planning and consenting processes, reduced costs for both council and consent applicants, and the council’s role in earthquake recovery. This representation contributed immeasurably to good outcomes in the region for the council, for its ratepayers, and even those visiting the region.

From a council perspective, Environment Canterbury very clearly understands that mana whenua representation at a governance level is the most effective way to give effect to key statutory obligations under the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act, and also as fellow New Zealanders wishing to contribute to a better and more inclusive New Zealand. As the famous Ngāi Tahu saying is:

Mō tātou, ā, mō kā uri ā muri ake nei.

For us and our children after us.

This bill will ensure that the values and intergenerational perspective of Ngāi Tahu are consistently heard at the council table, creating a more representative and effective local authority. As the member for Te Tai Tonga, covering the vast expanse of the Canterbury region, and a proud whakapapa member of Ngāi Tahu myself, I support this modest request from the Canterbury Regional Council and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

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

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party. It will be no surprise to this House that National will oppose this bill. We opposed it the last time this legislation came to the House.

Can I just acknowledge my parliamentary colleague Rino Tirikatene, a fantastic member of Parliament for Te Tai Tonga. I just acknowledge Ngāi Tahu, a very powerful collective in Canterbury and Ōtautahi, and, as Mr Tirikatene mentioned, a strategic partner who we are very lucky to have, and a cornerstone of our history, a cornerstone of our present, and a cornerstone of our future ahead.

I’m going to outline some key points about why the National Party does disagree with this bill. The first thing I’d ask, probably procedurally, is why is it a local bill and why is this not a Government bill? I mean, the reason we are here again today with pretty much the same bill is that things have changed from the 52nd Parliament to now, the 53rd Parliament. Democracy has spoken and we are now in a one-party State, and the Labour Party are able to pass this bill without needing the support of any other parties. So that’s why it does come back in from the 52nd Parliament to the 53rd Parliament, and it’s very clear—it’s been introduced by a Labour member of Parliament—that it will pass its first reading today.

There was the proposition put forward: “Well, has National forgotten its history, because they appointed commissioners to ECan several years ago.” Well, that’s right. Environment Canterbury (ECan) was an appallingly performing regional council—probably the lowest ranked in league tables in New Zealand—and, quite rightly, the National Government of the day appointed all the commissioners. But I must remind the Labour Party that it was them who screamed black and blue that appointments were to be made, and they asked that democracy be restored.

What I would say in this bill is that if you do look at the wording—because we are parliamentarians and we need to scrutinise the words in this bill—what I disagree with in this bill is that in the commentary it says, “wishes to reinstate direct Ngāi Tahu representation at Council level.” I would argue there is representation at council level. Ngāi Tahu do have observers in the council who will be part of the conversations now and providing input and, no doubt, influencing decisions. The issue here of this bill is that what it changes is it gives those observers voting rights, and there’s something ironic there that we’re not asking the people who will have a vote to be selected through a voting process. So, on this side of the House, we do stand on the principle of democracy.

There is no reason why Ngāi Tahu representatives can’t be elected on to ECan, and as, actually, Mr Tirikatene pointed out—and I was actually going to point this out as well. It does astound me that in clause 11, it doesn’t prevent the council going through the process of setting up Māori wards. So we will end up in a position of having 14 elected councillors plus two appointed from Ngāi Tahu and, potentially, more from Māori wards. Why did it not exclude that in the law?

Here’s another point: why did it not reduce the number of elected councillors on ECan so that it was still capped at 14, reduce it to 12, and add the extra two appointees? There’s a lot that doesn’t actually add up here legislatively.

This is actually a radical change to local body electoral laws that have stood the test of time for 150 years. We do have also a quote in the commentary on the bill that says that if ECan does nothing, “it would deprive mana whenua of a voice at the Council table, and continue to deprive the Council of that direct input at the highest level.”, but I do come back to the point that we have representation at the moment. This bill is about the ability for those current representatives to actually cast a vote, so they do have representation at the moment.

This is supposed to be a local bill, and I’d ask some of the Labour members of Parliament who are potentially going to be seeking a call on this local bill from Canterbury: I would like you to talk about the public consultation that has gone on with this bill. Many of you will know that there are a lot of people in Canterbury that are concerned that there was no public consultation, so why was there no public consultation? Even ECan said—and I think it’s passing the buck a bit—“Oh well, there’ll be an ability to make a submission at the select committee hearing.” Well, that’s fine at a central government level, but where was the public consultation done at an ECan level?

It’s interesting in the wording, and sometimes wording says a lot where I think people don’t realise what they’re saying when they write things. It says in the commentary, “For that reason, the Council prefers direct appointment” as the option. Well, what does the public prefer? Well, we don’t know, because there was no public consultation.

So here we have a local bill that is not about representation. It’s about enacting voting rights, but it’s actually bypassing the democratic rule of being elected to come in to cast that vote on behalf of people, and then there was no consultation. I come back to my original point: why was it not introduced as a Government bill, and what precedent is this going to set? I think it’s actually a very confused precedent for the rest of the country, and it actually says that.

When I asked for and got some advice from the Clerk’s Office on why it was a local bill—because my belief was that you can’t amend primary legislation with a local bill—in fact, the answer was that the bill doesn’t amend the Local Government Act 2002. Instead, it creates a new stand-alone local Act that requires the Local Government Act to be applied in certain ways. So what we’re actually creating is a workaround, which I don’t believe is fundamentally good law.

Look, as I’ve said, this bill was clearly going to be passed at its first reading. It’s a bill that is back to the future, because it has been to the House before and it was defeated, and it poses a very good question: are we going to start appointing people at local body level that haven’t sought or gone through the electoral process—who haven’t been elected? Where is the view of the public and where is the mandate of the public in this bill?

This is concerning. This will change 150 years of electoral law. We’ll hear it today, won’t we? We’ll be told why and about the basic principle of election and democracy, and that is actually the fundamental point of what we are debating today. I don’t think anyone disagrees with representation of Ngāi Tahu on ECan, because they’re there now. What we’re talking about is: should those representatives have the ability for the right to vote? That poses the question of who, then, is appointing the representatives, and why shouldn’t people who haven’t been appointed by Ngāi Tahu have the ability to stand up and put their hand up in an election? Why can’t they do that?

These are the questions that I’m looking forward to hearing answers to from the contributions this afternoon, and I’m also looking forward to hearing from people who will make submissions through the select committee process. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): What a sad, sad contribution from that member, Matt Doocey, given the democracy that they talk about. The previous Prime Minister John Key would have supported this. Actually, no, no. After John Key was Bill English—he would have supported this. Chris Finlayson would have supported this. But sadly we’ve got this new National Party, who all of a sudden have forgotten their history, their background, and now are putting up idiotic questions about why would the Māoris who go to the council want to speak? Why do they want to speak? They could just sit there and observe things. Brilliant question! Wonderful question! Because Māori deserve an opportunity—

Matt Doocey: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s unusual to interrupt another member, but I will put the leave, and if the House agrees to it, then you can. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? No you can’t.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Kia ora. Thank you very much. It’s sad. The guilt is getting to the opposite side. See, this is a party who is fooling—along with this useless lot in ACT over here. This is what New Zealanders have to be aware of is what’s happening in the National Party with the Luxon takeover. The line is, “Oh, you know, we do support you Māoris, even though you’re separatists.” That’s the new line. “But ‘separatists’ is not racist”, but I looked up the definition of “separatist”, and I found South Africa and apartheid. And I think everybody knows that in South Africa that’s called racism, but not according to Mr Luxon and the new National Party. This all loving, caring week where Mr Luxon said he doesn’t support the Māori Health Authority, but that’s not being racist; that’s just being separatist. Someone explain to Mr Luxon what racism means. Certainly that previous member won’t be able to after that gobbledygook bloody speech. What a disgraceful speech.

Now what Ngāi Tahu—I’m a bit different to my cordial brother behind me, Rino Tirikatene. I want Ngāi Tahu to listen and hang their heads in shame when they hear this lot in National—when they hear this lot in National—because National supported Ngāi Tahu between 2016 and 2019, and it was well-supported by people like John Key and other members in the National Party. I’ll be very clear: this reinstatement in terms of rights is a reaffirmation of tino rangatiratanga in terms of Ngāi Tahu. What it does is it acknowledges Ngāi Tahu has mana over their lands and affirms their special association in terms of this particular kaupapa. They have this right, right across the Ngāi Tahu, don’t they, Rino, in terms of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, the Department of Conservation, all recognise the special relationship that Ngāi Tahu have. So for the Opposition to raise separatism issues is disgraceful. What the National Party does not understand—

Nicola Grigg: Ha, ha!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Don’t laugh, whoever you are. What the National Party doesn’t understand is that Māori have a special partnership. Māori are the Crown’s partner. You need to read that. And when you are the Crown’s partner, you get opportunities like this. And this is recognition from the Crown. The National Party used to do this; they used to remember this. Do you remember, who was your—it was Doug Graham. He came in. He’d be ashamed of this National Party lot now—wouldn’t have a clue. So as a Crown partner, you get an opportunity to exercise this, and this bill gives us an opportunity.

Can I say finally, in the last 30 or 40 seconds, that democracy is also about recognising indigenous people and an indigenous voice—something that the National Party lot and the right-wing fascists on the right here, the ACT Party, have forgotten and don’t understand, because you want to suppress, oppress, and depress Māori. Understand that if you invite Māori into the tent, that’s an integral part—

Maureen Pugh: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —of democracy. Get used to that—.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Point of order here, the Hon Willie Jackson. When I say “Order!”, you sit down.

Maureen Pugh: I take offence at being accused of being a right-wing fascist. I request that the member withdraw and apologise.

Hon Willie Jackson: I was talking about ACT. That wasn’t for you; it was for ACT.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, I was distracted when that happened. The Hon Willie Jackson will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Willie Jackson: No. Point of order, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. I’m not taking a point of order. You either do it or you’ll be leaving the Chamber.

Hon Willie Jackson: I won’t be doing it, then.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, well you’ll be leaving—you must leave the Chamber.

Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Mr Speaker, now that the Hon Willie Jackson’s speech has concluded—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, I’m not continuing until the Hon Willie Jackson leaves.

Hon Willie Jackson: Can’t apologise to people I didn’t insult.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Come back. If you don’t come back, I’m going to name you. Come back now. E noho. I have made a ruling that you must obey. There is no discussion, and it’s certainly out of order to be interjecting on your way out. You do not want to be named. A Minister of the Government has not been named for a very long time. The Hon Willie Jackson will leave the debating chamber now, and no comments.

Hon Willie Jackson withdrew from the Chamber.

KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now that the contribution from the Hon Willie Jackson has concluded, if Matt Doocey wished to seek leave to make his personal explanation, that would not be opposed by this side of the House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now that the speech has concluded, you don’t need leave for that. You may make that statement.

MATT DOOCEY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The point I was trying to make is Willie Jackson said that I didn’t want Māori or Ngāi Tahu representatives to speak. I never said that in my speech. I said the issue was about the ability for those current representatives—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! That is not a personal—

MATT DOOCEY: Well it is because he—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I’m on my feet. That is not a personal explanation; that is a debating point.

MATT DOOCEY: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Labour Minister made a claim that was, if you look at the Hansard, factually incorrect. I did not say that. It was about the voting rights, not the ability for representatives to speak. So I believe I do have the ability, under a personal explanation, to state my case.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have made the ruling.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou katoa. Tuatahi ake, ka tika me mihi ki a koutou a Ngāi Tahu me ngā maunga, ngā awa, ngā whenua o Te Wai Pounamu, kei te mihi.

[Mr Speaker, greetings to you. Greetings, everyone. Firstly, it is appropriate that I acknowledge Ngāi Tahu and the mountains, rivers and land of the South Island of New Zealand, greetings.]

I’m really pleased to take a short call on the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. It’s somewhat ironic that we have the National Party opposing this bill and talking about democracy, because, of course, it was the National Party that got rid of 14 elected councillors on Environment Canterbury in 2010 and did not return democracy to Canterbury for nine long years. I was one of those councillors that got unceremoniously removed.

The Green Party is supporting this bill because my experience of Canterbury Regional Council was that it had a very long way to go in implementing the Treaty partnership. One of the few good things that came out of the appointment of commissioners in Canterbury was the place of Ngāi Tahu and its two representatives around that council table and the greater recognition that that forced the council to have of things Māori and of Te Tiriti. I can remember, in 2007, having to argue strongly for the first representative who had expertise in tikanga Māori to be appointed to the hearings panel on the Waitaki River and that being opposed by other councillors despite the importance of the Waitaki River to Ngāi Tahu because it rises in the headwaters of Aoraki—their tūpuna.

So councils around this motu have got a long way to go in implementing Te Tiriti. This bill, by ensuring that there is a Ngāi Tahu voice at the table, will help move towards a better Treaty partnership. It will help ensure that there is a strong voice for Ngāi Tahu about the awa, the maunga, the whenua of Te Wai Pounamu, which constitutes much of their takiwā. This bill is ensuring that Ngāi Tahu can choose who those two representatives are. It does not diminish democracy; it improves democracy because, as Rino Tirikatene noted, it is increasing the number of councillors around the table from 14 to 16. It does not affect the remuneration of the existing councillors who are elected. It does not affect their responsibilities. It simply means that there are two representatives that Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu will choose that will ensure that there is a loud voice. And our country, and Canterbury, will be better for that in ensuring that that voice is there.

At the moment, those two Tumu Taiao are only advisers. They do not have the same status as councillors. This bill will ensure that they have that equal status. It will bring Te Tiriti alive, and it will be good for the mahi of the regional council, in ensuring that its management of land, of waters, of the coast, of soils is actually a deeper management, with a deeper recognition of the things that are important in our country of Aotearoa, and that is having Te Tiriti as our founding constitutional document. The Green Party supports this bill. Kia ora.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Point of order. Mr Speaker, I just want to raise with you Speakers’ ruling 144/4 and would ask that, at a later date, you might reflect on that ruling. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will indeed. Thank you.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and speak on this bill. I was surprised when Mr Doocey said we shouldn’t change this piece of law because the way local government has worked in Canterbury for the past 150 years has been fine. I could hear some of my Ngāi Tahu friends choke. I think that he should perhaps go and read the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act and the Crown apology appended to it. It will become pretty readily apparent that things haven’t worked fine for many.

But, I mean, I think this bill begs the question of what it means to be mana whenua. Is it just someone who we invite to give a karakia or a pōwhiri from time to time or is it someone we engage in meaningful discussion, who we have actually around the table on an equal footing? And Ngāi Tahu do occupy a very special place in Canterbury and the South Island. Environment Canterbury is in a unique position of Ngāi Tahu being the only iwi. So when they do want to engage with mana whenua, there is only one iwi to do that with. So the fact of actually having them around the table, two members that have not only a voice but the same deliberative powers and voting powers, is really, really important. And it’s not for us, if we’re going to have those members of Ngāi Tahu around the table, to say how they’re selected. That’s for Ngāi Tahu. That’s why an appointment process is an entirely appropriate mechanism. And Christchurch and Canterbury are in a unique and privileged position to be able to engage in this way with Ngāi Tahu.

So whilst the last 150 years might not have been great in terms of our relationships with Ngāi Tahu, I look forward to a future when this bill will improve it significantly. Kia ora.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The ACT Party opposes this bill. It seeks to add up to two unelected representatives to the Canterbury Regional Council, and it conflicts directly with ACT’s principles that only democratically elected representatives should serve on councils and in Parliament. Environment Canterbury—or ECan, Canterbury Regional Council—already has two mana whenua appointees which give advice to council on tikanga to help them with decision making. That appears to be a better way to actually address some of the issues that councils face when they’re looking at planning, consenting, long-term plans, and where and how to provide community services for the people that live in that district. That’s why this bill won’t actually help address any of those issues. What it will do is add two extra individuals to the 14-person council, now 16; it will dilute democratic representation; it will essentially override basic democratic principles; it will result in unelected members having the same voting powers as elected members; and it will increase costs to the Canterbury ratepayers. For the ACT Party, that is sufficient reason to oppose it.

But I want to respond to some of the things that the Hon Willie Jackson said before he departed from the House. Mr Jackson has illustrated the problem with this approach. If the Government proposes to allocate some rights to special classes of people because of who their grandparents were or because of their lineage, that takes us back thousands of years, back to the feudal history that New Zealanders who came here by sailing ship, by steamship, and, more recently, by aeroplane left behind in the countries that they left to come to New Zealand for a better life. And for the benefit of those members who support this bill, I want to bring that back to why we’re here. It’s to make a better New Zealand. We won’t achieve that by allocating special rights to special classes of people. That is a form of feudalism.

Now, we’ve heard about partnership approaches. That’s all well and good. I’ve been involved in construction project alliances where the client and the stakeholders and people get together and they agree that if you work out a certain course, then more benefits get shared amongst the groups that participate. They all have skin in the game. Those participants in construction alliances are appointed to represent their group’s interests. Now, the difference between that and a democratically elected council is that voters get to choose who represents them. This bill removes the right of voters to choose two of what will become 16 members, even though there are already provisions in the law, in a law rushed through under urgency by this Government, to create Māori wards so that individuals who are nominated and qualified can stand to be elected in those Māori wards—and the Canterbury Regional Council has the ability to do that. But instead, they have come and they’ve asked for this local bill to be proposed, essentially to create two additional seats for individuals.

Now, we can understand why Mr Jackson thinks that’s a good idea, because he’s an old-school class warrior who believes that the pie is only so big and it should be carved up and reallocated according to his vision and to those in power. The ACT Party fundamentally rejects that approach. We do not believe that that is helpful to New Zealanders. We do not believe that the people of Canterbury would appreciate that approach, and this Government should not allow this bill to proceed because it divides New Zealanders rather than brings them together, allocates special rights and privileges to those that should only be available to elected representatives.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on this piece of legislation. In Canterbury we’re innovative, we’re resourceful, we’re good at coming up with local solutions to fix local issues, and that is simply what this piece of legislation does.

This piece of legislation, or this proposed piece of legislation, is a local bill, a local piece of legislation that Environment Canterbury—we call them ECan—have asked for themselves. It simply puts into permanency something that was put in place under the previous National Government in 2010—something that has actually worked very, very well since then. It simply puts it into permanency so that these people, Ngāi Tahu, the mana whenua, the kaitiaki of the land who have close ties, bonds, and connections with the land, have the ability to have a seat at the table and hence voting rights. They’re in addition to the current 14 councillors. They are not replacing any councillors.

I think that this is a fantastic piece of legislation. Local solutions for local issues. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you so much, Mr Speaker We stand here this evening to ensure, I hope, with this bill, if it passes, that we have direct Ngāi Tahu representation at the council level because direct representation is not what we currently have at Environment Canterbury. We have two wonderful Tumu Taiao—they are mana whenua experts—but they do not have decision-making powers; they have no vote.

One of the great joys of being an immigrant to Aotearoa has been learning about Te Tiriti, learning more about and gaining a greater understanding of the ongoing impacts of colonisation, the rights of tangata whenua, and on how we have gradually been moving towards a genuine partnership as outlined in Te Tiriti—a partnership that isn’t a “nice-to-have” but an absolute obligation; and you cannot work in partnership with any group that has been given a seat but no vote, no voice. It isn’t good enough, it doesn’t work for Canterbury, and that’s why I commend this bill to the House.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I, along with my colleagues, also rise to speak in opposition to the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. This is a case of history trying to—I would hazard a guess, unsuccessfully—repeat itself. This House has been here before. As has been well canvassed already, we have a bill here that seeks to reinstate direct Ngāi Tahu representation to the Canterbury Regional Council—or ECan as we call it back home—after the 2016 Act was repealed three years later. In 2019, when this bill first appeared before the House, it didn’t pass its first reading, and there is very good reason for that. Thank goodness for the Opposition of New Zealand First, ACT, and National. It was a bad bill back then. It is a bad bill now, setting a bad precedent.

My colleague Gerry Brownlee, who I’m actually—very ably, I might add—stepping in for right now; he was supposed to be taking this call. He said to this House in 2019 that it is a local bill that is trying to make changes that would be included in primary legislation. Despite all of the very emotional rhetoric and mud being slung over the House this afternoon, that is the reason that we are objecting to this. It is a bad bill. The Labour Party actually should have paid attention to Mr Brownlee back then, because it would not have set it on a course to make the same mistake that it’s about to make today.

The other issue that we take exception with is that this bill is a result of ECan using its democratically elected powers to undemocratically force a change on weak Canterbury ratepayers without our consent. Not one of us ratepayers have been consulted on this. Using the process outlined in this bill, Ngāi Tahu would confirm two appointees in a process that has not required democratic input. Those two appointees, as we’ve discussed, would sit alongside a democratically elected council with full voting rights. I ask the Labour Party, the Government, to consider treating Canterbury ratepayers with a little more respect.

While I’m on that subject, the contributions we have heard from all sides of the House this afternoon have been patronising in the extreme—absolutely patronising. Why can the Government not consider that an iwi as successful and as powerful as Ngāi Tahu, who will undoubtedly have people of exceptional experience, skill set, calibre, are able to stand on their own two feet, able to stand for local body election on their own credentials, without having to be hand-held and shepherded into the council chamber on the back of this bill. I think the people of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu deserve more respect from the Government than this bill. It is disrespectful of the vast talent and depth within the organisation.

To be clear, the importance of mana whenua representation at all levels of political decision-making is not lost on us in the National Party. It might pay the Government to remember the advances that Māoridom have made under former National Governments. Might I remind the Government of the 60 Treaty settlements that were negotiated under the National Government. We are very clear that mana whenua have a critical role in decision making and policy making and lawmaking in this country, but it is not through an appointment process such as being put forward in this bill by this Government. The fact of the matter is there is already mana whenua representation at the council table, thanks to the two Tumu Taiao roles which are very ably filled by Iaean Cranwell and Yvette Couch-Lewis.

The National Party opposes this bill again because it is no better than the bill that came before this House in 2019. It is a local bill trying to reform primary legislation. It is being undemocratically forced on the people of Canterbury, and National opposes it.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, and thank you for the privilege to speak on the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill.

I want to just say it’s a good day because this really does set the benchmark for all local councils to look at how they enact the Treaty partnership. Fundamentally, it’s good for that reason alone. Obviously, there has been some work done, and that entity has decided that in terms of recognising how to best move forward with Ngāi Tahu, this is the best way forward. I often get asked how is it that local government can have a functioning, truly authentic, and genuine partnership with mana whenua Māori. This is something that people will look at and say, “We want that too.” So this is good.

I know in my own patch on Rēkohu, Wharekauri, the Chatham Islands, this very thing where you have imi, iwi, looking at how to enact governance with tauiwi on an island that big, this will be looked at carefully. Too often you have advisers or others that act in a way where they don’t have mana whenua authority or authentication to act in a way where they are speaking truly for mana whenua Māori. Then you get confusion because some, like myself, who aren’t from Wellington when I was elected on to Wellington city—I’m not from here—but I certainly made it clear that having a Treaty partnership enacted through something like this would have been ideal, solely because they could have spoken as true mana whenua representatives.

This is a good bill. This is a good day, and I commend this bill to the House.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the right to reply to conclude this debate. What a debate it has been. We have certainly canvassed a wide range of views around the House. But I am very proud of this bill. I am proud of being a sponsor of this bill and for the work of Environment Canterbury, along with Ngāi Tahu, to put back in place a proven successful arrangement. I am saddened but not surprised at the opposition from the National Party and the ACT Party. However, I do want to respond to just a few points that were raised. Why is this a local bill? Well, as I said in my speech, this is a bespoke arrangement which is unique to Environment Canterbury, cannot really be duplicated anywhere else beyond the South Island, I would imagine, because of the unique arrangement of having a single iwi which is the Treaty partner over such a vast geographic area which encompasses ECan—Environment Canterbury. So that’s why it’s a local bill. But it seeks to modify those pieces of legislation specifically for that region—that’s why it’s a local bill.

We opposed the actions of the National Government at the time, but we never opposed the appointment of mana whenua representatives to Environment Canterbury. In fact, I signalled in one of my speeches, I remember, what will happen when the arrangement ends and how can we ensure that this endures, and this is what we’re doing right now. We’re ensuring that the arrangement of Ngāi Tahu councillors endures through the passage of this local bill.

I don’t really want to go into the remarks around feudalism and the likes from the ACT Party, suffice to say that the foundation of Aotearoa is built on a Treaty foundation, built on the bicultural reach between the iwi, between the chiefs, and the Crown. That is the foundation, and that is the guiding beacon which this bill actually represents, because Ngāi Tahu representation—why? Because Ngāi Tahu is the Treaty partner. Ngāi Tahu aren’t gaining any great advantage. They are only getting what the Treaty guarantees them, and Environment Canterbury understands that. They have put that into this bill. It’s been proven successful in the past, and they’re just reactivating it through the passage of this bill.

I acknowledge the passion which the Hon Willie Jackson committed to this debate. He did actually cross the line, and he was admonished for that and disciplined, but I do acknowledge that, you know, he is a powerful advocate as the Minister for Māori Development. You will not take that out of Willie—Mr Jackson, Mr Jackson.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: And you will always cross the line!

RINO TIRIKATENE: Yes, te rārangi toa—he stands that front line.

But I want to acknowledge all of the contributions from around the House, in particular Eugenie Sage, an experienced former councillor on Environment Canterbury, and I thank the Green Party for their support of this legislation. I acknowledge them and that they get it—they get it. We get it on this side of the House. Mr Brownlee, yes, I also recall from the last bill that we debated in this House—you know, we didn’t have the numbers on that day, but I said to Mr Brownlee that we would be back. I said that like the big mountain Aoraki, it stands tall and it endures. It stands tall in the day and in the night, and we’re back again, looming large with this momentous bill, and I’m really looking forward to it going to select committee, getting full consideration and examination from members of the public, who are welcome to submit. I thank the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, who will be ushering the bill through that very important process. So I look forward to contributing into that process as well, and I welcome Mr Doocey to do so as well.

But this is a timely bill that we’re looking to reactivate, and I’m thoroughly excited that we can have this first reading and take it to the next step. I’m really looking forward to that, and so I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

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

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

SPEAKER: The House is resumed. I’m going to ask the Government Whips, before I ask the Serjeant-at-Arms, to inquire of where Mr Jackson is and require him to come the House immediately.

Damien Smith: He’s over in Huxley’s with—

SPEAKER: Sorry?

Damien Smith: He’s over in Huxley’s. I saw him over in Huxley’s.

SPEAKER: I still can’t hear him, sorry.

Hon Stuart Nash: Do you want me to give him a call?

SPEAKER: No, we’re going to get on with the business of the House while we’re waiting for him. I call on members’ order of the day No. 1.

Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill

Consideration of Report of Justice Committee

GINNY ANDERSEN (Chairperson of the Justice Committee): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Justice Committee on the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill.

Motion agreed to.

SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments recommended by the Justice Committee be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

SPEAKER: The question is that the bill now proceed.

Motion agreed to.

SPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee this bill is set down for committee stage forthwith. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill.

In Committee

Debate resumed from 9 June.

Part 1 Amendments to Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, and Schedule 1

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House is in committee on the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill. We come first, members, to the debate on Part 1, this is the debates on clauses 3 to 7B, and Schedule 1—“Amendments to the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. There seems to be a little procedural change that we weren’t expecting, so apologies to the committee. I just want to put on record the changes that were made at the Justice Committee, so that there is some context in terms of how this debate will go for the rest of the session.

This bill has had a start of a committee of the whole House. It was on 1 July 2020 referred to the Justice Committee. It had unanimous support from all parties in Parliament, and there was a significant amount of work by the select committee and the determination of the chair that we could have a bill that all parties would continue to support. I want to put on record my thanks to the Justice Committee chair, Ginny Andersen, for the professional and very deliberate way in which she chaired the select committee to ensure that we had time to consider the issues during the select committee.

On 16 April 2021, it was reported back to the House with extensive amendments agreed by the select committee. They were unanimously accepted in the second reading on 12 May. However, on 24 May, the Chief Justice wrote to the Attorney-General raising concerns about the implications of some of the amendments that had been agreed. One of the key areas raised was the amended wording of the proposed verdict. I tabled Supplementary Order Paper 52 at the time, in response to some of the Chief Justice’s concerns. However, on 30 June, the bill was referred back to the select committee with the instruction that the committee consider the Chief Justice’s advice on the bill.

We requested advice on the original verdict—the verdict the select committee chose and the verdict used in New South Wales. The bill as introduced said, and I quote, “the acts or omissions are proven but the defendant is not criminally responsible on account of insanity”. The select committee amended the verdict to “proven but insane”. So we sought officials’ advice on both the use of either of those options and the New South Wales verdict of “act proven but not criminally responsible”. Officials provided advice on three other alternatives. We have landed on a compromise, and that is in the bill that we are debating in the committee of the whole House today, and that says “act proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity”, which meets the needs of all parties: victims, those who are facing charges, the judiciary, and Parliament.

My thanks to officials in the Parliamentary Counsel Office for getting this done so promptly, and for the unanimous cooperation of the members of the select committee, who worked so hard to get to a position that we could all agree with.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Madam Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the bill. Look, I’d like to, firstly, acknowledge the Hon Louise Upston as the member in charge of the bill for bringing such a weighty issue before this Parliament, one that’s taken a considerable amount of work from members from across both sides of the House.

I’d like to also briefly acknowledge the submitters. I think that during the select committee stage of the bill, I heard probably some of the most harrowing and difficult stories from those submitters who came forward to share their stories, and I would like to put it on the record to acknowledge that effort and how difficult that was—for those family members of victims as well. I’d like to also generally acknowledge victims of crime. This is a bill that’s very much attempted to give greater justice to the victims of crime and to carve out greater space within the criminal justice system for the rights of victims.

This bill is an ambitious one, as it’s taken on two very complex areas that I can see that the debate going forward in the House will cover, and I’d like to outline those two areas. The first being balancing the rights of victims alongside meeting the needs of the legal requirements of the criminal justice system and doing that in a way that meets those needs, but also provides for victims in the courtroom space. Secondly, it also strikes a balance between the mental health needs of the offender and the needs of the victim and their family; improving the interaction between our mental health system and also our criminal justice system, which is no easy feat.

So as we’ve heard already from the member in charge of the bill, this bill has already received a second reading. An important recap is to recap the legislative process to date as the passage of the bill has not been a typical one. The critical part of this bill has been the verdict that is read out in the courtroom. So the initial attempt was to address the verdict, which was read out as “not guilty on account of insanity” and those words “not guilty” were the words that were so hurtful to victims and families of victims who were having to hear “not guilty”. When the committee initially heard those concerns of submitters, we took advice and attempted to strike that balance between the needs of victims and the requirements of law.

After the committee had reported back to the House, as already outlined, the Chief Justice wrote to the Attorney-General highlighting concerns regarding changing to the definition the committee had arrived at, and that was “proven but insane”. In particular, there was real concern raised around using that word “proven”, and that goes right to the heart of requirements for mens rea and actus reus in order for a crime to be proven. The Chief Justice emphasised the fundamental legal principle underpinning the finding of not guilty on account of insanity, and that is that the defendant by definition is not guilty because of that mental element, that mens rea, and the element of the offence had not, in fact, been proven. On the other hand, the central purpose of the bill outlined by the member is to avoid the victim and their family hearing the words “not guilty”. So this was a difficult balancing act, and at this point the bill was referred back to the select committee for a second time to have another crack at striking that balance and getting that right.

So where the committee has arrived at is “act proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity”. While that’s a bit of a mouthful, the committee feels and has had good advice that that lands in terms of meeting those legal requirements for the criminal process, as well as sitting well with victims of crime and those families who will be sitting in the courtroom when the process is heard. While it’s been a difficult balancing act, I think we’ve got there in the end.

I’d like to acknowledge too the role of Simon Bridges, who was the lead spokesperson from National, who actually took his legal background and put it to good use by trying to assist in finding that middle road.

The committee considered a number of options, and what we’ve really arrived at now is we’ve completed that consideration and it’s really pleasing to see that the committee has reached a unanimous position on the way forward. So this is where we are now.

I’d like to continue on further if possible and continue here. I would like to continue by outlining why Labour supports the bill. I think it’s important to have that there—

Debate interrupted.

KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. I apologise for interrupting the debate, but I seek leave to report progress and sit again presently.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The committee has considered the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill and reports progress.

SPEAKER: The Chair moves accordingly—and that is that the committee has reported progress on the bill and has sought leave to sit again presently.

Motion agreed to.

SPEAKER: The House is resumed. I should have said that earlier.

INTERVENTIONS

Unparliamentary Language—Apology

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Mr Speaker, I was kicked out of the House earlier—

SPEAKER: No, no. The member will take his mask off.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh! Apologies again, Mr Speaker. I was kicked out of the House earlier today, or left the House earlier today, and on reflection I want to offer the House an apology for the unparliamentary language that I used at the time. So I apologise and withdraw for the statement that I made.

SPEAKER: Thank you. I declare the House in committee for consideration, for further consideration, of the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill.

Bills

Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, and Schedule 1

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House is in Committee on the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill. The House was considering Part 1, and the question was—

Ginny Andersen: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Ginny Andersen.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. In terms of outlining the main, core reasons why we are supporting the bill, which is important to outline in this debate, it reflects the same values that Labour has in those areas of victims’ rights. It promotes justice, it promotes transparency, and it also respects survivors of crime and also their communities. I think it’s important to note that this legislation cannot undo or even mitigate the things people have experienced and those victims of crime have experienced. However, we do hope that we can alleviate some of the most difficult elements dealing with this complex and challenging area of our legal system for people in the future, and to note that the aim of this bill is to better align the treatment of victims of offenders found legally insane with victims of regular offenders in the justice system, which has been a difficult but worthwhile task that’s been done.

This Government supports legislation that respects the rights and the needs of victims of crime and also, at that same time, keeps the public safe. This bill is consistent with our work to improve victims’ experience of the justice system. It is also of utmost importance that survivors of crime are not revictimised through the justice process, while the offenders’ rights and obligations are also met.

I think it’s important to outline some of the key changes in the bill that’ve been undertaken by its two trips to the select committee and to underline some of the work that’s been taken in Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the bill. In terms of Part 1 of the bill, the amendments to criminal procedures, that in particular looks at those around mental health and trying to create that alignment between the criminal justice system and also those needs of people who have mental health concerns. Under Part 1, some of those issues relate to the “Report by the Director of Mental Health on the defendant’s continued detention” and also “When victims must be notified of impending decisions under section 31 or 33”, and that’s covered off under clause 7A in Part 1 of the legislation.

While we’ve also discussed, already covered, that using the new verdict will assist in doing this, there’s also consequences following finding of a new verdict, and one of the Chief Justice’s concerns was that the bill would be unclear about what the consequences of a finding of the proposed verdict would actually be. So the committee therefore unanimously recommended adding a new section, which is 20(1)(c), to provide that a judge must acquit a defendant on account of their insanity if this finding was made. This would be consistent with the consequences following the Act’s current verdict of “not guilty on account of insanity” and would also reflect the language currently used in describing the consequences of the verdict.

The committee also recommended providing proposed new section 20(1)(b), that in finding that an act was “proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity”, a judge is required also to explain that meaning of the finding to the defendant, which is an important change in making our court processes more transparent, more understandable, not only to those who are before the court but those who are supporting a victim through the process. This change is designed to help ensure that the defendant and others in the courtroom understand the verdict.

Also, there’s been some really good improvements in terms of what the bill aims to do. The bill, as already stated, aims to ensure the equivalent treatment of victims of a legally insane offender with other victims of crime. It also seeks to develop a more victim-centred approach when the court is considering cases involving defendants found unfit to stand trial or acquitted on account of insanity. So the key ways under Part 1 that that is done is through renaming the verdict of “not guilty on account of insanity” to “act proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity”. [Time expired]

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. So I want to just refer to the only Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that is now on the table related to this bill. For those who are just watching this debate now, in the prior committee of the whole House there were SOPs—No. 40, which has been withdrawn and that is now replaced by No. 98—and I just wanted to explain a couple of those changes. They are very much cross-referencing changes that are picked up as part of the drafting process. So they’re very technical changes, and also in one, with the change to clause 8B, new section 50, it is to ensure consistency with the wording of the Mental Health Act. So I just wanted to put on record to clarify for the House that SOP 42 no longer exists, it’s been replaced with 98. What was SOP 52 in the prior committee stage had been incorporated when the bill went back to the select committee, as outlined by the chair Ginny Andersen.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): It’s a real joy to stand up and dig in with the Hon Louise Upston, into this bill because this is an awesome little bill. As I understand it, with my very minor experience in this Chamber, it’s had a very unusual process, as my colleague Ginny Andersen, the chair of the committee, and the Hon Louise Upston have both begun to describe. I’m sure that that we will have more of this because it’s been a fascinating thing.

But I do want to just take this moment because there is real weight and significance to this matter. There is tremendous detail to go through, and it is important that we explain it in that detail that only a committee stage gives us the opportunity to do. But I do want to start by talking about the philosophic significance of this—and the Hon Louise Upston, I want to dig in a little bit to that with you tonight.

I come from a background in law and, particularly, in the rights of victims and the place of victims in the adversarial court. When I began that work, to my shame, it’s—well, to my shame, not to my shame at all. What an awful ageist thing to do. Over 25 years ago, when I started work looking at the plight of victims in our justice system, what was really the case when I dug into that, victims do not have a place in the traditional criminal adversarial system—they simply do not. They are tools of the lawyers and the judges to be used for the evidence that can be got from them and then set aside. That is the fundamental problem with the position of victims in an adversarial system, which is essentially that dialectic discussion between the prosecution and the defence. In that system a victim really has no place except as cannon fodder.

It is very different, if you look across the ditch, from the originator of the adversarial system in England. If you look across to France and you see the inquisitorial system, and you look there, and what you see is a system that is dominated by the State whose interest is in setting right the situation, the imbalance, that has arisen by the commission or the allegation of a crime. For that system the victim actually does have an integral place in the system and a part to play and a role and a right to stand, as we say in this Chamber, and as they say in courthouses across the land. There a victim has a lawyer. A victim has a right to make submissions. A victim has a right to a say in a sentence in a very, very different way to the small and cautious way in which we allow our victims into court to have a say on the disposition of the case. So it seems to me, from the outset, when I got to grips with this bill, that it is actually putting a pou in the sand and advancing one more step along something that I know is very dear to this Government’s heart, which is to integrate victims into the criminal justice system to give them the respect and the voice that they have so lacked for so very, very long.

When I began all those years ago—in fact, I think it’s closer to 30 than 25 when I try to do my addition, but my brain may be trying to ignore the fact. When I began as a 21-year-old it was common to hear victims talk about their sense of total disempowerment, their sense of a total lack of voice, and the fact that the trial was a re-victimisation. These things were common parlance, and I was really saddened when I heard those same experiences. And the Hon Louise Upston, you will know this better than I do.

Maureen Pugh: What’s the question—what’s the question?

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: I’m getting there, but it’s really important to set the scene, Ms Pugh.

Maureen Pugh: Very waffly.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: Thirty years of academia, give me a chance. I’ve got a long history here. [Bell rung] Thank you. Thirty years of academia cannot be put to bed in five minutes. I say that to the Opposition. It may put the rest of you to bed, but not me. So my point is, and to quote the great Ellen, “I do have one.” When we heard the experiences of those victims, back in the beginning of this process, the same pain that we hear from victims in a rape trial or in a sex trial was coming from them. That intense feeling of disenfranchisement and disempowerment in what was their experience. That intense feeling that they had walked into an arena where it should be, essentially, about their experience and their reality, and it was not. It was about them as tools of a system that was not focused on them at all. Therefore, it really struck me, the title you gave your bill, Ms Upston. Because rights for victims is almost a contradiction in terms in the adversarial system, as it has been traditionally conceived. Yet it is a real mark in the ground as to where you were going with that, and it is something where we see—you know, later this week, I hope we will be considering the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill. I see this bill as of a piece with the work that we will be doing on the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill. It is again about the place of and the respect given to victims or complainants in the process. It is about moving aside those two bullies, those two domineering people, the prosecutor and the defence, moving them aside and admitting into the frame that third person, the victim or complainant.

When I just go back to the inquisitorial system in France, it is sometimes thought that any mention of an inquisitorial system or the inquisitorial system might have advantages over ours is some intrinsic attack upon the rights of the defendant. When one sees the words “rights of victims” that is often seen by criminal defence or traditional criminal lawyers as an implicit attack on the rights of the defendant. But I think what you’re demonstrating here, Ms Upston, and what the work that we have here, that we did so painstakingly and with such passion and nerdy determination, particularly, if I may say so, from some of these slightly newer members of the Justice Committee. That level of nerdy attention was justified because we are doing something significant here.

But when I say that the inquisitorial system is often seen as a threat to the adversarial system, that the idea of inserting victims as players into the system with rights of standing of their own is seen as a threat, I really think that that seriously underestimates the capacity and the elasticity of the adversarial system because—and here comes the serious nerdism—it has been said over the last 20 years in research on the inquisitorial versus the adversarial system that, actually, they’re not opposed. They exist on a continuum. So you often see elements of the inquisitorial system creeping into the adversarial system, but also elements of the adversarial system creep the other way too. I think it’s really important to put that frame around it. When we talk about rights for victims, which 10 years ago would have been seen as a slap in the face, an existential threat to our criminal justice system—and I am not putting that too highly because I know criminal defence lawyers—when you come from that perspective, I think it is really important to put that debate into context, and say “This is not only a big step forward for our system but it is not a threat to our system.” Our system is endlessly elastic provided we stick to those fundamentals of the protection of the defendant’s human rights and dignity and the accurate fact finding. Once we know that we are holding those two intrinsic quests that make up a trial, once we know we have given those due respect, I think the trial is virtually, infinitely malleable, whether it is in terms of the procedures you use, whether you use pre-recording or whatever, or whether you allow a victim to have a place in the trial and to state their truth and to give their voice and to have rights.

So, Ms Upston, I’m inviting you, one very deep nerd to another, to stand and address us on why you named this bill the way you did, because I think it is important, and I think you should say it.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will take up that member’s—Emily Henderson’s—invitation. My intention, and I’ve spoken about it in the earlier readings of this bill, but it was the genesis of how this came about, actually, and it’s very much a people bill. It was based on a constituent coming into my electorate office in 2010 and raising an issue, raising his experience of the way he found the justice system as a victim when his brother had been killed by someone who was found to be insane at the time, and the clear difference between how he was treated, because the offender became a special patient in the health system as opposed to a criminal in the justice system. Therefore, the experience for him as a victim was so vastly different.

I think some of the frustration of Graeme Moyle and his family was that at that time there was a move to strengthen victims’ rights in a number of areas. So as the previous National Government and now the Labour Government have continued the mantle to improve the victims’ experience of the justice system, and as Ginny Andersen spoke about, have victims at the heart of the justice system, the expectation grew and the gap became wider in terms of his experience of what happened for him, and the very fact that when you have an offender that is found to be insane, it’s a very different pathway and a very unequal pathway. That’s very much what we heard from other submitters.

So in terms of Part 1—I know we are wandering a little bit, Madam Chair, if you can indulge me for a moment—the rights for victims of insane offenders was very deliberately chosen based on a very real human experience which I felt, as a member of Parliament, was wrong. I’m immensely grateful for this House for the time and effort that has gone in during a select committee process where we honour those victims and give them greater rights.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take a call in relation to this very important bill. I would like to thank the member, Louise Upston, as a number of my colleagues have done, on her really important work in this area. But also, as a newer—maybe not so new—member of the Justice Committee, I really was extremely impressed with the collegiality across the committee on what was actually quite a difficult and complex area of the law and one that I think we spent the appropriate amount of time on, because these weren’t easy decisions at all. They require a balancing of rights, both of the experience of the victims, but also the criminal justice process itself and the rights of the accused, which strays into the mental health space.

My colleague mentioned that she had worked in the criminal justice space; for me, a lot of my work has been on the defence side. And I do think when you’ve been doing that for a number of years, sometimes it can be difficult to consider the space of victims’ rights. It was about two months ago when I met the Chief Victims Advisor at a men’s rights activist meeting, and it was really that discussion and then reading her report from 2019, which called for several changes to be made in the space of victims’ rights, that I really saw the process we were going through a select committee quite differently. It is something else to sit in that room and listen to the stories we did. So I’d also thank the member not just for the important changes but for giving those families a space to be heard. I think one of the things I learnt early on is that it’s not always just the families; it’s people who witnessed some of these atrocious acts, including colleagues in employment settings, including members of the public as well.

This is a complex area of the law and one of the changes that we looked at—actually several times; there were three iterations—was the verdict itself. So I just want to spend a bit of time and then perhaps ask a question on that. So as some have traversed, after the bill received its original second reading on 12 May, the Chief Justice wrote to the Attorney-General on behalf of the bench stating that they had concerns and then it was referred back to select committee. So the three iterations that we had—the first one included a reference to “acts and omissions” and also included a reference to the “defendant”. The second, when it came back to the House, initially included the words “proven but insane” and where we are now as we’ve revisited the definition is a unanimous position on the way forward, which I do think is extraordinary, but also does justice to the balance that we need to strike in this place. And that is the wording that the “act [is] proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity”.

So what I felt we did in many ways is we actually revisited where the member was initially with that section. To me, it gives that same sense of highlighting the act while making it clear that both elements of the offence hadn’t been met. I mean, I would like to just have that assurance—the words from the member in terms of her sense of whether that did bring us back to where she initially saw that piece of the bill, because I do think that that is the most significant change to the bill.

The second question I would ask is there were a number of submitters who questioned whether if we changed the verdict that would also bring a lack of clarity to those in the courtroom. So we’re not just talking about the victims and the families and others who might have witnessed the act in this case but we’re also really talking about potential jurors and, of course, the accused themselves. So if the member would, I would very much love to hear her thoughts on whether we have landed—not exactly, but, in fact, very close to the intention of where the original verdict clause was.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I move, That the question be now put.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair, and congratulations to the member Louise Upston for getting the bill this far. There’s a couple of questions I really invite you to talk to—and I saw her about to get to her feet before—and I guess the first is this, and it’s about the kind of importance of the concept of mens rea as an ingredient of guilt. The phraseology chosen of “not criminally responsible” is clearly dispensing with the idea of “not guilty”, and it seems to be right there in the nub of this bill that we are putting insane people into a kind of different category. The law’s long recognised that the actus reus and the mens rea are critical ingredients of guilt, and that if you don’t have either of those components—the intention that’s necessary and the critical thinking skills necessary to form that intention—then you are not guilty. I’m really asking whether that undermines the concept of mens rea as an ingredient of guilt itself, of the responsibility from which flows criminal conviction and the sentencing that follows.

I guess the other thing I’d just point out, and it may be for a later part: the bill’s called the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill; this is not about offenders at all. It’s about insane accuseds. They never become offenders. They didn’t commit the offence. They are not criminally responsible. Once again, we’ve got a person here who is seriously mentally unwell if they don’t have the ability to form the intention to commit a crime, and yet the bill tags them as offenders when they are not offenders.

Now, I understand the Justice Committee recommended that in reaching a verdict, as set out in this bill, the judge is to explain what “not criminally responsible by reason of insanity” means and how that interplays. I’d be interested in the thoughts of the member. I think it’s really important because, I’m sure, the courts will look at these debates to understand what that might entail. What would, in particular, the victim want to know about the verdict? What kind of equipment do we want to give the judiciary in terms of the intention of this House when they come to say to a victim, “This person isn’t going to jail, isn’t going to be punished, and the reason is they don’t have the mental capacity to have committed this crime. They are not guilty. They are not offenders. They are not criminally responsible. But that does not diminish the fact that you have suffered sometimes some very grievous, you know, acts at the hands of these people.” But I do think, in striking this balance—and I know the member’s tried desperately hard to strike the right balance—we’ve got to be cautious that whilst we can say a verdict which is, you know, “not criminally responsible”, we steer away from then saying, “The person who is the accused is an offender.”, because the verdict itself declares that they’re not.

So I’d be interested in your views on mens rea, and also in your views as to whether it’s appropriate to identify the accused person as an offender and as to what we might be asking of the courts in explaining the verdict to the court and, in particular, to the victim. Kia ora.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Chair. So, just continuing from where I was, in terms of the focus on court processes, I would very much like to hear from the member about the balancing of rights within the courtroom but also clarity and how the new addition of the new section 20, I believe it is, makes that clear for all parties in the courtroom.

There was another question, I think, for me, that came up as we were hearing submissions, and I’ll refer back again to the Chief Victims Advisor report that she wrote back in 2019, where she made some quite broad comments about the rights of victims and that they stemmed from the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. She actually went and interviewed a number of victims and included some really alarming quotes from some of them about their experiences. One thing I was quite interested in was how she defined victims. This is an issue that came up in select committee because of the nature of the submissions that we heard from many families. And I know that the Hon Dr Nick Smith was very interested in this particular aspect of the bill as well, because it’s a question of scope.

So we heard from some individuals that, where an individual is declared unfit to stand trial in the first place, the individuals who had suffered harm from an act that they had committed would go without justice—whereas, if this bill were to come into force without extending to that group of people individuals who had suffered harm for someone who was declared to have committed the acts but didn’t have the actus reus, they would have some space within the courtroom; they would be able to read a victim impact statement. I don’t recall whether it was Dr Smith or not, but one of the issues that came up was whether, if you had an individual who was declared unfit to stand trial at the time that they had been charged but subsequently, after receiving an appropriate amount of treatment through mental health services, were deemed to be sufficiently capable—how would they fit into this sort of regime, and are our laws sufficient to ensure that that person is then tried and those individuals do also have the same ability to provide statements in court?

So I’d be curious also, in addition to my earlier question about court processes and clarity, just to hear from the member about whether the intended scope that she started out with when she introduced this bill—whether she considered expanding it at any stage when hearing from those individuals. I thought that was quite a novel argument that was made at select committee. And, if not, why not, and does she see this as a gap in the law or that it’s adequately dealt with by current legal processes?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Emily Henderson.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Thank you very much, Madam Chair—

Ginny Andersen: My question for the member—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Apologies.

Ginny Andersen: Oh, I thought you said—Henderson and Andersen almost sound the same.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Emily Henderson.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I won!

I want to really respond to and perhaps riff on what my colleague Professor Duncan Webb was talking about before, because I think, again, this is something that—he’s right, lawyers and judges are going to go back and they’re going to look at these things and they’re going to wonder what the heck we were on about. So I think it is important that we talk about this. When we look at Part 1 and we look at clause 3A, which is amending the interpretation section—that’s the first point at which, as you’ll remember, Ms Upston, that we introduced our new verdict, which, as all of the previous speakers have alluded to, caused us quite a bit of angst. It caused quite a few people quite a bit of angst because, again, this is something that really goes to the heart of what you were trying to do, I think, but also what the criminal justice system—long-held tenets of the criminal justice system. And, in particular, as my colleague, Mr Webb—Professor Webb, as I’m now going to call him for the rest of the evening—

Dr Duncan Webb: Don’t do that.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: Don’t do that—was saying, it goes to that mens rea / actus reus aspect. I really would like you to spend some time talking to us about your thoughts about how we got to that definition because, as my colleague Vanushi Walters said, it’s actually very close to your original. In the end, after all that, we circled back after all that discussion. But for me, “act proven”—and “proven” was the word that became a real hiccup because proven suggests that the crime was committed, and for a crime to be committed, of course, you’ve got to have both those things: the actus reus, the act, and you’ve got to have the mental intention. A person who is insane cannot form that mental intention and traditionally, by that very nature, that is it, they are not an offender. They can be accused, but they cannot be convicted of the offence in the traditional way.

But this was of immense emotional importance, as I recall. This was—I remember Ms Upston saying, I remember the submitters saying that once you hear “not guilty”, you don’t hear anything else. You don’t take in insanity, you don’t take in the explanations. So our challenge was to craft a verdict which made it both clear to the justice system that we did not consider this person could be convicted of a crime, but also to the victim that we recognise that something was done to them and it was this person who did it. So we had to balance that. We had to balance the validation of that experience—“Yes, this person did this thing to you.”—with the criminal law’s inability to, I guess, bring that reality home to the person because they don’t fit the definition, they don’t fit our system. So what we did was to say the act is proven, the actus reus has occurred, but the person is not criminally responsible on account of insanity. Meaning, as we saw it, I think, insanity has rendered them—the mens rea element has gone so they are not criminally responsible, but they still did it, they just don’t have the mens rea. Therefore, that is where we came to.

Now, later on, when we get to that part, I would really like to get you to dig into the fact that we did then go and change the definition of “offender” and “offence” to include for the purposes of the Victims Rights Act, in order to do that other very important thing, which was to synchronise the rights of the victim of an ordinary offender and the victim of someone who is insane. In order to be able to synchronise their notice provisions and all of that, we had to change the definition of what an offender is for the purposes of the Victims’ Rights Act. So that’s, I think, where the title comes from also.

So I wonder if you would be prepared to just talk about that interplay of factors: the need for notice and the need to have that trickle down in the practical sphere.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My question to the member is in relation to Part 1, clause 7A, and there’s several new sections in there that are really in and around the notification to the victim. This is a part of the bill that hasn’t been discussed so much. We focused a lot on that definition and getting that balance between the needs of victims and the needs of the criminal justice system, but what we haven’t discussed—and my question to the member of the likely impacts of these changes—is in and around the Justice Committee examining section 50 of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act, which provides that the Minister of Health may grant leave of absence with a special patient from a hospital into the community, quite often subject to conditions specified in the section.

So we decided that the bill should require that victims of persons found insane be notified when the special patient is being considered for leave of absence. And I know there were specific examples provided by the member herself and also by submitters to the committee in and around some really negative circumstances where there had been victims of crime who then, without purpose or planning, had bumped into the alleged or the offender in particular instances, and the perverse circumstances and the negative impacts upon the victim that that might have. So we decided the bill should require that victims of persons found insane be notified when a special patient is being considered for leave of absence. This is really important. So this would, in the committee’s view, prepare the victim for the possibility of the patient getting greater autonomy or being released into the community. So the need was highlighted, as I said, through several submitters who raised this and who noted that victims felt like they were not even considered to be relevant to this process as it stood, and could even be surprised to find out retroactively that the offender had been, in fact, granted leave, and even granted leave in close proximity to the residence of the victim and their family.

So the fact is that the victim is now provided, through this course of legislation, with the right to submit their view to the Minister when the offender is being considered for a leave of absence. So alongside this amendment in this section, there is also the view that the victim has the right to make a submission when the offender is being considered for leave of absence. And I think this is a really important change that the committee has taken through. So I’m interested to hear the member’s views in terms of the impacts upon this for victims’ rights. When the committee looked into this area—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Can I just ask the member to come back to Part 1.

GINNY ANDERSEN: Sure, sure. Part 1 is rights for victims under clause 7A, new section 33C: the “Right of victims to make submissions on proposed change of status”, and that’s on page 1 of the bill in Part 1. So that is covered in Part 1.

So in doing so, the intent is to give victims a voice where they are currently being silenced, and to give them the opportunity to bring to the attention of those making the decision any considerations that might help them apply, where practical, leave conditions that minimise the chances of a person found insane and the victim coming into contact, which could have some quite awful experiences for that victim to be then re-victimised.

So it’s important to note that the intent of this change is not to impose on the clinical decision making in this process, but it is really to provide greater transparency in the system and also for those people who have been impacted upon the crime to be kept abreast of what changes are happening. It goes back to that key point made right at the beginning of this debate: that trying to get a good coincidence—the talking points between the criminal justice system and the mental health system to make sure that where there is an overlap there, that there’s an ability for those two systems to interact in a way that takes into account the needs of the offender, who may have ongoing mental health treatment needs within the health system, but also the rights of the victim, who needs to be protected through the criminal justice process.

So I’m really interested to hear from the member in charge of the bill how some of those more fundamental changes in terms of victim notification and also giving the victim the right to submit their view to the Minister will impact in the wider ambit of improving the rights of victims through the criminal justice process.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. A number of the contributions from the Labour members that were on the select committee, I think, have answered their own questions, because we did come to agreement around these very difficult balances. So the thing I want to put back on the record is the clear policy intent in the drafting of this bill in my name. That is very simply that in these cases the hearing of the finding “not guilty” is just so appalling for the victims.

I want to explain why, because it’s very connected to why the use of the word “proven” in the finding was so critical. Yes, I accept the select committee tussled with it for quite some time, both the first time and the second time, and the “proven” is really important. I’m not going to traverse the details of the cases, because I know that the victims, some of them, shared their stories for the very first time. So I want to honour them by not going into the detail of what occurred. But the reality is there is zero doubt about who committed the act. Yes, they were found not criminally responsible because they were found to be insane at the time that the act or offence occurred. But the very simple reality is that no one else is being looked for. And in the most harsh examples—and I refer to my constituent, the death of his brother, there was only one person who committed the act that took his brother’s life. That’s why, in terms of the finding, the removal of “not guilty” was critical from a policy perspective to deliver the intent of the bill, as was the word “proven”.

The other thing that I want to put on record, and it has been referred to by many of my colleagues who worked so diligently with me to get this bill right, was the need to balance the person who had been found to be insane and their needs, as well as the victims’ needs. One of the interesting comments that came through this process was how confusing it is both for the victim and for the person that’s been found to be insane to have heard “not guilty”, because the finding was “not guilty” but then that person was taken into the custody of the Ministry of Health as a special patient. For some of those special patients, hearing the words “not guilty” added to their confusion in terms of why their liberties, as they knew it, were being constrained. I think that we managed that balance of the really important needs of the person with a severe level of mental illness to be found to be insane—I think we very carefully balanced their needs and their rights as well as the rights of the victims.

Coming to the question about the victims’ notification of impending leave. There was another item of business that was before the Justice Committee, and that was a petition in the name of Wendy Strawbridge. That petition was dealt with in parallel to my member’s bill. And again, I want to acknowledge the Justice Committee for making that decision to handle them in parallel, because Wendy Strawbridge was a community nurse and attempted murder was the charge that the man who attacked her faced in court. He was found to be not guilty on account of insanity. But what was most destructive for her and why she was so motivated to put the petition to Parliament was that without any knowledge, without any information, the special patient who attacked her and very nearly killed her was then released unescorted into the same community that she lived in. Had this been a criminal in the justice system, she would have been notified as a victim.

So again, very careful consideration was made in terms of balancing the needs of the special patient and making sure there was nothing that we decided in the select committee that would be detrimental to their recovery and their health and that balanced the needs with the victims’ to be safe in their own community. At this point I want to also acknowledge the work of the officials from the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Health, who grappled with some pretty challenging issues in balancing it out. And I think with the considerable efforts of the select committee members, we struck that balance right.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Louise Upston’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 98 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 1, as amended, agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, and Schedule 2

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to Part 2, and this is—

Hon Members: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Ha, ha! I did have some words to say, but Emily Henderson also has.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Madam Chair, this is just a red-letter day for those people whose names end with “son” rather than “sen”.

All right, we’ve come now to Part 2. I had a few more things to say about Part 1, but I’m pretty sure that because of the way we’ve had to structure this omnibus bill, we can still discuss them. Isn’t that fun?

The start of Part 2 is really about how we grappled with the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, which is the same year I started work in vulnerable witnesses—oh, my God, I’m old. Anyway, this, of course, comes to the issue that we’ve already alluded to, which is that this bill has two significances, other than my overarching obsession with the rights of victims. The first one, of course, is that placing of the victim at the changing of a verdict, which we’ve already discussed in some detail, and I was very pleased to see that I was being joined in my nerdy-ness on this side of the Chamber.

But the second part of it is about that difficult process of finding an equivalence for the rights of victims of ordinary offenders—non-insane offenders—as opposed to insane persons, who we went on to deem offenders. I would like Ms Upston to talk to that, because it was a very difficult operation. These systems—the mental health system and the criminal law system and the penal system—are not used to talking to each other; in fact, they operate almost oblivious to the other.

One of the real privileges, I think, of this process was having the Director of Mental Health before us again and again, and he was extraordinarily kind to a bunch of enthusiasts who did not understand the system as we needed to. But he also did us the courtesy of taking our endeavour seriously and of walking us through the balance between the rights and needs of the insane person, who is a patient and who is a sick person in need of protection and treatment, and making sure that in our zeal to ensure the inclusion of the victim, we did not overstep into the rights of the insane person, and that was not easy, particularly when the system has no real compatibility, and, frankly, I didn’t think the mental health system really had much interest in the legal system, which, of course, came as a shock to a lawyer.

When we had that discussion, there were those three different Acts that we needed to marry up in order to create our equivalence, and I would like you to talk us through what they were and why they were. But also, I’d like you to talk through your thoughts about why it was important that we actually grapple with that and intrude on the treatment of patients and try to include this new element in the work of clinicians.

It was interesting watching them grapple with that, because I remember that, at one point, and it was Ginny Andersen talking about this earlier today who reminded me of this, they talked about how they had never really had the opportunity to learn some of the things that victims could tell them which were, in fact, relevant to treatment—for example, the letting out of the person and the leave provisions, which go across two different Acts for the different stages of the leave. I think Ms Upston would do the community a service if she spent a little bit of time on how it works, and maybe that is where I should stop. I feel that it would do the community a service if Ms Upston would take us through how the process of leave works and how we sought to integrate the victim into that notification process, because it was extremely complicated.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak to this part of the bill, which I also think raises some really complex issues about rights balancing that we certainly heard a lot of in some of the written submissions, including from some rather significant entities. I do think that it’s important that we consider again whether we struck the right balance in the space of victim submissions but also the privacy issues that were raised by a number of organisations.

I think there’s a tendency to see particular areas of the law as discrete and each contained in their own boxes, and what this bill highlighted for me was, really, that we were dealing with a complex overlap between the mental health system and the justice system. For me, as a West Auckland MP, over the last few months I’ve been out to see probations, who had also talked to me about the significant overlap they see fairly regularly in terms of the justice and mental health and wellbeing space. So it’s certainly an area that I think we need to become more practised and well versed in in terms of how we respond appropriately, really, across both.

Just going back to the specific tensions that were identified in the submissions we had before us, the first one was really about whether or not it was appropriate for a victim, their family, a member of the public, for their submission, their statement in terms of how the Act had impacted them, to influence a decision about release, whether that was short-term release or longer-term release. I think we did hear that from several of the submitters. So what we were really balancing was the need to be heard, the very valid concern of safety concerns, but also a question about what a decision maker in a health context should take into account as they were making this decision. We heard that, again, from a number of submitters.

The other big argument that was made was about the privacy space. So, once a decision had been made, what information should be provided to victims and their families? In this space, we heard from the Privacy Commissioner, who I believe raised some very valid concerns about privacy rights that we ought to protect. I know the Privacy Commissioner also had concerns about the information on health certificates and precisely what information was shareable and what information wasn’t. I think the point that the Privacy Commissioner was trying to make was that we ought to be distinguishing between things that attach to safety and things that really did attach to, you know, very private health information of the individual concerned. I do know that this is a balance, because what we heard from victims on the other side was that what they wanted to know is that the health system was adequately caring for and supporting those people in its care, that some sort of change was happening as they were there. They really wanted to know that progress was being made.

I do think there’s a big question about whether the balance is right, and these are very nuanced things in terms of what the influence should be going in but also what the scope of information is that comes out from those decision makers. I’m very aware, of course, that from a number of the submitters, from victims themselves, we heard about that sense of fear of just looking across the street and suddenly being struck by the accused. Interestingly, there’s some international literature that also suggests that often the accused don’t want to be in that scenario either. So, really, it’s finding the balance that protects them both, and for this clause in particular it may be that the same outcome best suits both the victims of the family as well as the accused. Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Again, I think the Labour members who were on the select committee and were so diligent in working with me on it in some ways are answering the issues they’re raising, because that is exactly one of the points.

I just want to step back a bit, though, in terms of, again, the intent behind this bill, which is, of course, an omnibus bill. And this part is the mental health compulsory assessment and treatment amendments. So when Graeme Moyle came into my electorate office in 2010, his first concern was that a special patient, the special patient that had killed his brother, was out in the community having unsupervised visits. So his primary concern was actually public safety and that an unsupervised visit by a special patient could lead to harm in the community. So then if you think about—one of the other significant policy intents is equivalence between the justice system and the health system. And if you are a victim in the justice system, you have the opportunity to present to the parole board. Although, as we worked through this, we clearly identified significant differences in terms of why that was not appropriate in the mental health system, and the bill was vastly improved in the select committee from where it started. So I want to acknowledge the select committee’s effort in that. What was important is that victims wanted to be able to be heard, and they also wanted to be notified. So those are the two key parts of the policy behind the changes that appear in here.

Obviously, the release of a special patient—there is a significant process, which Dr Crawshaw, who is the Director of Mental Health, outlined, and the process that he goes through in making recommendations to the Minister of Health. So we did a lot of work to strike the balance of ensuring that there was not any inappropriate influence and that the Director of Mental Health and the mental health team are clearly specialists with a wide range of skills that they bring to the table in that decision, and the victim’s voice was a component. The point that the member Vanushi Walters finished on was actually for some special patients it would be equally traumatising and damaging to their recovery to be confronted in the community with their victim. So we traversed the very necessary balance of the victim and the special patient. Again, I want to thank the select committee for taking the time to make sure that we had unanimous support and that the report that we brought back to this House was unanimously agreed, because we recognise this is a complex but very important issue to get right.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Look, in terms of Part 2 of the bill, the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill, which specifically makes amendments to the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act, there’s one area that I just would like to cover. I think there’s been a really good discussion already, but there’s one part that I think deserves being highlighted, and the member may wish to comment on this as well. What was fascinating for the committee to see was when, as mentioned, Dr Crawshaw, the Director-General of Mental Health, actually described the process. And sometimes, from the health perspective, it was seen as making decisions “with a bit of a black box”—was the term he used to describe that. So I would like to think that, through some of these changes, we’re actually making the system far more transparent and providing health professionals with more, I guess, real information from different sources to be able to make those decisions or make those recommendations to the Minister with a bit of a real-world flavour to it as well.

So I think that, in terms of what’s been said already to support that, it strikes that balance of making sure that health professionals are still acting within the best interests of the mental health patient—to make sure that their therapy and their journey back into wellness is being supported as appropriately as possible—but, at the same time, if there’s pertinent information provided by the victim or the family, that it’s being taken into account when that recommendation is being made to the Minister in terms of what to do. I think it was really interesting to see that there is a lot of effort that goes into those decisions, and I think that, for those submitters that were watching and listening and understanding some of that information, it is not a simple decision being made when someone is being released back into the community, and how that is done. There were some instances given by the Director-General of Health that quite specifically said that it would not be in the best interests of the patient if it was just a trip to the dairy or maybe a trip every second week—like, in the initial stages of someone being supported back into the community, that it’s not within the best interests of the patient for that information to be provided to the victim of the offence every single step of the way.

So that balance of making sure that the appropriate level of information is made available—I think, and the member may wish to comment, that this has made a considerable improvement to decision-making processes that has really managed to straddle both the criminal justice process and also the reintroduction of someone back into the community and that whole rehabilitative process of the mental health system. And let’s remember that New Zealand’s history in terms of mental health, of the way that we have treated mental health patients in the past, is a shocking and abysmal history of how people have, essentially, been incarcerated for what is a health issue. So to be able to make such improvements to our system that still guarantees victims and their families that ability to feel that their views have been taken into account whilst still providing the patient the ability to build back their life is there. So, I guess, that was just my view—that that was a really special point in the bill for me—and I invite further comment in that space.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I move, That the question be now put.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you. I appreciate very much the opportunity to take part in this committee stage of this bill, the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill. Unlike some of my colleagues, I wasn’t on the select committee that looked into this bill, but I did approach looking at this bill with a great degree of interest. So I do have some questions, and I apologise—I don’t have the expertise that some of my colleagues have, or, obviously, the member whose name the bill is in, Louise Upston, has in this area. So I would be quite interested to hear the answers to some of these questions—and also to just commend the Justice Committee for their work on this area. It seems to me that there’s been a lot of collaboration, which has been apparent since the second reading. I was in the House for the second reading, and I commend the member and the select committee for working together to create this bill.

The areas of the bill that I wanted to draw to the member’s attention are mainly in four areas. The first area, as someone who previously practised law and studied law, was the removal of the mens rea component of the offence. When I studied law, it was very much a necessary component to have that particular element of it, and it’s very novel and different to have this bill put forward without that component necessary as part of the conclusion of finding and the ultimate determination in this particular area. So that’s one thing that I found particularly interesting, but I do understand why the member has proposed that.

I was very moved by the way that the member has spoken about her constituent and how she came to put this bill forward. I think it’s in many ways the way that we should bring members’ bills—you see, myself being a backbencher MP—as non-ministerial members of Parliament: to listen to the concerns of our constituents and then bring these forward. I do think that she has spoken about the victims of the crimes that have been committed, and their families, in a very respectful and appropriate way, and so I think that’s really added to the quality of this debate—and also by other committee members who have spoken to this too. So I just wanted to commend the member for that. And so I do understand the reason that we have moved away from that element of mens rea.

The second element that I would be interested in is the role of the Minister is unusual—as someone who hasn’t been involved in the deliberations—and it might have seemed quite usual and it is probably a very good way of solving some very immediate issues under this Act. So the role of the Minister of Justice in, essentially, approving leave—that is a very novel element of criminal law that I had not often been familiar with. I hadn’t practised criminal law very much at all—a very short amount of time as a very, very junior lawyer. So that is one element of the bill, and specifically within this part that we discussing, and a part to which I wanted to bring to the attention of the member.

The third part, which is discussed in detail in this particular section in Part 2, was the interrelationship between the criminal law and our health system. Now, this is something that as a student of law you might not often consider to be particularly apparent, but it is clear from the experience of people that it is absolutely necessary that the criminal law, especially when dealing with insane offenders, interrelates and works properly and seamlessly with the health system. And so I commend the member for putting forward a system which looks at these two very important elements of our society and brings them together, and I wanted to give her the opportunity to explain how that works.

The last thing I had is really a genuine question, which—I hadn’t read all the submissions and been present at the select committee to hear a lot of the comments, but one thing I would be interested in and I haven’t actually heard it mentioned by any of my other colleagues yet either, is: has she heard from any families of insane offenders of their view of this particular bill? Because it became apparent to me in reading it that it might be that they too would appreciate this change, in terms of the clarity of the decision that ends up being put forward. So I just wondered if she had heard from any of the families of insane offenders—obviously, for them, a very difficult position to be in. And it is appropriate that we have clarity in our law. So I just wanted to ask her if she had heard that and if she could share that with the House. Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to quickly address a couple of the matters raised by the member who has just resumed her seat, Camilla Belich. The first thing is just to actually correct—it is the Minister of Health who grants the leave to the special patients, not the Minister of Justice.

The other thing is, from the public’s perspective, they just expect that the systems of Government work together, and they’re quite shocked when they don’t. So we have to move more into the world of the New Zealanders who access Government services and support, as opposed to living in the world of the system for the system’s sake. That is exactly what’s happening with this bill. It is from the world of the victim and the world of the special patient, and the collective efforts of the Justice Committee and the officials who nutted out things in the background have meant this is a piece of legislation that is for the New Zealanders who this bill should serve, as opposed to the systems themselves.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Louise Upston’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 98 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2, as amended, agreed to.

Part 3 Amendments to Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003, and Schedule 3

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we now come to Part 3. Part 3 is the debate on clauses 12 to 13A and Schedule 3, amendments to the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

The question is that the Hon Louise Upston’s amendments to Part 3, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 98, be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 3, as amended, agreed to.

Part 4 Amendments to the Victims’ Rights Act 2002, and Schedule 4

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we now come to Part 4, which is the debate on clauses 14 to 15A and Schedule 4, amendments to the Victims’ Rights Act 2002. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want to seek clarity—under Part 4, there’s also Part 2A. Is that taken as a separate part, or is it able to raise a question to the member in charge of the bill in relation to Part 2A?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh, I see. My understanding is that it is only Part 4 that is being amended.

GINNY ANDERSEN: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The point I wish to reach is under the next section, so under Part 2A.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): All right. So Part 2A is part of the bill which is being inserted by the passing of Part 4.

GINNY ANDERSEN: Right. I understand. Great. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to make a brief contribution, and interested in the member in the chair’s views, because I think one of the most important changes to the bill is contained within that section, which relates to victim impact statements. So the Justice Committee has recommended amending the Victims’ Rights Act to allow victims of insane offenders the opportunity to make victim impact statements. In some ways, I guess, it’s unbelievable that this has not been made available in the past, that that right has not been taking place when there have been people who are accused who are unfit to stand trial or insane without having the requisite mens rea for the crime that’s been alleged.

So these statements will be parallel to those that already exist for victims of sane offenders, and will accordingly take place at the disposition hearing, which will take place after the offender has been found guilty or, in this case, proven to have committed the offence. I think it’s really important to note in this space that the victim impact statement will not be used to inform any clinical or judicial decision about the fitness of a person to stand trial. So just as it operates for those victims of offenders who are sane, this gives that right to the victim to be able to have their voice heard in the courtroom, to tell their part of the story, and for that voice to be conveyed clearly. That’s incredibly important in restoring the rights of victims in this space.

This change specifically reflects the submissions of 13 submitters who came before the committee and provided their views, including individual victims, and also a submission that was an excellent one from the New Zealand Council of Victim Support Groups. So I’m just interested to know from the member where this idea generated from. I think it’s been something that’s very, very loudly spoken through the submissions process, and it’s good to be able to see that right from the outset that this bill has attempted to provide a parallel process or a parallel ability for those victims of insane offenders to have the same rights and voice as anybody else going through the criminal justice system.

Dr Emily Henderson: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mr Chair.

Dr Emily Henderson: Mr Chair—Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Emily Henderson.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I thank you for your forbearance in the matter of gender pronouns. I know these things are very important these days. I often think with my teenagers that, you know, we were brought up to believe it didn’t matter who you were and whether you were a man or woman or gay, straight, or whatever. But for the generation today, it really matters, so you get told off when you get the wrong pronouns now, and I am having to learn it is important. We have evolved.

Right, I do want to just pick up on what Ginny Andersen’s just been saying, because I do think that this is something where it’s really important for those who will want to dig into this bill and want to investigate it because it is actually very significant philosophically to dig into that victim impact statement further. So I just want to go back: the Victims’ Rights Act, which introduced victim impact statements back in, I think, 2003, possibly 2002. I’ll just double check that—it’s 2002. That was a step change for the criminal system.

It brings with it—for those who don’t know, a victim impact statement, the traditional process or the normal process is that once the person is found guilty, when I was a prosecutor many years ago in Whangārei, the victim’s advisor would then work with the victim, who had now gone from being a complainant to a victim, and they would come up with a statement, and the statement had to be quite carefully worded. You weren’t allowed invective. You weren’t allowed to be needlessly abusive. You had to keep your submission within bounds. And if the person did not do that, then the judge was directed to pay no attention to those parts of that statement. There were then a series of processes for the delivery of that statement where the person could appear in court. But some victims are not capable of standing and addressing a courtroom. We did allow some victims to speak via CCTV, and all of those sorts of provisions were quite crucial. But we also allowed other people to read them, and when you read the newspaper. you’ll often see the victim’s advisor delivered so-and-so’s statement.

So that’s what we invented back in 2002, but when we brought it in today, when we were looking for it, and Ms Upston will remember—when we were looking at this quite vital part of the rights of personhood of a victim in this context, because that’s what it is, it’s not just about the usefulness of the statement, because that is the cloak we’ve kind of put over it, but really; it’s an assertion of the rights of personhood of the victim. It was difficult to find where we would put it, because the excuse for getting a victim in to give a statement normally is that it’s going to be useful to the sentencing process. We don’t have a sentencing process here. We had no room to play with. We had to, essentially, invent an option that the victim would be there at the disposition hearing when the decision is made that the person be committed for treatment. And that in itself has always seemed to me really quite significant and a bold move by the member in writing this bill. It recognised that final piece of the puzzle or that—it’s not the final piece of the puzzle; the middle piece of the puzzle, which is allowing them the right to stand and have their say in a courtroom that they otherwise do not have, pretty much unmediated provided they stayed within those bounds of civility. I would like the member to discuss why that was important to her from the beginning and to people who were the victims who came to her for representation in this matter.

That would be one thing I would really appreciate hearing on, and I think we all would. I think this is going to be something where academics are going to drill. Academics are going to have a field day with this bill because it is that significant. I certainly would, were I still in the ivory towers rather than the wooden building with the faux Grecian—lovely Grecian!—columns.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Chair, for an opportunity to speak to this fourth part on victim impacts statements. I think, for those members who aren’t fortunate enough to be on the Justice Committee, you’re getting a taste today of the level of detail with which we went through this bill but also how seriously we took this issue. And I spoke earlier tonight about the overlap between the justice and the health policy space, which I think is also a question about this part of the bill. But that conflict or that overlap was also present when we considered operational matters as well.

I didn’t take a second call on the last section, but one of the interesting questions that was raised there was procedurally, operationally what happens when a patient commits an offence while they’re out on leave? And what are the operational connections between justice and health that ensure that that data is captured and quick steps are taken? So, again, I would make the point that we need to be actively considering the interaction between the health and the justice space.

So in relation to the changes that are made here, this absolutely sits in that point of tension space in terms of giving victims a right to have their say, but also questioning, really, the impact that has on a relevant decision-maker, particularly in the health space, and what impact it should have. But this part of the bill isn’t just about the provision of the victim’s views, which we do have at clauses 14I and 14J; it’s also direction to judicial officers not to take into account withheld parts. So, again, you see that really fine approach to balancing of rights.

I would also point out a significant section, which I know is important for many of those who we heard from. And that is 13A, which is, really, the notice for victims or persons or offenders subject to mental health or intellectual disability of care. It’s the right to be notified of a person or offender’s designation. What we heard from a number of people who submitted to the select committee was a sense of fear about offenders being out in public. But I would also say, equally—as much a sense of anxiety about not knowing what was happening. And, again, the Chief Victims Advisor puts this really well when she describes interviewing victims, and she says they describe this feeling of being sort of in limbo and really being unheard and unseen. And so I do think that this is a really significant piece of the bill.

Then, perhaps, my question—as we’re nearing the ends of the parts of the bill—as well for the member is just reflecting on pace of change. I think there are a number of pieces of legislation that are upcoming in the House, including the safe areas bill at some stage, where we’ve seen moves from the likes of Australia in those areas before New Zealand has gone into those areas ourselves. I know that there have been moves in New South Wales to review their legislation in this space. I also know that Canada have made an attempt to change the verdict requirements. And the question is really: have the changes that have been made across all parts of this bill done justice to the pace of change internationally? Are we keeping up with our neighbours across the Ditch? Are we keeping up with like jurisdictions—for example, Canada—but also the most recent research in terms of the experience of victims and the experience and also the rights of patients who are in the care of mental health facilities as well?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Chair. For many people listening to this committee of the whole House, they will realise that the amendments to the Victims’ Rights Act are probably the most critical in terms of achieving the policy intent of this bill.

One of the questions that was asked before, about the introduction of the victim impact statements—and, again, standing in the shoes of a victim: that they are a victim of a crime through no fault of their own, and so many of them have no or very little understanding of the justice system, and definitely, probably, less of the health system around mental health. As we as a country have progressed the rights of victims, one of the areas that has become more and more important for—and “closure”, in this instance, just sounds trite, but I can’t think of a better word. The ability of the victim to give a victim impact statement in court is a really important part of the process for them to resolve some of the trauma that they have dealt with by the very nature of being a victim. That trauma exists whether you are a victim of a sane person or an insane person. So these amendments in Part 4 provide more of that equivalence between the health and justice system that we talked about before, but very much in the ability of a victim to get some form of closure or to get to the next stage of their grief and trauma.

But the other part, when the member refers to new section 30A, inserted by clause 14O, that, I think, is important to put on record—because in the submissions from victims, there was not one that had ill-feeling or blame or hatred or anything for the special patient. In fact, it was in many cases quite the opposite. There was deep concern by the victim about the ability of the special patient to recover. And I think that’s a really important part of this particular clause with new section 30A, because the victim wants to know: is that special patient getting treatment? Are they being supported on their journey back to their community and their family? Because to many of them, it felt like a black box: there was a special patient, they were found not guilty on account of insanity, and then the victim heard zero about what happened to that special patient. I was really moved by the submitters and their very generosity and need for them to understand and be kept informed in some way, shape, or form of what happened to the special patient.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Hon Louise Upston’s amendment to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 98 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Part 4, as amended, stand part.

Part 4, as amended, agreed to.

Part 5 Consequential amendments to other enactments, and Schedule 5

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we now come to Part 5. This is the debate on clause 16 and Schedule 5, consequential amendments to other enactments. The question is that Part 5 stand part.

The question is that the Hon Louise Upston’s amendment to Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 98 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 5, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Hon Louise Upston’s amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 98 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Hon Louise Upston’s amendments to Schedule 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 98 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Hon Louise Upston’s amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 98 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We now come to the debate on clauses 1 and 2, title and commencement. The question is that clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Look, I just wanted to make a short contribution in relation to the commencement date. I think it was really important to highlight that it was further extended for a whole year. So, initially, the view of the commencement date was—I think we had it down as July, but through consideration with the committee that there were so many significant changes, and that this bill made such, I guess, a leap in terms of trying to take into account criminal justice procedures as well as mental health processes, that the necessary changes that would have to be done would require significantly longer than what a typical passage of legislation would need. So, for those reasons, we heard from officials and took advice from both Health and Justice that a longer period for the commencement date for this bill would be required in order to do that. Look, I just think that it reflects in general the high level of cooperation from both sides of the House to take into account and try and have the best passage forward for these changes to be able to be bedded in and to take a long-term improvement not only to our mental health services but also to those rights of victims who have had an offence committed by someone who has been stated as being insane or unfit to stand trial.

So I welcome any comments from the member, but I think it was important to highlight to the committee the level of cooperation that enabled a longer commencement date in order for the substantive changes that will be required, and the coordination required as well between two quite different worlds, to make sure that these are bedded in appropriately to make those changes lasting.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, this bill is set down for third reading forthwith.

Third Reading

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I move, That the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill be now read a third time.

In October 2010, Graeme Moyle contacted me as his local member of Parliament, concerned about unsupervised visits by a special patient who was in the care of the Ministry of Health. This man, Matthew Ahlquist, was a special patient because he killed his flatmate Colin Moyle, Graeme’s brother. Graeme has spent years working to change the law based on his experience of the system, which didn’t treat him and his family the way he expected victims should be treated. Victims of crime, loved ones who have been affected by the taking of a life, are innocent, they are blameless, and they experience traumatic events through no fault of their own. It shouldn’t matter if the person who committed the act was insane at the time or not. We have balanced very carefully the needs of the people who carried out these acts who were insane, who also need the protection and support and care of the system.

On 4 April 2019, I put this member’s bill into the biscuit tin. It was pulled from the ballot on the very same day. I’m not sure that that’s ever happened before, but I’m very pleased that it did. It was over a year later, on 1 July 2020, that we had its first reading. I outlined the horrendous circumstances of Colin’s death, and I don’t intend to repeat that today. There was no doubt that Matthew Ahlquist took the life of a Good Samaritan, his flatmate Colin.

There are special days in Parliament, and this is one. Too often you see the disagreements, the debates, and sometimes behaviour that is not becoming, and tonight you see the unanimous agreement, where the co-operation of members across the House and every party in Parliament agrees not only on a problem but, more importantly, the solution to that problem. Normally, members’ bills are pretty straight forward—you know, we’re told, as a new beginner, as a new MP, if you want a member’s bill, pick something small and tight. This hasn’t been one of those.

The Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill does three things: it changes the verdict so that victims don’t hear the words “not guilty”, it gives victims a voice, and it provides victims with information. This is an omnibus bill, which amends the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003, and the Victims’ Rights Act 2002. It is far more complex than what would normally be tackled in a member’s bill, and so I have some people to thank.

Firstly, to Graeme, for your sheer perseverance. I think you’ve figured out now that I can also be pretty bloody-minded, and it’s a good thing that the pair of us are determined. I want to thank your wider family, in particular Liz, who have supported you in every step of this journey.

To the many victims that courageously shared their stories, their experiences, and their pain, I do have to say, as other select committee members no doubt will, some of the stories were absolutely harrowing, and some of those stories were heard in public for the very first time. So I want to commend you for your courage. This bill supports those who, through no action of their own and no fault of their own, have had their lives permanently altered—trauma through no action of their own—and this Parliament supports them.

I want to thank Wendy Strawbridge, who presented her petition to Parliament, which sought to amend the law to extend to the victims of crime committed by people found to be insane the very same protections and rights as other victims of crime. She presented her petition in March 2019. Wendy was the victim of an attempted murder in Nelson while she was working as a registered nurse in the community. She discovered that the person found not guilty of her attempted murder by reason of insanity was back in the community, in her community, on unescorted leave. She had no input, no consent, no notification, which, of course, was devastating for her. I want to give my thanks to Nick Smith, who was her MP for all of this journey and who has worked tirelessly on this cause with me. This bill addresses the very issues that she raised; so it made sense for the select committee to deal with both items at once.

To Victim Support, who have recently celebrated 35 years. They were also at the table, giving evidence, and behind the scenes, providing support to the victims that had presented, along with other victims’ advocates, like the tireless Ruth Money.

I want to thank the members of this House for keeping the focus on victims. It was a complex balance. It was a very difficult and awkward balance at times, but we landed in a place where we balanced the needs of the victims and also those of the special patients. I want to thank each of the party leads on this bill for taking the time, the meetings, the discussions, the late night texts, and really deeply considering the issues.

The Justice Committee, who, on multiple occasions, could have easily said, “It’s too hard; go home.”—and I’m sure they were tempted to! Thank you for your perseverance. I think this piece of legislation—the omnibus bill of four complex pieces of legislation that are being amended—really is due to the significant work that the select committee members put in. By keeping an open mind, by keeping a focus on the policy intent of the bill, we traversed this very tricky issue, at times pushing the boundaries. And special thanks goes to the chair, Ginny Andersen, for diligently and carefully navigating our way through this process to ensure that we kept support for the bill unanimous. And I want to repeat that because that is really unusual. It is very unusual in the select committee on any bill, and it’s incredibly rare on a member’s bill. So I do want to pay special tribute to Ginny for the professional way and the very diligent way you drove to ensure we got an outcome that we all agreed with. And I know, at times, I can push the boundaries myself, perhaps showing that bloody-mindedness, that determination, or at times I’ve been referred to as being unreasonable.

To Andrew Little, who now is the Minister of Health but formerly the Minister of Justice, who agreed quite some time ago that the verdict must be changed and gave officials full remit to work on this bill. Again, that’s very unusual, and without the Minister’s remit, we wouldn’t have been able to do the sorts of work that we needed to, to end up with this bill.

To the justice and health officials, and in particular Dr Crawshaw, who worked so well together despite coming up against issues that needed careful consideration and were often in conflict with each other. As I said before, in the committee stage, usually our systems of Government are very separate, and it’s quite hard to mesh them together.

To the select committee staff, who kept us incredibly supported through our work, who worked so professionally, and the officials, as I said, who navigated some pretty tricky waters.

Last, but not least, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, who helped interpret my very first policy intent into a member’s bill after many, many, many months of work and then crafted the select committee decisions into a workable solution that we will pass the bill today.

Today, I want to give confidence to every New Zealander that this is your House and, as MPs, we work for you. We work to make New Zealand a better place. You can meet with your MP, like Graeme did, and you can change the law. To paraphrase another New Zealander, while it might not happen overnight, it can happen. Tonight is proof of that, and I think it’s a wonderful way to end this parliamentary year, for the members’ day, where victims will have more rights with the unanimous passing of this bill. Thank you.

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

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. Thank you very much. That was a great speech from the member in charge of the bill, Louise Upston. It’s not often that we have nice things going back and forwards across this House, so it’s good to be able to take time to enjoy rare and exceptional circumstances. I think it’s the content of this bill that has caused the unanimous agreement from both major parties in relation to an issue that’s incredibly important.

First and foremost, I think Louise Upston needs to be acknowledged for not shying away from a tough issue. We’ve had many members’ bills in this House that have significant issues that have been brought before and managed to change the law for the better, and this one is exactly in that camp. Some of the best members’ bills I’ve seen during my time in this House have come through the office door of an electorate office, just as this one does. Real issues that come from the real day-to-day lives of New Zealanders—when the law is not working right, they bring those to their local member of Parliament, who is able to champion those issues and change the law for the better. So I would like to acknowledge the fact that we have a great democratic system that works well enough, that we have that ability to have a one-on-one conversation with another human being and be able to take that forward and change the law to improve it for other human beings. I think it’s testimony to the great democratic system we have.

I would like to acknowledge those submitters. I’ve already mentioned in the previous stages of this bill that some of those submissions that we heard from, sometimes the victims of those crimes themselves, firsthand experience—we heard accounts of a harrowing rape, a brutal rape within a woman’s own home, from a complete stranger, who managed to break into her house. We also heard of the subsequent days, weeks, months, and years of her process, not only through the justice system but through her own rehabilitation, her own rebuilding of her life after such a horrendous crime. No one can imagine how difficult it must be to be in a courtroom and to hear the words “not guilty” after being the victim of such a brutal attack.

So the fact that we have been able to traverse long, long hours and long time at the Justice Committee, to be able to provide a better way forward for victims of crime when the person who has been put before the court is declared to be insane or unable to be found guilty on account of insanity—to how we take into account the needs of a person who is within our mental health system and, at the same time, take into account the needs of the victim of that crime—is no easy feat. So I would like to say that it’s been a big learning process for me to see how we can work together more effectively to make sure that we drive change that’s lasting and that improves the processes that we have in place already in both health and in the justice system.

As part of that, I’ve been fascinated in the two key areas, and that’s, first of all, coming up against, you know, the legal requirements of mens rea and actus reus—the very fundaments of what it is in a guilty verdict and how we break that down in a way that meets the needs for the courtroom and the criminal justice system. How those very words, which seem so basic to lawyers, can be so offensive to the ears of victims and their family, and to have a discussion around how that takes place with both lawyers and with mental health and health experts—debating that out, how we take care of those needs. I’d like to see more debates like that in the future for New Zealand. I think it’s a great area for us to look at, how two separate worlds intersect and how we can provide more effectively for people in their everyday lives by having conversations that go far beyond just an Act, that go far beyond what the requirements are in a textbook or a statute, and how that filters down into everyday lives. So that’s been a fascinating process.

The other part of the process that has been a really intriguing one for me is seeing how the mental health system and how the justice system can work more effectively, and I think we’ve done a great job at putting that forward.

I’m going to quickly traverse through the stages of the verdict, because I think it’s important to keep that on the record, to see where we’ve been. Where we started at on the spectrum of the verdict definition was, first of all, it started with “not guilty on account of insanity”, and, for the reasons I’ve already specified, that was the whole purpose of the bill—that, to the ears of victims and their family in the courtroom, was so offensive. That was the purpose, to try and change that. Where the committee initially landed was “proven but insane”, and while we got advice and did a good job in that space of trying to balance, we had the Chief Justice not agreeing with that. So after the bill had been reported back to the House, we found ourselves in the unusual position of it being referred back to select committee for the Justice Committee to once again take into account that advice from the Chief Justice, and see how we can provide for, particularly, that word “proven” that we were using and the fact that it could not be “proven” if there was no mental element or mens rea due to the mental health or a specified insanity of the person standing on trial. The Chief Justice emphasised the fundamental principle underpinning the finding of “not guilty on account of insanity”, and that is that the defendant, by definition, is not guilty because the mental element of the offence has not been proven. As my learned colleague Duncan Webb was attempting to do earlier, even changing the title of the bill in order for “offenders” to be removed and change that for “persons”, because, technically, they are not an offender if they have not been found guilty—but I think we’d had enough time debating the infinite details of this bill, and I encouraged him that we should just let the bill pass. I’m sorry, but you know never to let an academic hold things up.

So I think that the place where we’ve ended up is the right place, and that was when there was consistent agreement from all the different corners of the world: legal, mental health, policy. Having a clear view that the act was proven—so by separating out actus reus and mens rea by just speaking about the act, the act is “proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity”. So I just guess I would like to note that this is a sensitive and incredibly important area of the law, which requires a delicate and accurate legislative approach, and I think that we’ve managed to do that, even though it took two turns. It is good that the committee has had the opportunity to consider it fully and ensure that it will work as intended—as already spoken earlier, to have that longer enactment date to make sure that we do have those alignments in place for when this law comes into force.

I’d like to acknowledge those not here tonight. Simon Bridges—when in those long hours of debating on which of the several proposed definitions that we would adopt, it was actually some of Simon’s words, to separate out “act proven”, and having a hand in crafting that to achieve agreement. As the honourable member, Louise Upston, has already referenced, there were many points along the winding pathway of this piece of legislation where we could have thrown our hands up and said it’s too hard and walked away, but we felt committed. I think, for me, I felt committed once hearing the stories of those victims, hearing the trauma and the pathway to rehabilitation and having their lives back on track. We felt committed to finding an outcome that served victims and made our criminal justice system fairer to those victims. I’m really pleased to be seeing this law passed tonight, so that we can stand by the fact that we’ve seen this done. I think we all put our political colours aside because it’s been seen as a good way forward that provides an improvement to the existing circumstances. To be able to put that aside and move ahead with the best course, I think, is a good day for New Zealand democracy.

Look, I’d like to sum up by saying that we support this bill as the Labour Party because it sits well with our values. We have put in the time because we see it as promoting justice, promoting transparency, and also respecting survivors of crime and also their communities. I’d like to note that while this bill cannot undo or mitigate the things that people have experienced, we really hope that it can alleviate some of the most difficult elements of dealing with an incredibly complex and challenging area of our legal system for people in the future. I’m proud and happy that the hours have paid off and that we can happily commend this bill to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill, which is at its third reading.

Let me just start by acknowledging my colleague the Hon Louise Upston, who has brought this piece of legislation to Parliament, not only as someone who’s been a local MP listening to her constituents, but someone who has a deep respect for the law, but also a deep appreciation and understanding for victims of crime. I just want to acknowledge the heart and the passion that she has brought to this Parliament when it comes to making sure that at the heart of our criminal justice system, we put victims first. I think that’s the message that Parliament is sending tonight to the criminal justice system: that we want to see victims put at the heart of our criminal justice system.

We’ve heard from the previous speaker, Ginny Andersen, and we’ve heard from Louise Upston about the many challenges this bill has faced to get to where it has got to. One point I just want to make to all of those victims who are listening tonight is that we hear you, that we see you, that we are listening, and that we are making sure that Parliament puts its stamp on the law and on the criminal justice system.

It is ultimately Parliament who sets the law in this country. It is ultimately Parliament that gets to decide what the law says, and that is what we are doing tonight by changing the verdict in these cases from “not guilty on account of insanity” to “act proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity”. Whilst some may say it’s only words, when we here heard from those victims who came and who shared their tears in front of us at the select committee, who shared their stories and their anguish, the pain and their suffering; not just in the courtroom on that day, but in the years following, we realise that, actually, these words deeply—deeply—matter. And not just the words, but also the other parts in this bill which make a real difference to those victims and their lives.

I’m very pleased that we’ve been able to have agreement across the House. I want to acknowledge the Labour Party; the chair, in particular, of the Justice Committee, Ginny Andersen—it’s been great working with them. And I want to acknowledge the contribution that everyone on the Justice Committee has made. I commend this bill to the House and I look forward to continuing to see more legislation brought to this Parliament which puts victims first in our criminal justice system.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker, and thank you for an opportunity to take a call. I also want to begin by acknowledging the member Louise Upston, not only for raising an important issue but for also allowing victims to be heard at the select committee and giving them a voice there, but also for her thoughtfulness, for her care, and for her patience as we asked questions during the committee stage. That was very much appreciated.

I referred in a number of my statements at the committee stage to the Chief Victims Advisor’s report in 2019, which is called Te Tangi o te Manawanui. It was recommendations for reform in the victims’ rights space, and that made a significant impact on me, partially because it quoted victims themselves. One of those quotes talked about justice for victims being “Basically, a safety net for people who have been wronged. And whether or not that net has holes in it you don’t know until you’ve got on the journey.”

As a member of the Justice Committee, a large part of our process was about listening to people and to families who had been on that journey and had experienced some really horrific instances of crime and offending. The challenge for us, I think, as a committee was really putting victims first and keeping them front of mind—which they absolutely were—but also balancing the rights at play with the principles of our criminal justice system, which are equally important to maintaining a fair justice system.

So I would thank, again, the member but also those who came in to submit. I think it was incredibly courageous for a lot of them to provide those submissions to us, but, as the member herself also referenced, I think there was a lot of integrity in the way that they approached submitting to the select committee. There was a lot of respect for the mental health system and a recognition of its inherent value, and this was from people who have suffered a whole lot in terms of instances that have happened to them. As my colleague Ginny Andersen said, this bill won’t be able to undo the harm that those individuals have suffered, but I do believe that the bill in the form that it’s been amended to and that it’s been reported back from select committee goes some way to acknowledging the rights of victims while also remaining true to the principles of our justice system.

It is a bill that does aim to ensure that victims in this space are given equivalent treatment. We’ve traversed through the committee stage the number of different changes that are included within this bill, including notification to a victim when an offender is released, including victim impact statements, and also, of course, the verdict, which I think has been really, for me, that real pivot point in terms of finding the right balance between all of the rights at play here. A number of us spoke about the fact that this hasn’t been an easy process. It has been about balancing interests and rights, but I do think that these are timely changes and changes that also mirror those made in other like jurisdictions to strike an appropriate balance.

I also do want to acknowledge some of the submitters. I do recall vividly the submission of Victim Support, whose submissions referenced Glen Collins, a much-loved man. He was a 45-year-old father of two who was stabbed to death without any warning, and there were many, many horrific stories that we heard over the course of that select committee.

I also wanted to reflect very briefly again on the changes to the verdict. Our chairperson, Ginny Andersen, stepped us through a number of those changes, and there were actually three iterations of change to what the current law is. I’d again point to the member’s bill when it first came into select committee, and the verdict in that bill referenced “acts or omissions” and also included a reference to “the defendant”. The select committee then shifted to “proven but insane”, and where we landed—the “act proven, but not criminally responsible on account of insanity”—is actually, in my view, very akin to the member’s initial proposal. That says two things to me. Firstly, it shows the integrity and the balance that the member brought to the initial version of the bill, which was intended to bring a balanced approach, but it also shows the rigour with which the committee approached its task.

I think it’s also useful to consider the pace of change. I asked a question during committee stage about comparability with like-jurisdictions. There have been a number of other changes in Australia and in Canada in this regard. In New South Wales, they conducted a review into the experience of victims and the system and, as a result of the review, there were a number of changes that were made, including that the victim had the right to make a statement in court and also that the court may consider the statement in deciding the conditions that were going to be imposed. This really does, in New South Wales, give that victim comparable treatment. In Canada, for circumstances akin to these, the law has removed the words “not guilty” from the insanity verdict, replacing them with “not criminally responsible”. So you can see a very similar trend in like-jurisdictions, so we are not out of step with what’s happening internationally.

In considering some of the changes that we did, we didn’t just look to statements from victims—although their submissions weighed heavily on us—we also considered the views of academics and practitioners in the area, including the mental health law expert Dr Warren Brookbanks and forensic psychiatrist Dr Jeremy Skipworth, both of whom have argued the benefits of allowing victims to make submissions concerning patients’ leave and release as well. So these are views that are shared by academics and specialists alike. But the tensions were very real. We touched on a number of them during committee stage, including the broad overlap between the justice space and the health space, and, again, I think we touched on that in a policy sense, but we also saw it as a space where operationally there was a lot of overlap. I think the clear message for us was to recognise that the law doesn’t exist in those discrete boxes, but that we need to actively consider the mental health space and the health and wellbeing space as we’re making changes to our justice legal framework.

The other big tension that I spoke about at committee stage was the issue of privacy and disclosure, and I did pay particular heed to the submission of the Privacy Commissioner as well as the Human Rights Commission in this regard. I said, again at committee stage, that, in my view, there were some very valid questions raised about the balance and whether we were getting the balance right. We were balancing those submissions against what we heard from victims themselves who talked about a need to be informed. They talked about the anxiety of walking the streets and just not knowing whether someone would present or note. I do note that at committee stage the member responded very well to this question as well, citing the fact that for many mental health patients, it’s not in their best interests either to be in a situation where victims aren’t made aware of their temporary release.

Finally, I would just like to say again that I commend the member for raising this issue. I think we’ve worked extremely collegially cross-party to achieve a balance that will work both for victims’ rights as well as for the rights that we uphold in our justice system. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Green Party in support of the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill. I am speaking on behalf of the Green Party, but I also just wanted to mention that I’m also, in particular, speaking on behalf of our justice spokesperson, Golriz Ghahraman, who I know would have wanted to have been here to speak in support of this bill, having worked alongside the Hon Louise Upston and the select committee over a very long time to get this bill into its current form. Unfortunately, she’s not able to. She would be able to make the case much more competently than I’m about to.

I do want to acknowledge the Hon Louise Upston for her work on this bill. It’s often said in this Chamber that there are two kinds of member’s bill: one being a sort of a political statement, which probably has no chance of getting anywhere but is used to lay out a position; the other is a genuine attempt to solve a very real challenge. This bill falls into that category. It is a complex and a sensitive area, as a number of speakers before me have mentioned tonight, and recognising it has taken quite a long time from first reading to make its way through to here. It is one of those bills that is truly worth taking the time to do properly. So I do want to acknowledge the member who brought the bill and I do want to acknowledge the work that Ginny Andersen and the select committee have done and that the officials have done over a number of years, over what is quite a narrow but important and difficult and challenging area, where issues of mental health and criminal justice are conflated and not easily picked apart. I think that the bill has landed in a very good place, having taken quite a journey to get there.

The gap, of course, is in the justice system, where, currently, until probably about 30 minutes from now, there is no mechanism by which victims of criminal acts that are committed by insane persons—to provide any form of victim impact statement. That is a gap in the sense of being able to create justice, to provide a justice system that actually lives up to its name. The Green Party, of course, has always strongly supported the inclusion of victims’ views in the justice process. We do believe that victims must be supported at every stage of the justice process, and that includes by having their views and their experiences safely and affirmatively given in the context of the proceedings.

As with a number of others, of course, we did have a problem with the wording in the original bill. Where, as a number of other speakers have said, the original language around “proven but insane” implied criminal responsibility. So I think that there was an amendment that was put up quite early in Golriz’s name but actually events then overtook it. The Chief Justice made the submission by writing to Parliament, asking that that issue get addressed, and, you know, the work was done. It’s landed in a very, very good place as a result. So, in that sense, I think that the kind of key issue that we were anxious about has been very well resolved to the satisfaction of everybody, has been noted as well.

I also just wanted to mention there were some other organisations that engaged with this bill, including JustSpeak and the Mental Health Foundation, who were, at least initially, opposed to this. They had some concerns about the risk of non-judicial and non-clinical input into the decision-making process that concerns about how there might be a risk of longer sentences being conferred, which would harm rehabilitation—which, of course, then errs back into the issues around mental health and criminal responsibility, and so on—and that context of it being about mental health rather than being about holding the offender accountable, which is, of course, what normal sentencing is about. So the committee has clearly engaged deeply in all of those very thorny issues. Those changes that have been made to the bill have kind of addressed those risks. So we’re very pleased or we’re assured that victims’ statements aren’t going to be able to be politicised, that those decisions will be contained within the process in a way that is safe for victims and actually for the people who have committed those acts.

I think some of the concerns about the bill speak to wider concerns about the justice system. It is an imperfect system. There are gaps in it, but they aren’t going to be resolved within this bill, which does have a very narrow focus. I think that we need to continue always to ensure that we are seeking to improve the justice system so that those kinds of concerns, when they do come up through bills like this, are able to be addressed. We do hope that this bill does signal future legislative improvements to further our approach to restorative justice for insane offenders in the future.

So, in conclusion, I just want to come back to the beginning in acknowledging the work of everybody involved, but particularly the member who brought the bill. It’s a very good piece of work, and I think this is one of those moments tonight where you can see Parliament at its absolute best; a rare and beautiful thing. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I’m almost afraid, as I stand here tonight, of what we’ve done. My colleague, the Hon Mr Shaw has just referred to this as being a narrow bill. I do get his point, in one sense there’s not that many offenders who get classified as insane in this country. That’s right. Compared to other sorts of offenders, they’re quite a small subclass. But in another sense, I think it’s one of the biggest things we’ve done this year when it comes to the criminal justice system. And that is frightening.

It’s big in two senses. First, what happens at the top of the system when you get to criminal trial, right up here [Lifts hand above head] influences everything in all the decisions that prosecutions and police make down here at the bottom. It becomes a bottleneck if you don’t keep that space wide enough so that people can see the prospect of success. We all know that we have victims in this country who do not come forward or who give up because they look up at that top and they see only a bottleneck and they drop out and we lose their voices. This bill sends a message that the voices and the reality of victims are valued at that top point, at that apex of the criminal system. And that’s significant. It’s significant in another way. And as we’ve discussed during the committee stage, which was so thoroughly enjoyable, this is a really significant bill because it puts the victim into the adversarial system in a way they have rarely been put at the centre of the adversarial system. The adversarial system is conceived as a two-party thing, a little bit like the traditional version of this House before we had the wonder and panoply that we see before us, of MMP. It was a two-party system that admits of no other and, for that, they recognise the reality and the significance and the dignity of two sides only: the Crown and the defendant.

This bill, for perhaps the first time, gives victims an independent right of standing where they are not just tools, one way or another, to get evidence from for the purposes of those two important people: the Crown and the accused. That’s incredibly significant. But it is nerve-racking. I found it so exciting, but it is frightening, and it should be frightening because the criminal justice system is right, criminal lawyers are right to be protective of our system. Because the criminal justice system is about the protection of some of the most vulnerable people in our community.

One of those two parties, the defendants, they are so often so powerless. And if we don’t have a system that enshrines their dignity as a matter of absolute importance in our system, then we do not deserve to call ourselves a civilised society. We have to protect the rights, the dignities of defendants. We have to do that. We also, though, have to look at the truth, and the trial has to be an effective mechanism for the discovery and the investigation of truth—in balance with the dignity and the rights of the defendant. Hence, we get our evidence laws. Hence, we get things like the American version, no allowing of the “Fruit of the poison tree.” These are important things, there might be evidence but if you’ve got it through the destruction of the defendant’s rights, then that is enough of a block. We give up on truth when it affects the dignity of the defendant to that degree. It is a system of checks and balances, and when we interrupt something as crucial as that, then we should be nervous and we should be mindful, and by God we were throughout this process. It has been a careful, arduous, often circular, often spiralling back upon itself process, and so it should, because it’s important.

As we do it, however, and as I think about what my dad, the criminal lawyer, is going to say when he gets a load of this one, when I think about the unconstitutional—but nonetheless they’re going to happen—sideways glances I’m going to get from judge friends when they get a load of this—

Chris Bishop: Oh, just a bit of big-noting while we pass it.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: —those doubts I have, those uncertainties about what we’ve done, they are worth it. Oh, bring it on, Mr Bridges. You’re all good—I’ve got teenagers.

Hon Simon Bridges: Hey, I didn’t say anything! I appreciate, you know, that it’s easy to confuse the boyish good looks, but …

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Any time now you’d like to carry on, do so.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: One teenager or another; it doesn’t really make much difference to me.

So what we’re doing is really, really significant. It’s going to be something that’s going to be picked over not only by my criminal practitioner colleagues but also by my criminal academic colleagues, because the other way in which this is incredibly significant is, as my colleague Vanushi Walters was talking about, in terms of an ongoing process of the reform of the criminal trial, which has been advocated for by academics over the last 30 years. The victims’ rights movement, as it’s known within academia, has been gathering pace, mainly as a result of the growing awareness in the early 1980s of the trauma inflicted on victims in the trial when they were victims of sexual assault. The victims that we saw, as I said earlier, echo the pain that has been talked about and found for the last 30 years. It is extremely significant, I think, in the development of the criminal law in this country that we are bringing this in. I think in the years to come this is going to be seen as a point at which Parliament shifted the goalposts and encouraged the adversarial trial to evolve. It is a scary thing we’ve done, but it was the right thing.

The fact that the victims we saw, as Ms Upston brought up earlier, were not vengeful, that they weren’t out to grind down the person who had hurt them, speaks also to what we’re doing here. It’s not about law and order and “lock ’em up”. It’s not about making sure the person gets punished for what they did. That’s all taken care of. What it’s about is the giving of due respect to the victim. It’s not about the destruction of one person in order to elevate the victim; it is about the elevation of all of them as key pieces in our criminal justice puzzle. That is significant and that is right and that is important work. I wish I could see some of my academic colleagues when they get a load of this one. Boundaries are difficult places. Boundaries are going to be difficult, difficult places to be at, but they’re worthwhile places to be at, because otherwise what on earth are we doing here in this space?

Also, in terms of our process, I think I do need to stop at this point and thank those officials who worked so incredibly hard and had to put up with nonsense the likes of which even Simon Bridges can’t produce. We want to thank Dr Crawshaw, who again guided a bunch of know-nothing parliamentarians through the complex process of the mental health system and got us out the other side, I think, with everyone intact. I want to thank my colleagues on the committee for all of the help that we gave each other and all of the forbearance, particularly our chair Ginny Andersen and, most of all, the lady of the hour herself, Louise Upston—absolutely remarkable bill. Given how much work it cost, I think maybe you could not put another one in the ballot box just—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to take a very short call on the final reading of the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill. Unfortunately, Nicole McKee, who sat on the select committee, can’t be here tonight, as she would have wanted to have been. I’m sure she’s a passionate member of the select committee.

I was a policeman in Nelson in 2009 when Wendy Hamer was viciously attacked. And while I wasn’t directly involved in the inquiry and the investigation, the effect it had on the police and the community was huge. Wendy’s strength to not only survive but to launch a petition for victims’ rights was a major influence in this bill, I believe, and it shows an amazing courage and determination. I’d have to acknowledge Nick Smith for his advocacy for Wendy over the years too.

The bill gives victims of insane offenders the same rights as other victims of crime. It allows the victims to be recognised as victims and get fair access to services and entitlements. The rewording of the verdict now accurately reflects the offence, and words do matter. I sat in on a select committee yesterday, and the Police Commissioner stated that mental health call-outs have increased 60 percent in the last five years. Unfortunately, this issue isn’t going to go away. We must continue to put victims first, and we must start looking at the social fabric of our society. I was disappointed to read today the death of a 16-year-old girl in a car accident and a 20-year-old driver who was speeding, texting, over the drink-drive limit, and driving on the wrong side of the road, who was given a four-month and two-week home detention plus a fine. We’ve got a lot of work to do.

It’s obvious everyone in the Justice Committee worked really hard on this bill, with cross-party support, and special thanks to Louise Upston and Ginny Andersen and the officials from the Ministry of Justice for their advice and their assistance. I understand the bill went back and forth a couple of times to get things right. And a good example that good process produces good law and that laws should not be rushed. A huge thanks to the victims for their perseverance and for submitting and sharing their stories. This outcome is yours and your strength will always be appreciated. Thank you.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This evening I rise to give my grateful thanks to the Hon Louise Upston for bringing this bill to us in the House. I’m not on the Justice Committee, but I was privileged to be able to sit in, substituting in for one of my colleagues on some of the submissions that were profoundly moving. I don’t mind sharing that some of them brought members of the committee to tears, myself included, and the bravery of these submitters was profound.

It was really clear that what had been done to these people was profoundly wrong. By that, I don’t simply mean the acts committed against them, but what the law had done unintentionally. I’m very, very pleased to be able to see those changes come before us this evening. The words “act proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity” are significant, as are the rights of victims. For that reason, I heartily commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): I’ll be very brief. I want to acknowledge my colleague Louise Upston. At the end of the day, if a family member is assaulted, is badly injured, or is even killed, and they turn up to court and they hear a verdict “Not guilty on account of insanity”, all they hear is not guilty. That’s all that they hear. There’s no one that’s actually been held to account. Louise Upston recognised that, she realised there needed to be a change, the committee’s worked on it, there’s been a very good change now where it is now “Act proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity”. It means that there is accountability and it means that victims get treated properly inside our criminal justice system and that families feel like they get the justice that they deserve. Thank you.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill. This is the second time that this House is coming together to pass bills tonight. I’ve had the privilege of speaking on both bills.

Can I first start with acknowledging and congratulating the Hon Louise Upston for bringing this important bill to this House, and the contribution from the members across the House. The heart of this bill adjusts for the victims and their families who will go through a lot, and their only mistakes are that they are just the victims.

This bill aims to better align the treatment of victims of offenders found guilty-insane with the victims of regular offenders of our justice system. It simply addresses an inconsistency. Labour supports this bill because it aligns with our values, because it simply promotes justice and transparency, while also protecting survivors of crime and their community. Tonight is a good night; it’s good to see that at the forefront of our politics is the people and victims, and that when we do that, we do things well. So I commend this bill to the House.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I’m really conscious of the time so my contribution will be very short. I just want to acknowledge the member, the Hon Louise Upston, for ushering this bill through the House. I want to acknowledge your constituent who brought the issue in the first place and also that of the Hon Nick Smith who was the petitioner that we also dealt with, the two together. I really want to thank all sides of the House. We really did work hard on this. It’s been well described by all the speakers before me. It has been an absolute honour and privilege to be part of this piece of legislation and I really do hope that it brings something forward for those families, for those victims. I hope that it has been a worthwhile process for them and I hope that the courts are able to work with this in the future. So, with that, I commend the bill to the House.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I support this bill. It was good to be on the Justice Committee. I know that the member in charge of the bill’s wish is that it passes so that it has a maximum effect, and that in the rare cases that it does pertain to those people involved and the victims, particularly, get the effect of this bill. So I’m not going to speak at all long. I do normally speak to the substance of the bill and things about this bill that are why I support it, but I’m not going to do that.

I do, just like other members, though, want to acknowledge Louise Upston. She’s a fine MP. She’s done a great job here. There are member’s bills and then there are member’s bills—those that are sort of passed to someone and they don’t necessarily have a passion for it, but she has had a huge passion for it. She’s, dare I say it, been very protective of it, in fact, and wanted to ensure that at every stage—it’s had twists and turns, and this bill has had a lot of twists and turns—that the right thing was done. So I do pay tribute to you, Louise. You’ve done a great job here, and this will be, among many other things, a lasting legacy of your contribution in this Parliament—not that you’re going anywhere any time soon at all. But it’s a good bill. I support it. It was great to be a small part of it.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to take a very short call on this Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill, and again I want to commend the member for bringing this bill to the House. This is an important issue that she’s addressed with dignity and respect. It’s shown the best side of Parliament, really, with the collaboration that parliamentarians have shown on the select committee. The bill as it stands is well thought through. It’s not a simple change, it is a thorough change that allows what I see as a very well thought-out and thorough law to be put into place.

Just to reiterate some of the points that my colleagues have said, the reason that Labour supports this is that we do think that this bill does look towards increasing justice for victims and for their families, increases transparency. It also increases and really focuses on a victim-centred approach. So I think that’s really important. So, in conclusion, we support this bill. We commend the committee for their incredibly hard work, and you would have seen the amount of expertise and knowledge that members both on the Government side and on the Opposition side have in relation to this bill.

Also, just to finish off by acknowledging the victims of insane offenders. This is why we’re here debating this bill today. It’s for them. It’s to focus on them, and it’s to make their journey a little bit easier. Nothing can take away the trauma that people suffer when they’re victims of insane offenders. What we can do is make sure that the laws we put in place when these people are facing the criminal justice system are sensitive to the needs of families and look towards making the best of a really terrible situation.

That’s why I personally support this bill. I think that it will make the journey much, much easier for many people as they go through what has obviously been a very, very difficult time. And so, in conclusion, I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the House is suspended and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting. Pō mārie.

Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 8 DECEMBER 2021

(continued on Thursday, 9 December 2021)

COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020

Continuation

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I move, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 is continued and that the relevant period under section 3(2)(b) of that Act is the period ending 30 June 2022.

The COVID-19 Public Health Response Act was passed in the early stages of the global pandemic. It is the law that gives the Government of the day the ability to issue orders around things like vaccination, around testing, around quarantine at the border, around pre-departure testing, and around all of those other things that might be required to manage the ongoing effects of a global pandemic. Because of the sweeping nature of the powers contained within that legislation, additional safeguards were built into it. One is that the law itself expires. It has a sunset provision, which means that the Government will have to determine—and that sunset provision’s currently set for, I think, mid-2023. The Government would either have to come back to the House with another bill to renew that legislation, or it will disappear. It also has a requirement for periodic renewal by the House. That means that, roughly, every six months the Government has to present to the House a motion like the one we are presenting now, which allows for the Act to be continued. So we are currently proposing that the Act be continued until the middle of next year, by which point we will either have to pass another motion to continue to extend it or again it will expire.

The global pandemic has created huge disruption around the world and here in New Zealand. I think there are many people, myself included, who look forward to the day when the global pandemic is over and life can get back to normal and we can all get back to doing the things that we all love and enjoy. The reality is that the global pandemic is not yet over and we don’t know when it will be over. There is still significant uncertainty, and particularly uncertainty around the potential for new variants.

Omicron has appeared, and we still have yet to fully understand it. We do know that it’s likely to be more infectious. More people are likely to get it. Anecdotally, we’re seeing evidence that more fully vaccinated people will also get it. What we don’t yet know, though, is what the effect of that will be. Is it more viral than earlier variants? Does it have a greater health impact or does it potentially have less of a health impact? That is still a big, unknown question, and we’ll learn more about Omicron over the coming weeks and months. So we need to be ready to adapt and evolve, depending on what that new information, what that new research, and what that new evidence tells us.

In the meantime, New Zealand is incredibly well placed. So we have very low rates of transmission in the community. We have a very high rate of vaccination. We have good surveillance testing, and it’s encouraging to see that our surveillance testing rates are remaining very high, and so we are well positioned. Next year, we do want to be able to, early in the year, open up the international border and see much greater movement in and out of New Zealand again, and we’ve set out a pathway to do that.

Many of the things that we are doing now still require this legislation to be in place. For example, the requirement, at the most basic level, for people to be either vaccinated or to get a pre-departure test—so for New Zealand citizens, they will need a pre-departure test before they come home to New Zealand; for non-citizens, they will need to be fully vaccinated. Just that requirement alone depends on this Act continuing to be in existence. The traffic light framework, which New Zealanders are all now becoming familiar with, requires this legislation to be in place. The vaccination requirements that exist for our front-line border workers and for many of those other workforces require this legislation to be in place. So we are not yet through the global pandemic and, therefore, the need for the powers that are in this legislation to remain in place still exist.

I do want to say, as I’ve said on many occasions in the House, that I acknowledge that these are extraordinary times and that this is an extraordinary piece of legislation. It is one that in an open and liberal democracy, we should aim to have on the statute book only as long as it is absolutely essential to have it. This should not be seen as the beginning of a different way of doing things for New Zealand and is certainly not the way the Government views it. We view this as being a necessity at this point, but it should only be available to the Government for as long as it is an absolute necessity. As soon as more regular decision-making processes can resume, we should absolutely be doing that.

So I have a mixed degree of emotion in moving this motion in the House today, because as the person who has the weight of the responsibility of making orders under this legislation sitting on my shoulders, I am very much looking forward to the day when that will no longer be the case. Unfortunately, that is not today. So that is the reason why the Government is proposing to extend the life of this Act.

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

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The National Party will be opposing the extension of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, which, as the Minister for COVID-19 Response notes, was passed in a time of extraordinary circumstances in New Zealand and around the world, and, as he notes, the pandemic continues. The Act has been changed, most recently last week or the week before, to give the Government the framework, the apparatus, to implement the traffic light framework. So the Act has undergone quite some amendments in the last 18 months since the pandemic started, and the Act is now a reasonably complicated Act to decipher. You have to go into the orders that passed under the Act to make sense of it as well. In some ways, that is, of course, a consequence of the fact that the Act was passed very quickly, but the variety of amendments that have been made to the Act have made it a complicated one to decipher.

We will be opposing this for three major reasons. The first is in relation to mandate and vaccine certificates, and I want to spend a little bit of time dwelling on this. One thing that has become very clear from the last couple of weeks is that there is real unease in quite some segments of our community around the division created by the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. Now, at a level, that is always going to be the case. We don’t have mandatory vaccination in New Zealand, for the general population—we have it in some circumstances for people doing particular jobs—and I’ve never seen the Government, to be fair to them, put forward the proposition that we should mandate vaccination. Vaccination’s a choice; that would run into extraordinary New Zealand Bill of Rights Act problems, let alone the ethics and the morality of doing that, although I note that some countries are actually looking at that.

So the Government has never put that forward as a serious proposition. But the reality of a population where 90 percent, 92 percent—hopefully, more—of people choose to be vaccinated does create some real issues in terms of division between those who choose to be vaccinated and those who choose not to be vaccinated, and that is made more complicated by the legal regime that the Government has instituted, which is the traffic light framework, which gives extraordinary freedoms to those vaccinated, but has the converse effect of creating quite some restrictions for those who are unvaccinated. There is unease in the community about this. In a funny way—well, not a funny way; in a way, it is inimical to the traditional notions of freedom of movement, freedom of association, in New Zealand.

So one question that I think is going to become increasingly important to answer in the coming weeks and months as our vaccination rate goes to 90 percent double dose in many regions, and countrywide and beyond, is at what point do the mandates and the vaccine certificates fall away? We’re just a little bit behind the rest of the world in this, because even Daniel Andrews in Victoria is now talking about the time at which the need for certificates and the need for mandates will fall away. They’re talking around the 90 percent figure; well, we are soon going to be at that figure. Vaccine mandates have been used as a blunt mechanism to drive up vaccination rates in New Zealand. But at some level, the need for them will fall away. I’m not positing a particular view here, I’m not suggesting a threshold—I don’t have access to the public health advice that the Government has—but I think we are going to confront that question at some point in the next few weeks and months, and we’re going to have to have an answer from the Government as to how long that legal regime is going to continue for.

Now, this motion extends the Act through to 30 June 2022, and I’m telling the House now that between now and 30 June 2020, we are going to have to have a good discussion as a polity and as a Parliament around those certificates and those mandates and how long they’re ongoing use is going to be necessary for, because there is quite some community unease out there around it. Personally, I’m a supporter of vaccination certificates; I’m actually very comfortable if bars and restaurants and hairdressers choose to use them based on the principles of private property, free enterprise. If a barber wants to say, “You can only come here if you’re vaccinated.”, I would support that, and, frankly, I’d probably—I don’t go to a barbers—only go to a hairdresser that chose to do that. The hairdresser I’m going to tomorrow, because I’m desperate for a haircut—I know my hairdresser would do the same thing, because we’ve had a conversation around it, and they would choose to do that. There’ll be others who don’t. There’ll be other hairdressers who will say, “Actually, you know what? I’m comfortable cutting the hair of someone who is unvaccinated, because I’m vaccinated.”, and maybe they’ll have to have a test. So we’re going to have to have a conversation around that. So that’s the first issue.

The second issue is the Act continues the highly restrictive border regime that we have at the moment, and it’s the National’s Party’s view that the time has come to dismantle the very complicated regime to do with managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) that the Act allows. Our view is that MIQ made sense in April-June—most of 2020; in fact, most of this year—but, increasingly, makes little sense. Here are the numbers: 27 people who are border cases are in quarantine right now out of 4,000 or so rooms. Just 27—I think it was 38 a couple of weeks ago; it’s now down to 27. There are 308 community cases of COVID in quarantine facilities, but there are over 2,000 people isolating at home with COVID, in the community.

So we have a situation where fully vaccinated travellers are coming into New Zealand, having passed the pre-departure test—so they’ve got no COVID, at least when they get on the plane—they’re fully vaccinated, they arrive in New Zealand, and they are going into MIQ facilities even though they don’t have COVID; whereas people with COVID who test positive in the community as part of this outbreak isolate at home.

Just yesterday, the Parliament considered an urgent debate in relation to the treatment of people with COVID in the community. What we know from the Northern Region Health Coordination Centre’s report is that treatment is lamentable at the moment and should be better, and the reality is those people, many of them, would be better treated in quarantine facilities, but they can’t be there because the quarantine facilities are being taken up by people who are fully vaccinated, without COVID—which doesn’t make a lot of sense. And that’s even before you consider the enormous hardship caused by the MIQ regime generally, and everyone in this Parliament will know someone, or know a family or a constituent, who has been affected by these highly restricted border settings. I call it the lottery of human misery, and I call it that for a good reason, which is that it is a lottery and it does create enormous human misery.

So our view is that we should be dismantling MIQ. I really worry about whether or not it is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. There’s a case that I know the Attorney-General will be aware of from grounded Kiwis that’s going to be heard in the new year. I think that will consider that particular issue. The legal talk around Wellington is that the Crown is very worried about this case, because, as Murray Bolton showed in his case, which dealt with a particular set of circumstances, I know, but really exposed the Crown’s legal risk when it comes to the consistency of the MIQ regime with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which, of course, gives rights to New Zealand citizens to return to New Zealand. So we oppose the continuation of the Act on those grounds.

Then the third thing, very briefly, the requisition of testing capacity clause, which Parliament again recently passed and will now be extended by this motion, is abhorrent to the rule of law and private property. It’s the Rako Science theft clause. It gives the Government the power to steal their property basically because they don’t like the fact that they’ve been calling out the Government’s lamentable response to saliva testing. That is not a sensible position. It is not a morally just provision. We opposed the bill to put that in place in the first place, and therefore we oppose the continuation of the Act as well. Therefore, we will not be supporting this motion.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora. E te Māngai, tēnā koe. On behalf of the Greens, I rise in support of this motion. This does provide the framework we need for vaccine mandates and certificates, but I very much look forward to the day when we do not need any of those things. This is the world we’re in right now and for the foreseeable future. I know from the experts that we’re talking to that this is years and not months.

We have stood by the Government consistently in this strong health response. We’re proud of our record compared to the rest of the world in terms of fewer case numbers, hospitalisations, and deaths. We particularly acknowledge how hard our health workforce have been working and we’re really, really proud of our iwi and Pasifika community and health providers and disability workers on the ground. We would not be where we are without them. But we have raised our concerns with the detail of some of these strategies, particularly the lack of a Te Tiriti o Waitangi focus or an equity approach, which would have seen much quicker vaccinations for Māori, and we wouldn’t be in the situation we are now with counting down every day to see where our numbers are at.

Next week, the Auckland border will be flung open, and we echo the voices of iwi leaders that say, “Please, do not holiday in places with low vaccination rates, even if that might mean not being able to go home and see your whānau. Please think of the health of that whānau and the health of those communities before you head over there.”, because we’re in the honeymoon period right now. We’re seeing case numbers coming down, but we know that it won’t be long before we see the spike happen again. That happens every time that there’s a relaxation, either of the alert levels or, in this case, it’ll be the Auckland border.

Moving forward, we hope to see a really tight suppression strategy outside of Auckland so that where cases occur, they’re stamped out and people are very much looked after, because we do not accept that COVID should just be allowed to spread in the rest of the country, and we’ll see what happens. People are at home, and we let that continue just enough until the health system is not overwhelmed.

But I want to focus mostly on home isolation. We had our special debate yesterday about the deaths that happened in Auckland—largely preventable deaths—and we do not want to see that happening any more, and we know that the health system has done a lot of work in addressing those, and some of the issues that were raised in the report had already been in place by the time the report was released. However, for those of us who live in the regions, those of us who live in rural areas, we know that we don’t have access to the same health support as some of the cities.

As we’ve seen, already, the capacity that’s required to get our people tested, to get our people vaccinated—we’re going to need even more needed for people who have positive cases and are in their homes. Who’s looking after their whānau? How on earth do they self-isolate in areas where there’s a massive housing crisis and, for example, in the Tai Rāwhiti, where many of the motels are already used up as emergency housing. Where are these people going—and a shout-out to those people who are coming up with really innovative solutions, and particularly marae who are opening their doors for whānau who are not positive, so it allows their positive person to stay home, and then they can be somewhere else that’s safe and they can eat and get on with the rest of their lives.

We’re going to need much more resource going into looking after those people, because that’s the goal. People might get sick; they get looked after. They have proper health professionals doing the assessments of them. They have GPs who are resourced to actually go and visit them to check on them. If they’re given something like an oximeter to use, they’re properly trained in it, and the technology that’s required to run all of the system to monitor all the people who are staying at home—those systems are all in place, they’re well tested, and all the technology is working.

I just wanted to finish to talk about the border. I think of it as a type of insurance that if we need to clamp down because, for example, Omicron is coming, but there’ll be other variants. This virus is not going anywhere. It’s very dynamic and clever, and so we totally support people having shorter stays. We agree with our colleagues who say, “Well, why on earth are we taking up beds of low-risk, fully vaccinated people in MIQ when there’s many, many more of our whānau who need to come home?” We absolutely support our people coming back to this country. We definitely support more health workers being brought into the country to supplement our workforce. However, we do not agree with the dismantling of that infrastructure. We think we’re going to need it for quite a while longer, and if there’s room left over after all our people have come home, then we absolutely need a backup space to put our positive cases who have nowhere else to go.

I hope that we don’t have many more times that this bill continues to come back into the House, but in the meantime we support this. Kia ora.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this motion to continue the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act. Just to put it into a bit of perspective for anyone who may have woken up, switched on the telly, and wondered why Parliament is sitting at 9 in the morning, this motion is to continue the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act that, very wisely, has a self-extinguishing clause. So every 90 days, if Parliament doesn’t actively put it back in place, then the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act extinguishes itself. I actually think all laws should have something like that—perhaps not every 90 days, but if we had to look at the laws that we have on a periodic basis, I suspect a lot of them would not be continued.

Now, the ACT Party, I think it’s fair to say, has taken a constructive and consistent approach to this law throughout its life. We initially voted for it when it was introduced to first reading last year—I think it was last June. We did that because we saw that it was better for Parliament to write down what the law was than to have the Government making it up ad hoc. We know that, for example, the initial lockdown last March was actually illegal, and the Attorney-General at that time was slammed as one of the worst performing Ministers by senior journalists at the end of the year because they couldn’t get the paperwork right. That’s been a theme throughout.

So we thought, look, passing a law that actually tells people what the procedures are and what their rights are was consistent with a free society, and we thought it would be good to have. But we also asked, while this law was initially being debated last June, if some concessions could be made. For example, if somebody was going to be an enforcement officer under that law, we wanted them to be accountable as well—totally unaccountable. ACT ended up opposing the law in the third reading because they weren’t prepared to play ball.

But once it was in place, we said, “OK, look, we’ll watch how the Government uses it, and if they don’t abuse the law, then we’ll keep voting to roll it over.” So we have, because we’ve felt that actually, while there are many failings in the implementation, we didn’t feel that the Government had abused this COVID-19 Public Health Response Act, and therefore we kept voting for it to continue.

Today, we’re voting that it should not continue, and there’s a few reasons for that. Most of them stem from the way that it’s recently been expanded, and there’s a couple of changes in the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Act (No 2) that was rushed through Parliament under great urgency just last month that I think are inconsistent with a free and democratic society. Now, we heard Chris Hipkins, and he’s sort of like that guy in the cartoon that’s got the angel on one shoulder and Beelzebub on the other. He knows that he wants to be a parliamentarian and a democrat, and uphold the tenets of a free society, but then someone goes and makes them do all this crazy stuff.

One of them is the fact that this law now allows the Government to confiscate people’s property. Actually, when you read it carefully—and I don’t know whether the Attorney-General has been through this whole saga, to be honest—it actually allows the Government to direct a person to do particular things. I’ve had at least one QC tell me he thinks that, arguably, it is enslavement of citizens. Well, I’ll leave that to one side. The idea that the Government can just take a business’s property beyond all the usual commandeering and emergency measures that Governments have already, was deliberately set out as utu because the Government was in what I call a spat with the saliva testing company, Rako Science. I just think that’s disgraceful. I’m proud that this side of Parliament acted, and our National Party friends actually stood up and said, “That’s wrong. We oppose it.”, because no one on that side of the bench could stand up for any kind of principle, either because they weren’t allowed to by somebody, or perhaps they just hadn’t seen it. I think that law has to fall.

So that’s the first reason. The Government shouldn’t go around pinching people’s stuff. In a free society, the Government’s supposed to stop other people pinching your stuff, not join in with it, which is what this Labour Government is now doing.

The second thing I say is that in that law, when it was amended last month, were new provisions that a person can be made what’s called an enforcement officer, and that person can become a road-blocker, for want of a better term. That person can go and set up a roadblock and stop other New Zealanders from exercising their New Zealand Bill of Rights Act ability to move freely about the country. That person can actually stop you going up North—perhaps to your home—and check your vaccination status. I think that that is absolutely wrong. The only time it’s justified to have your New Zealand Bill of Rights Act right to move around the country limited is when it’s justified in a free and democratic society.

Now, here’s the thing: in a free and democratic society, we have official advice from the Director-General of Health about what the public health requirements actually are. The Director-General of Health, we now know, because he told the Waitangi Tribunal—although the Government would never release public health advice within two weeks of receiving it to the rest of New Zealand. But the Waitangi Tribunal found out that just two weeks ago, Ashley Bloomfield said that the Auckland border has served its purpose.

So here’s the question for the Government: why are they setting up these police- or is it iwi-led checkpoints? Is it the case that there is a public health need and that iwi are helping out as enforcement officers? Or is it the case that Hone Harawira, who represents no one—and we’ve actually tested this, because we had a general election and the people of Te Tai Tokerau voted him out—is saying, “I’m going to do it anyway.”, and the Government has decided to save face by sending the cops along to babysit them?

This stuff really matters at a constitutional level. It’s not clear who is truly directing the police anymore. Are the police there because Hone Harawira has decided to set up a checkpoint, or because Ashley Bloomfield thinks there’s a public health justification? Well, we know it’s not Ashley, so what, by source of elimination, is the remaining answer? Does this mean that anyone who’s got a grievance against Government policy can block the roads and the cops will come along and help? Because if that’s the case, we have abandoned the conventions of the rule of law that have stood New Zealand in good stead for many generations, and it’s happened on that Attorney-General’s watch. I think that is shameful. That’s why this law cannot continue.

But then there are wider questions around COVID management. Is this Government really still up to the task? I’m sure that the Labour members on the Government bench are getting some of the same public opinion research—well, actually, we know they are, because we just received an Official Information Act response, and it’s a doozy—that is saying that the public no longer have faith in this Government’s COVID response. That’s the truth, folks. That’s the truth. Because they’ve watched a Government that thought that they had it all under control, that Delta would never get here, and if it did, managed isolation and quarantine would stop it, and if it got through, the vaccines would be ready. None of that was true. So now it’s helter-skelter.

Now, this morning, Andrew Little actually had to call in to breakfast TV. You wouldn’t believe this. I don’t know; you guys probably don’t know about this. He actually had to call in and dispute what the nurses are saying, that actually the hospitals aren’t fine—“We’re very stressed because you just froze our pay as inflation took off.” That’s another wee problem with the COVID management response. You’re so disorganised, we don’t have saliva testing in the hospitals at the right time. I mean, the old health Minister went off mountain biking in the middle of a pandemic.

The public, the nurses, everybody is losing confidence in this Government’s management of COVID. It is so incoherent. There are so many things that just don’t make sense. For example, this law allows the Government to make rules about the response at the border. Now, riddle me this: it’s not safe for vaccinated, negative-tested New Zealanders to come into the country and to isolate at home, but it will be on 16 January. It is safe right now for New Zealanders who we know have COVID, because the Government tested them and they were positive, to isolate at home. So thousands of people are missing out on opportunities, missing out on work—oh, but here’s the thing, and here’s this Attorney-General who has got so much to answer for. I hope he will get up and take a call. Because if you go to court and ask the right questions, none of those rules apply to you. Who designed that law? Why isn’t it consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? Well, the courts don’t think it is, and they’ve got real trouble coming in the new year, as one of my colleagues alluded to.

So this Government doesn’t deserve this law anymore. They are not competent or capable of managing it. The public increasingly see it, and they are going to see more of the kind of defiance that they got from BusinessNZ this morning, because everyone knows that this Government is trying to back out, but its back’s against the wall. That’s why this law should be withdrawn. The Parliament shouldn’t let them have it, and I can’t wait to see what’s about to come. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As my colleague has advised, we will be opposing this bill. The three prime reasons are the scope of the mandate and the life cycle that goes with it; the second point is the managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) disconnect, which I may come back to, which my colleague has spoken to here, with returning travellers; and the third point is the requisition of privately held equipment—effectively, the nationalisation of private possessions and property.

I think that another reason we’re going to struggle to support this bill is that we haven’t been a learning environment during this COVID outbreak. What that means is that what we’re doing here is that we’re being asked to roll over legislation that may have been approved in some areas but that in others clearly hasn’t. I want to point to some areas that I think should have been approved if we were to be a learning environment and doing more than just rolling over default legislation.

In particular, I’ve been interested in the part of this bill that commissions the testing procedures both offshore and onshore. If I start with offshore first of all, the pre-departure testing, it has continued to elude us why rapid antigen testing was an accepted pre-departure test but has not been ubiquitous in New Zealand. How can we rationalise that? How can we say, “Yes, this is a test that you can have legitimately at Heathrow Airport, or wherever you wish, we’ll accept it, but here in New Zealand, no, we don’t accept it.”? That’s really hard to understand, I’m afraid. There’s a number of reasons why we’ve got issues with rapid antigen testing; some of which, I believe, will only come to see sunlight with a royal commission of inquiry, and, I imagine, it will be along the lines of what the Office of the Attorney-General found with saliva testing—that there’s been unexplainable hurdles that haven’t followed the science, and I think rapid antigen testing is going down that same path.

I want to talk to the onshore testing as well and whether we really want to roll over the default positions that we have at the moment. I want to talk to the testing in MIQ, which has sort of expanded from what was initially pre-departure, offshore, day zero, day one, day three, day five, then day eight was added, and day 12. The argument to—and I still don’t understand why day three testing is voluntary in MIQ, why it’s the one voluntary test. It should be mandatory right on day one; I find no plausible explanation for that. But the default response has been, through all of testing, “Don’t worry, we do day 12 testing. That exit testing before people leave MIQ saves everything. If we’ve missed something in day three, don’t worry, we’ll pick it up in day 12.”

Here’s the problem I’ve got with that, and it talks to us still not knowing the portal by which Delta entered New Zealand in the first place—here’s the problem I’ve got with day 12 testing and that answer that it is our safety net—“Don’t worry, we’ve got day 12 testing.” The problem I’ve got is that from 1 April, when Delta arrived, through to 3 September, 191 people didn’t have day 12 testing. How can that be? If it’s our safety net, if it’s “Don’t worry, we’ll do the day 12 testing.”, why did 191 people not receive their day 12 test?

Now, if you look at this a bit further, it turns out that 34 of them had their test done in hospital. That’s fine. We can take that off the list. For 44 of them, the test was not required, because it had been done before day 12, like within 24 hours or so. That’s a reasonable explanation as well. That still leaves 113 people who didn’t have a day 12 test. Let’s drill into them a bit more. It turns out that 32 of them were aged six months to 17 years; 14 were exempted on clinical grounds, four were exempted because they didn’t give consent—how can you not give consent to a day 12? And, by the way, they didn’t stay for another 14 days, which is what happens if you don’t have a day 12 test; you just stay till 28 days. Four didn’t give their consent, and 63 were aged under six months.

Now, it’s that category that I want to just look into for a moment and put to the Government that instead of just rolling over the current legislation, maybe we should be doing a better job here, because those under-six-monthers—the 63—it’s not that we don’t test children under six months; we actually do. It turns out that 17 under-six-month-olds had received a nasopharyngeal test.

What we do for six-monthers, if you’re worried that it’s the same sort of thing that we do for adults, is we use what’s called a high-turbinate swab, which is a much gentler swab. It doesn’t go quite as far back into the infant’s nasopharynx, and we get a result from that.

My concern here is that—instead of Australia, that has said everyone who enters their MIQ, be you an infant, an adult, whatever, you are all tested—we still have this pervasive rule that infants under six months don’t need to be tested. That’s the concern I’ve got. We know they catch Delta, because we had a six-weeker in Northland base hospital, but we still have the policy that infants under six months don’t have to be swabbed in MIQ. Seventeen clearly said, “Oh, I’m worried. I’m going to go ahead and do that.” That’s fine. But that still leaves a large number.

My question I’m raising is: is this the mechanism by which Delta entered New Zealand? Did it inadvertently actually come from an infant who wasn’t swabbed, by exemption, and that’s how it entered New Zealand?

If I look into that a little bit more, if we look at the 17 August outbreak and look at a month before that, so let’s choose our prime period when we’re most concerned about Delta coming into New Zealand in this current outbreak. We know it came from New South Wales, so we can filter it down a bit more. How many people in that month before our current outbreak came from New South Wales into New Zealand and didn’t have a swab? The answer to that is two. There were two people who in that key period, just before Delta came here, were not swabbed when they came into New Zealand. One was a child aged under six months, and the other had their day 12 test completed at a hospital. So we know at least one infant under six months came from New South Wales, where our Delta variant, we know genomically, outbreak started, in that month before our outbreak started, and exited MIQ without being tested.

Is it possible, inadvertently, that that is actually where our outbreak started? If it is, I’d commend to the Government that rather than rolling over pervasively what we accept as the best policies, maybe we should look at Australia, who’ve said, “No, no, no, everyone, even infants, need to be swabbed if they enter isolation. The risk is too great.” We shouldn’t have this arbitrary six-month cut-off; we should be using the high-turbinate swabs for infants, and just shut down that other possible mechanism for infection in New Zealand.

So this is but one example of the learning that we haven’t undertaken, that we haven’t adopted and taken on board to improve the legislation that we’re being asked to approve here this morning, and it becomes one of the reasons why we’re going to struggle with this bill and why we’re saying a no today. There are some good things that have been done—don’t get me wrong—but there are also some holes, some gaps that are still there. This is the sort of legislation that should be fixing those gaps before we just sign them through the day.

So that’s why it’s a no from me. That’s why it’s a no from us on this side of the House, on behalf of the National Party. We need to be a learning environment and take into account all the findings that we have, so that we truly bring the science to this sort of outbreak, to the protections that New Zealanders are asking us to put forward, and simply we need to be doing a better job. Take on board that this is us offering collaborative suggestions with hard data as to how we can do a better job. That’s the mode that you’re seeing here. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call as to why it is necessary to extend the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020.

Could I point out the irony of the comments from Dr Shane Reti. Dr Shane Reti is a very competent doctor and physician who has practised at leading teaching institutions internationally and really does know his onions about these issues. When he criticises the testing regime of the Government, the Government does listen. He just said that we need to do more testing pursuant to rules that Government set at the very time when his leader is forcing him to vote against a bill that is the legislative framework that sets out those testing regimes. Those testing regimes are found in orders that are passed under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act, and if that Act drops away, you can’t do it, Dr Reti. I think Dr Reti knows that, but this is part of the Luxon let-it-rip campaign where they’re—

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, there must have been a decision taken by the leader. I cannot believe that in the first two weeks of a new leader, the new leader is not responsible for this change of position by the National Party whereby they are saying that the Act—until now we have had relative agreement across the House that we need the powers that sit in the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act.

Can I deal with what I thought was quite an unnecessarily cynical and, at times, personal attacks from the leader from the ACT Party. The ACT Party, of course, has got absolutely no credibility on these issues because they again voted against the original Act. They’ve always opposed the legislative framework that has underlined the exceptional performance of New Zealand which has relied upon the rule of law which has flowed from the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act.

Now, I can understand him maintaining the consistent position he has, that he opposes the Act, but for him to misrepresent—for him to misrepresent—in this very important debate what he knows is incorrect because he heard the answers from the Prime Minister and from Minister Hipkins earlier in the week—

SPEAKER: No, no, no. Order! Order! Order! I hesitate to interrupt the Minister, but he has accused a member of deliberately misrepresenting something in this House, and that is something that he cannot do.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I take back that it was deliberate, but for him to be so incompetent as to misrepresent—

Hon David Bennett: He can’t debate it—can’t debate it.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —what has been explained in the House; when he attributed—

Hon David Bennett: How’s he get away with debating that?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Sorry. David Bennett, I have ruled on a matter. The member is relatively ignorant of the rules of the House. He should not attempt to correct me as while another member is speaking. He knows if he has a point of view he takes a point of order, but he also knows that if he takes a point of order, he will be ridiculed.

Hon DAVID PARKER: The point that the ACT leader, David Seymour, made in his contribution was to attribute to the Director-General of Health a statement that the border around Auckland should go and that it wasn’t necessary. He knows that that is a misrepresentation of what the director-general said because—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! Well, yeah. I am going to ask the Attorney-General to take some more care with his wording. Just to make absolutely clear: people can and do make mistakes in this House and misrepresent things; the difference is if they knowingly do it or deliberately do it then that’s a breach of privilege and you cannot accuse someone of a breach of privilege by way of a speech.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I accept that, thank you. He should know that that is a misrepresentation of what the director-general said, because he was in Parliament when that was explained by both the Prime Minister and the Minister the Hon Chris Hipkins, because that statement was for the release of that border in mid-December, which is what is happening.

There’s also been repeated accusations that somehow the Government’s imposing a higher level of restriction post the release of that border by transitioning different parts of New Zealand not at green. Again, that misrepresents the advice of the director-general because it attributes to the later advice the earlier advice, and the director-general changed his advice in the meantime.

Can I also point out that Chris Bishop says that we should be again letting it rip, doing away with managed isolation and quarantine. Pursuant to that, he said that from his point of view, there’s only 27 active cases in managed isolation and quarantine at moment that have come across the border. The point that the Government has made repeatedly is that those 27 cases released into the community would seed cases into the community. They would seed cases into the community in areas where we are not having to deal with outbreaks at the moment.

In respect of this idea that somehow we could repeal this Act or not allow it to continue and properly manage pandemic is just incorrect, because the underlying health legislation—as most people, I think, in New Zealand understand and accept—is not suitable for dealing with the COVID outbreak. The Health Act powers that would then default are much less granular, and in some ways they are not subject to the same checks and protections that arise under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act.

I’m going to list the protections that are in this Act that would not be in the underlying law. One, it makes Ministers rather than the director-general responsible for the main orders under it. That ministerial responsibility is very important; it requires the Minister to be satisfied that each and every order that the Minister makes is justified under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It limits the powers in the Act to the COVID pandemic. The Act self-repeals every 90 days so that we can have a debate like this in the House. Orders made under it are revoked unless Parliament, within 60 days, generally—generally it happens a lot faster than that, but up to 60 days, generally. Unless the orders are endorsed by Parliament, they are revoked. The Act puts the orders under it within the purview of the Regulations Review Committee, chaired by an Opposition member, and if I could compliment the work that Chris Penk has done in that role and the work that the committee has done. Those reports on each order come to the House, and the drafting of subsequent orders and the terms of them have been improved as a consequence.

The bill expressly preserves the role of the court to judge orders against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and requires orders to minimise intrusions into civil liberties. When we passed the Act, we even went to the trouble of replacing me as Attorney-General for the purposes of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and it got a clean New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report because it was proportionate to the crisis that we are facing.

We do not shy away from the rights of citizens to challenge these orders through the courts. We’ve expressly preserved their right to do that and we engage in those court cases. By and large, the actions of the executive have been upheld by the courts. There have been some areas where there have been criticisms, and those criticisms have been responded to.

In respect of the generalised assertion from the ACT leader that the lockdown in the first nine days was illegal, again, that’s not really a proper way of describing what happened. During the first nine days of the lockdown, the statements by the Prime Minister and Mike Bush at the time encouraging people to stay home in their bubble were not backed by an order under the Health Act; this was before the COVID response Act. The court found that during that first-nine day period, those instructions became increasingly directive, and therefore they were critical that by the end of the nine-day period, they thought that a formal order should have been made earlier. They said it was completely justified to do what had been done, but they found that in respect of that early period, until a second order was made on the Health Act, which expressly was even more directive than the instructions that the Prime Minister and Mike Bush were encouraging people. They said during that period, it crossed the line from encouraging people, as we went into that transition, into a strict lockdown. They said we should have made an order earlier, and we accept that.

Without this Act in place, we can’t have provisions at the border as we have. We can’t have the self-isolation mandates imposed. Some of these things can’t be done under the Health Act because it’s predicated on a form of quarantine that doesn’t fit the COVID outbreak. This is absolutely necessary to carry this Act forward. I endorse the motion to the House.

Motion agreed to.

SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill.

House in Committee

House in Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House is in committee on the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill.

Bills

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

In Committee

Part 1 Urban densification policies and other matters

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): We come first to the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, Part 1. Members, this is the debate on clauses 4 to 12, “Urban densification policies and other matters”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. The ACT Party had a number of questions on behalf of submitters that were raised in the committee stage, and they primarily related to how the bill was going to give effect to the objectives that ACT shares with the Government and with the National Party, which has jointly sponsored the bill—that is, in order to actually deliver the number of houses, somewhere between 48,000 and a 100,000-odd homes; and we’ve heard the Labour Party promise 100,000 homes on a campaign husting before. But, in order to actually deliver them, what were the problems the bill tried to solve, and was the bill, in the way it was written, actually going to solve them? Was it going to make it easier to build more homes? Was it going to get rid of some of the red tape? Was the bill actually going to simplify the planning processes for private developers and homeowners who might want to subdivide a property that has an existing family home on it and build another one on the back? Was it actually going to make it easier?

Our initial analysis carried out in the few days after the announcement indicated that the bill would actually make it harder to deliver more homes, take longer than the projects already planned and well advanced by many private developers, create a parallel consenting regime in addition to the Resource Management Act (RMA) consenting regime, which still developers must go through for all kinds of matters in addition to actually the shape of the house, and also introduced a new medium density residential standard that was an urban design standard for buildings in residential areas that had never been proposed or tested or consulted on. The problem with actually proposing and developing legislation in secret is that you never actually get to test your ideas out on the people who are most affected, and, actually, those businesses, those developers who have the capability and the capacity to build more homes and to deliver more affordable, better quality homes.

Developers came to the committee and they made it very clear that their projects—already well-developed, but of course not yet notified; no decisions taken as yet—actually were proposing to deliver, in some cases, 7,000 homes in Hamilton East on the Peacocke subdivision area or the Beachlands South development, one that actually features the New Zealand Superannuation Fund as a finance partner. They told the committee that, actually, this bill was going to make it much harder to deliver their projects because they would not be able to use all of the planning, all of the investigation, all of the technical work that they had done for their master plan developments, which include a mixture of terraced housing, apartments, low density. They would not be able to use that information to comply with the medium density residential standards (MDRS) standard that would be painted on to their subdivisions, because, essentially, it would increase the amount of infrastructure required, the size of the pipes, and the size of the pump stations by up to three times.

They told the committee, “If you want to build more homes, could you please give us an exemption for our high quality master plan developments delivering modern communities? Could you please give us an exemption for that—or at least, if you must bring us into the scheme, could we be allowed to proceed with our developments without having to go through the RMA? Could we use a fast-tracked planning process?” And, given the number of fast-track planning and consenting processes that this Government has proposed over the past few years, whether it’s the fast-track consenting for COVID19 special projects or whether it’s fast tracking for New Zealand Upgrade projects, this bill actually doesn’t give the private sector the opportunity to fast track. It reserves all of those rights to Government and to councils, and many councils also are seeking exemptions or significant modifications as well.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you for the question from Simon Court. The point in respect of a large master plan development, for example, was raised at select committee, and that’s been reported to me. The recommendation of the select committee, which the Government has adopted, is that, effectively, those master-planned areas will get the benefit of the intensification rules that will flow through. So that is achieved, if they’ve got a plan in process, by way of a variation to their plan change. But, of course, they don’t have to build to the intensity; they’re just allowed to. This is an enabling bill, not a requiring bill.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, further to that point, I think possibly the Minister has missed two important considerations that people who actually build houses will be well aware of. One is that they may not necessarily have lodged an application at the present time but, none the less, invested large amounts of work, perhaps millions of dollars of planning activity, and a lot of time into master planning a development. So giving them any kind of, I guess, grandfathering clause, which sounds like what the Minister’s proposing, from the current time or sometime into the future, will still “sterilise”—is the word that’s been used in the select committee—some of the plans that are put in place.

The second thing is that the Minister is right, in one sense, in saying that this is an enabling bill. But one of the misconceptions that seems to have run through the Minister’s commentary on the bill, and the bill in general, is that it’s enabling allowing one standard of zoning density across a wide area. Actually, in a free society people often choose a range of different schemes in order to fulfil their needs. An example of that: some of these master plan developments have said, “We would like to have a lower density in some parts in order to sell sections that we don’t have to service at any great level of intensity with our infrastructure.” The so-called enablement that this Government is offering, saying, “Actually, no. That’s now illegal. You must upgrade all of the density that you had planned.”, throws out of whack the area structure plans—have you heard of area structure planning; that’s really important—all of the infrastructure planning that’s been done for a master plan development. So the Minister’s got to take this stuff seriously.

Unfortunately, it’s a consequence of the way that this bill was done. The Minister knows this, because he’s been approached by people who wanted to do more consultation with councils. He thought it was a good idea but he got rolled by Megan Woods—is the sad irony of all this. He knows what I’m talking about. I want to ask the Minister: is he aware that, first of all, putting back the date for applications that have already been made won’t help those that have been planned, sometimes for a long period of time at great expense, prior to application? Is he concerned he’s going to sterilise master planning that’s been done prior to application? And does he understand that, while the bill notionally is enabling, if it becomes effectively illegal to have some areas of some developments at lower density in support of an infrastructure plan for a development, he’s actually taking away the ability to plan in that way and will sterilise a lot of developments that have been made? Those two questions, please.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): No, I don’t accept the assertion that’s made by the member.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): How can the Minister not accept the assertion made by me—I can understand that; we’re both politicians—when it’s actually also an assertion that’s been made by a large number of people whose actual job is to build houses? This is the issue, right? He can refuse to accept an assertion by me, perhaps, but how can he refuse to accept an assertion made by people who actually build homes—you know, people that have master plan developments who’ve come to the committee and said, “What you are doing will sterilise or stop the development or severely delay the development of thousands of homes.”? So is he just refusing to accept the assertion made by me or is he telling those developers they don’t know what they’re doing?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I’m telling the member that he’s wrong.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): If it’s the case, would it be too much of the Minister’s time to stand up and just maybe give an explanation just to those people? I wouldn’t want people to form the view of the Minister that he’s perhaps a little bit aloof or a little bit acerbic—a little bit like the voters of Otago did in 2005, as the Chair will know. So maybe what he could do is stand up and actually just give the people the benefit of his wisdom and say why I’m wrong, why it’s the case that people who have done a lot of investment in master planning but haven’t yet applied won’t be helped by grandfathering in applications that have already been made, and why it’s not the case that we’re banning low-density areas of master planned developments, which is effectively what the medium density residential standards imposition does, is not going to put out of whack their area structure plans, their infrastructure plans, all of the planning that they’ve done for these master planned developments. If you’d just get up and—you know, if it’s so obvious, get up and just tell us.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Madam Chair, I’m happy to say it again. But I actually addressed the same underlying issue when I responded to his colleague Mr Court.

David Seymour: No, you didn’t.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I did. What this bill does in respect, for example, of an area that has been through or is going through a master planning process is it enables the development of the land within that development to be, essentially, three storied subject to setbacks.

David Seymour: Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know that.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, if you know that, that’s the answer. It doesn’t require them to build it; it just enables them to build it, and it doesn’t stop the master planned development that has been approved. If it’s in a planning process and is yet to be approved, that process can continue, but a variation will probably make it more enabling for that developer rather than more restrictive. It is, of course, up to the developer whether they choose to take advantage of that more enabling planning framework and build more densely. They don’t have to, but they’ll be allowed to.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. So, while we’re on the subject of master plans, it’s my understanding that the bill, because it does apply that medium density residential zoning, as an underlying zoning, for any private plan changes—there’s still a degree of voluntary nature in terms of whether the developer chooses to apply that. So, in terms of some of the private planning and upzoning that is occurring around areas like Templeton, Prebbleton, and Rolleston, this bill won’t do anything to prevent urban sprawl.

Can I ask the Minister whether he has considered Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 115, which is all about master planning? Because it picks up submissions from a number of developers and others who highlighted the change that has occurred in residential density, through section sizes getting smaller across the decades. So the quarter-acre “pavlova paradise” dream of a section generally provides about eight households a hectare. Then, in the post-war periods, we got about 30 houses a hectare. But, in areas like Hobsonville, where there’s been a commitment to doing master planning well, there are 30 to 40 homes per hectare.

So the Green Party SOP in my name is about enabling those developers which have gone to the trouble of having a master plan, so that you have an integrated development that recognises that you want green spaces, that you want a mix of densities but a preference for more dwellings at that higher and medium density, and that infrastructure considerations are also integrated. This SOP provides for a better opportunity for these master plans to proceed as a controlled activity on land that is already zoned residential in a district plan, so it’s not the rural to residential. But it does ensure that we get the master planning developments going ahead with a greater coherence than the bill currently enables, and it makes it easier for those well-designed developments to proceed, which would assist with the bill’s objective of getting more houses—more medium-density houses—faster.

So the bill as it came back from select committee, while it certainly accommodates private plan changes, does not have specific provisions which facilitate these master plan developments going ahead in accordance with the master plan.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair, and can I thank the member Eugenie Sage. She put a lot of work in as chair of the select committee that oversaw the bill. We’re not proposing having a mandatory obligation for a master plan to have a particular density in this bill; so we won’t be backing that Supplementary Order Paper. That’s not within the scope of what we’ve planned through this particular legislation. It is “enabling” rather than “requiring”—a point that I have made in an earlier contribution.

SIMON COURT (ACT): To the Minister in the chair, David Parker, you are absolutely correct: it is enabling legislation—and it’s entirely possible in this world that two things may be correct at the same time. It is enabling, but it also creates, through the enabling process, an imposition on master plan developers. We’re talking about groups that would spend, according to the Adare group, Beachlands South, which, again, as I said, includes the major funder New Zealand Super Fund—New Zealand Super Fund, right? They have sunk, by their estimates—by their estimates, the Adare group, Hamilton—$3 million to $4 million and three to four years in undertaking all of what they called the pre-lodgement work. Before you can even put your application in for a master plan development, you firstly have to have a planner look at the zoning, you have to have a geotechnical engineer, an ecologist, probably someone who knows something about bats look at the land that you propose to develop on. Each one of those technical reports costs between $25,000 and $100,000.

Once you’ve done your initial assessment, then you start your planning and your preliminary design. You go to council, you ask them, “This is our proposal. Can you see any major hooks and crooks in the planning and consenting approach that we’re taking?” And, you know, councils actually, even despite the fact it costs them money and they have to suffer a financial disadvantage for saying yes to people—and that’s a separate matter, infrastructure funding and financing—what they tell developers and applicants is, “Actually, there may be a few ways you can steer your development around some of the rules that will make it easy to get over the line. We would love to assist you in that way, because we also don’t want to spend a whole lot of our time going through your application having to litigate the whole thing. So get it right and then it’ll be easier for us to say yes to.” That process takes years and costs millions.

What these master plan developers have said to us, what they’ve said to the committee, is, “Actually, we’re just about at the point of lodgement. We’ve got all of our stakeholders on board, we’ve got the local ‘Save the Bats’ group on board, we’ve got iwi on board, we’ve got our local council planning team on board. All we need to do is tick the boxes and make sure, when this set of documents”—which I can guarantee you is far bigger than the set of documents sitting on the Table right now in front of you; if you stacked it all up, it’d be metres high—“when we lodge, we want to make sure that we haven’t wasted millions and millions of dollars in investment in planning and technical reporting.” But what this bill will do is tell them that all of that can go in the bin, because, when you come to council and you apply for your master plan development, all of the reports about “Will the bats be affected?” and “Will the stormwater system be able to cope and will the waste-water pipes be big enough?”—that all goes in the bin because they now have to allow for three houses, three stories, on every single lot in their subdivision. Yes, it’s enabling, this legislation, but it’s also disabling because it’s actually torching years and years of work.

Now, one of the members on our select committee, Rachel Brooking, is a Resource Management Act (RMA) lawyer, and I know that in a past life we—me as an engineer and Rachel Brooking as an RMA lawyer—may well have collaborated on projects just like this. So I’m confident that at least that member is well aware of the risks that I’m talking about, that they are real. So we propose a solution. When we get to the schedules, I’ll be proposing an amendment which, actually, if the Minister wants local councils to suffer under the medium density residential standards enabling—or disabling—provision—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member’s getting a little far away from Part 1. Thank you.

SIMON COURT: Thank you—thank you, Madam Chair. Coming back to Part 1: so there are some fundamental issues with the bill, which submitters pointed out to us. They have not been addressed by the amendments, and I just want to come to that very briefly. The committee only had a very early draft of the bill to consider. We spent many, many hours poring through it line by line and each day we were offered amendments, and right up until 24 hours ago the final bill was not tabled. So it’s been very, very difficult, not just for parties like the ACT Party, that wants to contribute to making better laws and improving public policy, but submitters, those affected, have had zero time to understand the effects of this bill. Minister, I’d like you to explain to them why you think that’s fair.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d also like to make some comments and ask a couple of questions in relation to Part 1 of this bill. In particular, I’m interested to know from the Minister his thinking, and the thinking of his advisers, in relation to strengthening the qualifying matters that have appeared in the Government Supplementary Order Paper.

Now, at first reading, there were provisions for qualifying matters that would enable councils to exclude from the provisions of this legislation certain areas and properties that they felt, for a variety of reasons, were not going to be appropriate under this legislation. I for one, and I know that my colleagues on this side of the House in the National Party—we were actually quite pleased to see that there had been some movement from the Minister in this regard, and I’m keen to just understand a little about the rationale and the logic behind that and what the motivations were for extending some of the qualifying matters that, essentially, give councils more power, where they think justified, to exclude from the provisions of this legislation certain properties, or even areas within an urban environment that they feel—for instance, in terms of heritage protection—may not be appropriate.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you for that question, the Hon Scott Simpson. This is dealt with in clause 77G, on page 11 of the tracked changes version of the bill, with some related provisions in the clauses that follow. The member is correct that there has been some change recommended by the select committee that we’ve adopted. There is some express reference to other qualifying matters that weren’t in the original version of the bill, including, for example, the vision and strategy for the Waikato River / Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato, and also matters giving effect to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act or the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act.

Perhaps more significant are some of the changes that were made to make these provisions more practical for councils to apply, which enable councils to reply on earlier work that they have done rather than having to do a separate assessment in respect of each case that comes before them. That’s probably the more important change that was made at select committee.

I should also say it’s not the intention to allow overlays on a whole suburb that aren’t related to a matter of real import. So, for example, if something is in a flood plain and there is a worry that a river in flood could mean that an area could be flooded, that could apply to a whole area, but if someone wanted to protect historic heritage, it would have to be done on either a building or a group of buildings basis rather than on a whole suburb basis.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. That’s a very interesting phrase that the Minister just used. He said it’s not the intention for the qualifying matters to extinguish medium-density residential zone or the standard of—it’s confusing because, when the regulatory impact statement was done, it was the medium-density residential zone. Then five months later, when all this came to light, it had morphed into a standard. And I’ve heard even the Minister and some of the other proponents of the bill from the National Party get that confusion, but there you go.

The qualifying matters that extinguish it from some areas have certainly been widened as the bill was introduced. You know, the qualifying matters really were on a per property basis, and it would have been totally impractical for councils to go through and identify, in the case of heritage, what exactly was important. But I guess the Minister said it’s not the intention that whole suburbs would apply. I guess one of the questions that might become pertinent quite soon is—I think about an area in, say, Mount Albert. It’s a nice suburb in Auckland, well represented, I hear. And, on the hill there, there’s some quite heritage-type homes, very nice homes. I suspect those people might go to their local MP and ask, “Why can’t our area be a heritage zone or have a heritage overlay that would extinguish the medium density residential standards (MDRS)?” So can the Minister just talk through what would be the process for deciding whether or not a heritage overlay was a qualifying matter?

In particular, what would he envisage being the role of the Minister in deciding whether indeed a heritage matter was a qualifying matter in a particular region? Let’s just use the side of Mount Albert. I don’t know if the Minister knows Auckland very well, but the north side, facing the sun, overlooking Mount Albert town from the actual mountain there—and I’ll just give the Minister a bit more time; he’s clearly seeking some advice. But, you know, that’s the question: what actually happens when a group of residents in a street on the northern slopes of Mount Albert insist that actually there should be a heritage overlay in their area and that should be a qualifying matter? And, come to that, what happens when some more people, just down the hill in Mount Albert, say, “Well, you know, the view shaft, our ability to see Mount Albert, is one of the things that makes Auckland special.” You see, lots of cities have rivers and lots of cities have harbours, but very few cities have 50 volcanic cones spread throughout them. A lot of Aucklanders view that as being something very distinctive and hence the view shaft—

Simon Court: Some of us just view them as a quarry.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Yeah, and Simon Court’s said—he’s a civil engineer to his teeth—“Some of us just view those volcanic cones as a quarry.” I, of course, don’t have a view on that, but if I did, it wouldn’t include certain cones. But what I would say is that these are important questions. The Minister’s just said it’s not the intention that a whole suburb be a heritage zone. So can the Minister talk us through: a group of people on the slopes of Mount Albert go to their local MP and they ask, “What’s the process? Why can’t we get an overlay as a heritage zone that is a qualifying matter so the MDRS doesn’t apply on the northern slopes of Mount Albert?” Where does it get to, and what’s the role of the Minister in deciding whether or not there is a qualifying matter?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The Minister has no role. That’s a matter that’s delegated in the legislation to local government. In respect of the list of qualifying matters that’s set out at new section 77G, members will see that paragraph (h) to that clause says “that any other matter that makes higher density as provided for by the MDRS [or policy 3] inappropriate in an area, but only if section 77I is [triggered].” Section 77I then says that in respect of those further requirements, it also brings some related provisions in the existing National Policy Statement on Urban Development, and in effect, what that does is say that, for other matters like heritage, a site-by-site analysis is required by the council, whereas, for the other listed matters, they can rely on more general overlays.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. So the Minister has just stated that he doesn’t have decision making of the qualifying matters, that that is a matter for local councils. And, yet, once a plan is proposed through the intensification planning process and it’s proposed by a hearings panel, if a council which represents its community finds that some of the provisions in this plan are unacceptable for whatever reason—whether they be heritage or because it interferes with other values that are recognised in the Resource Management Act—if they refuse to accept all of these measures, then that plan will be referred to the Minister to make a decision.

So that’s where it’s going to end up. It’s going to end up on the Minister’s desk. And, as the Minister pointed out in the House the other night, he may not always be the Minister. It’s been said elsewhere that the Minister for the Environment ends up being the “Minister of Everything”, and so any changes to resource management law must recognise that, actually, communities’ needs, wants, values do need to be taken into account. And if there is a community like Mount Albert or on the slopes of Mount Hobson, where I grew up, it decides that they want their community and their homes and their streets to look a certain way because there are values around volcanic cones—not all of them should be quarried; I just want to clear that up. Some of them actually have fantastic purposes, such as water care, water reservoirs, but you wouldn’t know that by looking at them, because those pieces of infrastructure have been so well integrated into the cones over the years, which means that the cones still have value, as—

Hon Michael Wood: Hasn’t been to Three Kings!

SIMON COURT: —Three Kings, Mount Hobson. Again, a concrete water tank, as the Hon Michael Wood points out, on top of Three Kings, does have an iconic cultural value to many, and it’s important that communities get to choose which of the values they wish to see incorporated in planning law that affects them. So any planning, any plan, which is proposed under this bill, which ends up on the Minister’s desk, means that the Minister will have decision making.

David Seymour: Yes, and why did he say he doesn’t?

SIMON COURT: So the question is—thank you, Mr Seymour. The question is: why did the Minister say that he doesn’t have decision making over qualifying matters when, ultimately, he will? And he no doubt was looking forward to this as the “Minister of Everything”, currently Minister for the Environment. Minister?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The discretion that the Minister for the Environment has is limited to the—

David Seymour: No role—you said “no role”.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, no role in the way in which the member previously put to me.

David Seymour: So this is “no role” but he has a role—righto.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Take another call if you want to put your question more specifically, because I answered it accurately in the first place. In respect of the point that Mr Court has made—[Interruption]—the processes that the council proposes—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Order! Apologies to the Minister. Interjections should be rare and reasonable; an ongoing barrage of comments and questions is not acceptable, and members have the opportunity in this committee stage to stand and ask for a call.

Hon DAVID PARKER: It’s obvious that I’ve got under the skin of the leader of the ACT Party for answering questions. In respect of the point that Mr Court made, the process is that the council proposes a plan that they believe to be in compliance with these laws. An independent hearings panel then considers it. The independent hearings panel will go back to the council, and I would expect, nine out of 10 times, all of it will be approved. Sometimes there will be aspects of it that the council disagrees with. In respect of all of the parts that the council agrees with, they automatically come into effect. And, in respect of the part that is disagreed with, someone has to take a decision on that because there is a disagreement then between the independent hearings panel and the council, and, at that point, that point of disagreement is put to the Minister.

In respect of the point made about volcanic view shafts, that is a matter that can be taken into account by councils. It effectively flows through the matters of national importance, which are carried through by new section 77G in the bill.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. The select committee spent some time clarifying the application of the intensification planning instrument, which had been through the intensification streamlined planning process, which the Minister has just described, with the independent hearings panel making recommendations to the council.

Can I ask the Minister a couple of things. There was concern amongst some submitters that there is a potential for bottlenecks if the Minister is making a decision—Waipā District Council, for example, had said that their plan change through the existing streamlined planning process had been somewhat delayed. So what are the processes in place, if a number of councils are doing these intensification streamlined instruments at the same time and if there are differences between the council’s decision on the recommendations of the hearing panel, so they go to the Minister, to ensure that there aren’t bottlenecks there?

And has the Minister, in terms of the concern that the Green Party has about the centralisation of power in the Minister’s domain—we didn’t really get a clear explanation through the select committee process about why we haven’t followed, in this bill, the model with the Auckland Unitary Plan, where, if there are differences between what the independent hearings panel recommends and the council’s decisions, if the council doesn’t accept all the recommendations, there is an ability to appeal to the court, because it’s our concern that there is a restriction of access to justice because the ability to appeal to the Environment Court does not exist under this streamlined intensification planning instrument process.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of the first of those issues, there is a resource constraint within any ministry if they have too much to do and we expect them to do what they’re already doing and pick up an extra job. It’s actually one of the reasons why the Government members on the committee didn’t agree with the suggestion that private plan changes should be able to go through this process, because that would have increased the volume of plan changes that came through in that regard; therefore, this process is limited to council plan changes.

David Seymour: What? You just said we don’t want to build more homes because you’d have to process more applications.

Hon DAVID PARKER: “W-h-a-t” is what we heard from the ACT leader. If he can’t understand simple answers, take another call. That’s the reason: that private plan changes—it could overwhelm the system.

In respect of the question as to whether it should go to the Environment Court or the Minister, that’s a proper question to ask. The reason why the Government landed on it going to the Minister was that the discretion of the Minister is, essentially, limited by the two ends of the dispute, if you like: what the independent hearings panel thought and what the council thinks. They’ll have both put their viewpoints to it, the issues will have considerably narrowed, and we thought it was appropriate that we just get on with it and implement these upzoning provisions, because they’re so important. And, if we were to put that to the Environment Court, we can see that that could add another year, perhaps more, to the process, and we thought that that was inappropriate.

At its heart, this bill is actually quite simple: it enables three-storey developments at the centre of our largest centres, and we need that, and we need that not just in the suburbs where you can currently do that in Auckland, which are virtually all of West Auckland and South Auckland, but we need it in the isthmus, because that’s where so much of the housing and housebuilding opportunities are, and that’s, of course, why the ACT Party opposes it.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Oh, Madam Chair, so can we just get clear what the Minister for the Environment has just told the committee and New Zealand. He said that private plan changes should be fast tracked if they’re initiated by councils—that’s good—but they can’t be initiated by private developers. For example, some people may have seen in the New Zealand Herald last weekend that the first two pages in the paper were taken out by a developer with a development called Sunfield; 5,000 developments that haven’t been able to be fast tracked by the Government because—sorry, I just have to pause and get this straight. So the Minister said that they can’t allow private developers to access the fast-track planning process, because they’d be too busy and they’d be overwhelmed.

Now, if that’s seriously what the Minister’s says, let’s just get this clear. We’re here to try to make a law to make it easier to build more homes. But the Minister says that we can’t let just anyone apply to build more homes, because he might get overwhelmed trying to process them. I mean, if that’s seriously what he’s saying, then I think we’re starting to see the wheels fall off and the serious problems with a Government trying to plan the development of property and communities up and down New Zealand. That’s the basic problem. And, of course, there is an amendment on the Table, and it should be adopted, that will allow private developers to take advantage of private plan changes, because, hey, they can build homes too. That is absolutely critical.

There’s quite a lot more to say, but I just want the Minister to be clear that he’s not going to support private plan changes being able to access the fast-track consenting process because he thinks that there’ll be too many applications to be processed. Is that actually what he said?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The member described me as saying that private plan changes can be initiated by the council. I didn’t say that. Council plan changes are initiated by councils, not private plan changes. Of course, private developers get the benefit of the planning changes that are caused in all of these cities by the plan changes that are required to be brought forward by the council, because they can now build three storeys.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I think I’d just ask if the Minister could further clarify that, because I think the ACT Party is creating some confusion here. The Environment Committee spent quite a lot of time dealing with the provision in the bill as introduced that private plan changes that hadn’t had the hearing completed by 20 February 2022 would have to be removed. One of the major recommendations was that they could go through the intensification streamlined planning process if the council decided to adopt or accept them, and that they could also go through as a variation when they were re-looked at by the applicants. So could the Minister just clarify that there is scope for private plan changes to continue but that they are required to be accepted or adopted by the council or go through as a variation.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Yes, and, in fact, I had addressed that earlier issue. That is correct, and that’s preserved through the transitional provisions.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): That has got to be the most premature closure motion I’ve heard in all the times I’ve been in this committee—

Barbara Edmonds: Repetition.

DAVID SEYMOUR: —in this House. The member now says that there’s repetition. I don’t think she’s quite grasping that this is a problem. I don’t think that her party grasp the subtlety of the matters that are being dealt with. The question I want to move to is, actually, the nature of the medium density residential standards (MDRS) itself. Now, this medium density residential standard, as introduced—for people who may be tuning into this at home, what it says is any residential section of any size can be up to 50 percent covered by three homes, up to three stories tall, 11 metres plus half the roof, and they can be a metre from your boundary, with a six metre then 60 degree height to boundary ratio, and no urban design standards outside of that basic description apply. Now, there’s a couple of other things: you’ve got to have a metre outlook outside a couple of your windows and three metres by three metres outside your primary window, but, basically, that’s it. If you comply with those rules, then no question.

I guess that it needs to be acknowledged that the Government has indicated that it would like to restrict that. So the biggest change they’ve contemplated would be to drag down the height. So it’s instead of six metres up, four metres up and then in at 60 degrees. It’s worth noting that—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order!

DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Can I invite the member to return to Part 1 of the bill?

DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, Madam Chair, Part 1 introduces the MDRS. Now, the details of it may well be in the schedule—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): And so I’m advising the member to return specifically to Part—

DAVID SEYMOUR: Oh, sure. No, no, no—I apologise, Madam Chair. I certainly am; I just wanted to give some context about what we’re talking about because it’s hard to talk about Part 1 without knowing about the—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Well, thank you for that, and the member’s time will be—[Members seeking call]

DAVID SEYMOUR: She’s on her feet, guys.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member will have the opportunity to further develop his argument and his questions when we are dealing with Part 2, but now we’re dealing with Part 1.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Madam Chair, thank you. I take your point, Madam Chair, but the questions I’m asking—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member will resume his seat, and I invite the member not to argue with my ruling, but I invite him to continue to with his questioning around Part 1.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to be clear: I’m certainly not arguing with your ruling. All I’m trying to do is show how, actually, what I was saying—I’m just giving a bit of context—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Well, the member is now arguing with my ruling, and I am now warning him that he needs, right now, to return specifically to Part 1 of the bill. Thank you, David Seymour.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Part 1 would introduce the medium density residential standard, the details of which I’ve just outlined. What I want to ask the Minister is around some of the assumptions behind what that will do, because I’ve looked at the regulatory impact statement and, without having it immediately in front of me, the gist of it is that they say that they haven’t done any bespoke analysis of what the introduction of this planning instrument and specifically the MDRS within it will achieve. What they’ve said is they’ve relied on, basically, literature reviews that say a couple of things: one is that, in some cases, residential land use regulations are a constraint on housing supply. Well, that is most certainly true. I don’t think anyone in this Parliament has argued that for longer, stronger, or more consistently than I have. That is point number one. Number two is that it’s not always true in all circumstances. Because the second thing that’s very important to understand in any kind of economic analysis is something that Alfred Nobel came up with 150 years ago; it’s called the marginal revolution—the idea that economists think at the margin. So just because something was true in some circumstances at one point doesn’t mean that it’s true right now. That’s why they should have done bespoke analysis in the regulatory impact statement (RIS) to give the specifics of that.

You take the reasoning that was used to justify the introduction of these planning intensification instruments in Part 1—well, you take the analysis that was done by, I think it was, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), the accounting firm—and the basic logic of it is: well, when the Auckland Unitary Plan was introduced, the introduction of the mixed housing suburban zone and the mixed housing urban zone led to some development in those areas that was greater in terms of the floor area ratio; that is the amount of additional floor area. That was larger than it was in the areas that were left in single house zone. So the logic behind this bill—they don’t really compare any other issues in the RIS. The RIS starts from the assumption that it is zoning that is the constraint on home development, so they don’t compare any other issues.

They do this analysis from PwC and, I think it was, Sense Partners, the consultancy. They say, “Well, because upzoning in the case of the Auckland Unitary Plan five years ago led to additional floor area per metre of land being added, if we do even more up zoning, then in a linear fashion we will get even more floor area ratio.” That is such an error of logic. You can see the absurdity of it. It might be said, “Well, actually, what we need to do is, why stop at the cities? Why not make all of New Zealand subject to the medium density residential standard?” If we just keep extrapolating this, why get 100,000 houses? There could be millions, tens of millions, of houses. New Zealand could potentially become home to billions of people if only we applied the medium density residential standard to the whole country. But, of course, that would be absurd.

It would be completely absurd, because what people might say is that there would be additional constraints on developing new homes. People might point out—they’d say, “Well, we might not have roads to get to those places, so people probably won’t build houses there.” They’ll say, “Oh, well, there probably won’t be libraries near there, so people won’t want to live there.” They’ll say, “Oh, we’ll have to have schools there.” Then we’ll say, “Oh, OK, what about three waters?” That’s a big issue. The Government knows that, because it’s been deeply contesting it. So we have a real issue here where we’re getting major difficulties with the supply of infrastructure, the supply of community amenities, and we don’t think that we’re going to be able to use all of that medium density residential standard zoned land.

Then people might say, “What about other aspects of the supply chain?” Well, you still need to get building consent. You still need to get resource consents for earthworks. There are still other constraints, and then you’ve got to find builders. Then you’ve got to find materials. People might say, “Well, I don’t know if the zoning was actually the binding constraint.” Now, if you can accept all of that at the, admittedly, extreme version of the thought experiment where you zoned it in New Zealand, well, maybe, actually, we’re already at the limit of what we can achieve by simply upzoning more land, particularly in Auckland. The Minister should know this, because he said, “Oh, we need more three storey homes near the centre of the city.” That’s what the Auckland Unitary Plan does. It was a civil war in Auckland for three years. It allowed 430,000 additional homes to be built that are economically viable. They’re a million in theory, but then they allowed for those other constraints.

The problem is that there is no analysis. They haven’t done any analysis, thinking at the margin as good economists do, which is: is the restriction of zoned land the true constraint on building more homes right now? They’ve done the analysis of: was it the constraints of when the Auckland Unitary Plan was introduced in 2016? They’ve done the analysis of: can we show that generally in the past, in some instances, that’s been true? They’ve shown that, but they’ve never asked the simple question: what is the binding constraint on development right now?

Then people say, “Oh, but you know, I would have thought that it would just be good to remove restrictions in any event.” Well, that’s an interesting argument. See, those of us who actually want a freer society know that deregulation has to be done in a way that actually delivers results—that, actually, homes have to get built and can’t be held back by those other constraints, and secondly, it has to be done in a way that doesn’t needlessly antagonise people who might otherwise support policies of a freer society.

Unfortunately, this policy is going to fail. My question to the Minister is very simple: what analysis do you have that zoning is the binding constraint and not infrastructure?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): One of the great things about the committee stage of Parliament is it really does expose the weakness of either the Government’s position or the Opposition’s position. And we heard at the start of that debate self-praise from the ACT Party claiming to be the most consistently in favour of removing planning constraints of housing development of anyone in this Parliament. He risks renaming himself the Dorian Gray of Parliament, because he should look in the mirror. It is so obvious that his actions here are the absolute opposite of, as he says, everything that he stands for.

Dealing with the assertion that there is no analysis as to whether this will work or not: there is a 150-page cost-benefit analysis, which I think is one of the best pieces of cost-benefit analysis that I have seen attached to any piece of legislation in this area of law. It is an outstanding piece of analysis that is grounded in economics—the economics of land markets, the economics of infrastructure. And it says in that report that there is less uncertainty in respect of the analysis in that report than there is normally because they have the good data from the mixed use zone in Auckland already. It’s prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers and Sense Partners, as the member correctly said—two leading analysts in this area. And the economists who have done this work within those organisations are some of the best economists in land markets and planning economics in the country, and they have put their name to the independently prepared cost-benefit analysis.

That cost-benefit analysis is absolutely clear. It shows that upzoning in areas, which enables people to build denser—doesn’t require it; it enables them—when people are given the choice to build more densely, the choice to have a more affordable home because it uses land more efficiently, uses infrastructure more efficiently, the choice to live closer to their work, closer to the shops that they use, when people are given those choices, they take them. Developers build to the choices of the people, because they know that if they build to that type of house they will find a buyer.

Now, I hear complaints about quality from members of the ACT Party. They haven’t quite said what some of the planning profession have said, that people will want to buy slums or live in slums—they haven’t quite said that, but that’s sort of the tone of what they say. Again, this is just an abrogation of their viewpoint that people should have the choice of being able to develop their land more intensively and the choice of buying a home that is affordable to them. Because, instead of the land content being half a million dollars per house or something, maybe the land content will be lower and they’ll spend more on a high-quality house because they’ll be able to afford a higher quality house because they won’t have paid these astronomical amounts for the land content.

In terms of what the cost-benefit analysis said, it showed that the earlier cost-benefit analysis of what would be the effect of the national policy statement on urban development and the effect of the mixed-use zone, those early analyses by other cost-benefit analysts, they undercooked it. The actual outcomes compared with the outcomes in those earlier examples of cost-benefit analysis understated how powerful this will be and how much this is important to affordable housing.

In terms of the numbers that they produced, they said that this piece of legislation will over the next, I think it is, five to eight years—is it?—result in between 48,000 and 105,500 extra houses being built in New Zealand for people to live in, and yet the ACT Party opposes it. In respect of how much of that is in Auckland, according to their analysis: between 27,900 and 53,700 units. Now, if the Supplementary Order Paper is adopted, that extra housing will go down by about 4 percent, because we have changed some of the boundary rules that will come up in a later part of the speech. But those are the numbers—those are the numbers. They are real.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. So, with the bill enabling infill development across our major cities in the residential zones, one of the major concerns of submitters was the impact that that would have on trees and the loss of urban trees. One of the issues with a cost-benefit analysis is that the economists often find it difficult to put a benefit and a cost and evaluate those in relation to some of the intangibles: urban amenity that’s provided by trees, the shade effect, the reduction of the heat island effect, the reduction in stormwater flows that urban trees assist with, just what they contribute to our cities in terms of biodiversity and as habitat.

Now, the bill, in Part 1, introduces an ability for local authorities to make rules about financial contributions. The supplementary order paper (SOP) in my name, SOP 112, suggests that we make a change to the Resource Management Act (RMA) to enable district rules to provide for urban tree protection through the intensification planning instrument made through the intensification streamlined planning process. Because, as the Minister will know, it was the National Party who removed the ability of councils to have general rules which controlled the felling of trees in our cities and required instead a very detailed exercise of councils doing a site-by-site analysis, effectively, and scheduling individual trees with all the details of their street address and a legal description if there was to be a provision applying which required a resource consent for the felling of the tree. So the medium density residential standards, with their reduced front yards and side yards, is likely to see a continuation of what has been happening in Auckland, in Christchurch, in Wellington with the loss of significant trees. So could the Minister respond to SOP 112 and the ability that it suggests would require councils to use the intensification planning instrument to look at how you could better protect urban trees.

There were submissions also from planners who highlighted the ability of councils to use digital tools much more. We see that as including satellite imagery to actually identify trees that merit protection. The SOP requires that any new objectives and rules that were included in plans would have to be consistent with the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020, in particular objective eight, which is around greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and just the accessibility of communities to natural spaces. So this SOP is seeking to integrate urban tree protection with the bill’s framework around accelerating the supply of housing but ensuring that, at the same time as we are accelerating housing provision, we are also ensuring that our urban trees are protected.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you. Can I acknowledge the heartfelt way in which the member advocates for the protection of trees in the Auckland area. Can I also agree that the current provisions in the RMA are not entirely logical. The amendment that was made by the last National Government to take away from councils the discretion or the breadth of discretion as to how they protect trees in some ways is inconsistent with the overall scheme of the Act.

That said, I also have sympathy for the dilemma that the National Party then had, because Auckland were rather inefficient in the way that they tried to protect trees. Instead of conducting analysis of which trees should be preserved, they had very general rules that applied to the cutting down of trees and also the pruning of trees. The effect of that was that a substantial proportion of total resource consent applications in Auckland, actually, in the end, were in respect of people getting a consent to cut down or to prune a tree, and it was excessive. I think it was so excessive that it was largely ignored in respect of the pruning rules. It also brought the overall RMA into disrepute, because people thought the RMA was silly if it had an effect in that way, and therefore the National Party responded in that way.

Now, we do have the opportunity in the revamp of the RMA through the Natural and Built Environments Bill to actually have another look at that and see if there is a middle way through there that can actually achieve a better outcome. But we propose that to be the vehicle, not this, and we don’t think that this should be the vehicle for that wider piece of work.

In respect of recommendations that the Environment Committee has none the less made that improve the ability to protect trees, there are some good recommendations that came from the select committee. I’ll mention two of them: maximising rear yards by allowing the building to come closer to the street—that will protect more trees in backyards that are larger trees than would otherwise have been able to be protected—and the other is the enabling of a group of houses in a development to group their open spaces and use it collectively. I think that that will both enable the protection of trees, but it’ll also encourage the growing of larger trees, because the agglomeration of those outdoor areas in respect of a development obviously makes for a bigger space that is more suited to more larger trees.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I certainly agree one of the things that constituency MPs in urban areas know is that trees play a much larger role in day-to-day politics than most people ever imagined before they were elected. It is very important to get the balance between people who want to be able to go about their business and clear trees that are a nuisance to them and people who view trees as, quite rightly, a very valuable part of their community’s character in balance.

But I want to return to the Minister David Parker’s earlier comments, because he received an invitation to debate policy and then he resorted to a personal attack, calling me some sort of name that I’ve never heard, which probably reflects his generation getting on a bit. Then he said that—he didn’t actually give any examples of why he thought he was right; he just said that there was very good analysis done. Well, that, you know, in debating terms is called the appeal to authority fallacy. But I’ll put the invitation to him again. The analysis that he’s got says linear extrapolation: when we had this much upzoning five years ago in Auckland, we got this many more houses, so if we keep upzoning, we’ll get more houses in proportion. That’s what the analysis says, and I want to ask the Minister why he thinks that’s true. Is he not aware that just about anyone you talk to who’s actually in the business will tell you that there are other constraints, that the amount of zoned land is no longer the problem, at least in Auckland and at least in Hamilton, who submitted the same thing?

What they’re saying very clearly in the select committee and to people who take the time to go round and talk to developers and councillors and listen to people who are urban planning experts in the business—what they consistently say to us is, actually, there are now other constraints. If they’re right, then the Minister is wrong in his contention that he’s got very good analysis. Or perhaps the analysis is very good but it’s just very limited, because all it’s done is analyse what the effects of upzoning have been in a past time.

Then the Minister said, “Oh, there’s very good cost-benefit analysis.” I mean, let’s be clear: 150 pages; three pages were on infrastructure, and it was an extrapolation of a 2016 paper from MRCagney that was probably written by my old mate Stu Donovan when he was there, which said, in general, people being closer together is cheaper infrastructure-wise, ceteris paribus—everything else being equal. But what they didn’t go into was some of the things that have come up from the select committee, and let me just give you one example. You know, the reason why some areas are zoned for great intensification under the Auckland Unitary Plan and others aren’t is because those specific locations, not generally extrapolating a five-year-old study—and Michael Wood, he’s kind of knowingly looking up, because he’s a committed local MP, too; he didn’t lose a seat to Jacqui Dean in 2005, and he’s saying, actually, he understands that these localised nuances—yeah, he knows—are important.

Actually, there are areas where the independent hearings panel, when the Auckland Unitary Plan went through, said, “Look, you know, we understand why you’re advocating for lower density there, because it will be less efficient to have to serve that area and this area. So let’s have high intensity here and low intensity there.”

Hon Michael Wood: Oh, desperate stuff.

DAVID SEYMOUR: That’s what the independent hearings panel found time and again. You know, that’s what people who actually work in councils, are actually involved in urban planning, actually do infrastructure, say. Michael Wood says it’s desperate stuff. Well, here’s the question: let me ask Michael Wood—here’s the opportunity—does Michael Wood not think that the independent hearings panel got it right? He’s walking out—he’s walking out. That’s unfortunately the kind of courage that the Labour members have for the fight here.

So I give the Minister another opportunity. He should stand up and ask the question—stand up and ask the question—

Hon David Parker: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The member’s comments about the Minister just then were out of order for two reasons.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Speaking to the point of order, the Minister has a point, but what he might also like to consider is that it’s contrary to the Standing Orders to heckle while walking around the Chamber. So why don’t we just call it a draw?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Speaking to that point of order, David Seymour, the Minister was actually on his way out of the Chamber, and I agree that it is actually not a good idea to be calling on and saying that someone is out of courage. The Minister’s probably got other meetings to get to. As you see, this is the time that members come in and out in terms of changing who is actually on duty in the Chamber. Can I ask the member to, in his 27 seconds, finish the speech that he was making on Part 1.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, certainly, Madam Chair. So, really, the opportunity is there for the Minister to explain, not including the three pages of generic material that were tacked on to the 150 pages he talks about on infrastructure—to actually explain what analysis he has that zoning constraints are the binding constraints on building new homes in cities like Auckland and Hamilton, because he hasn’t answered that question yet, and it’s critical to the whole premise of Part 1, that introduces these planning intensification instruments.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I’m sure the member won’t mind me saying that he obviously hasn’t read any Oscar Wilde in his life, so perhaps the better saying is he doth protesteth too much. The infrastructure bogeyman that the member raises is well addressed in the cost-benefit analysis and, I thought, was also addressed by the Infrastructure Commission. It’s so simply addressed. It doesn’t need a 20-page dissertation to know that more dense forms of living are generally cheaper to service, and that’s what the cost-benefit analysis says. It said, yes, local water or sewage infrastructure might be slightly more expensive sometimes—not always, but sometimes—than a new development at the margin of a city; that’s true, but roading expense is less, public transport expense is less, and overall infrastructure costs are lower. The Infrastructure Commission essentially said the same thing and then made the point: to the extent that there are infrastructure costs born of having to house more people, the infrastructure cost arises from having more people, not from the planning code.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question now be put.

Ayes 98

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33.

Noes 20

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 106 be agreed to.

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

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.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Simon Court’s amendments to clause 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 107 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 108

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage’s amendment to clause 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 108

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Hon Eugenie Sage’s amendments to clause 7 replacing new section 77O(1) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage’s remaining amendments to clauses 4 and 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 108

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 112 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 108

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Hon Eugenie Sage’s amendment to clause 8 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 115 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage’s remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 115 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 108

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

Amendments not agreed to.

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

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.

Part 1, as amended, agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to schedules and new schedules

, and Schedules 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 13 to 16 and Schedules 1 to 3, amendments to schedules and new schedules. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. We’ve previously covered off the intention of the intensified, streamlined planning process earlier this morning, and what’s clear is that local government has struggled in some of the tier 1 cities to identify land where intensification is suitable, negotiate that with communities through existing planning provisions under the Resource Management Act (RMA), and then deliver back to those communities a plan which sets out where it is suitable to build to intensify.

Some councils—like Auckland and like Hamilton, for example—have been through extensive processes where they’ve taken many factors into account, and the Auckland Unitary Plan is a classic example of where many different competing and conflicting values and objectives are consulted on widely—and I’ll come back to that—consulted on widely: the communities, those affected, whether they be businesses, whether they be professionals, people who have direct experience in subdivision, in establishing the infrastructure needed to service land, whether they be urban design professionals, architects.

I’m still at a loss to understand how, as an engineer who’s come to Parliament, I find myself here today having to stand up for the rights of architects to design good homes. I thought all of those discussions had been had. I thought that there were already well understood urban design principles about outlook, sunlight, outdoor space, and access to amenities, and that we shouldn’t need to be re-litigating those in the schedules in Part 2, and we certainly shouldn’t be, essentially, carrying out urban design exercises, either in primary legislation by a select committee or the committee of the whole House. Parliament’s job should never be to carry out urban design exercises. But that is what the schedules, essentially, provide for, with the design criteria for the medium-density residential standard. And the way that that design criteria, the way that the standard, is delivered is through the intensified, streamlined planning process.

Quite a few councils and developers—those people who actually use the RMA—and their planning professionals, the consultants who help them navigate their way through legislation, through planning law, pointed out that, actually, it would be helpful to have a streamlined planning process for a whole range of things. We know that Kāinga Ora operates a streamlined planning process, except it doesn’t seem they want to do that for the private sector. We know that there’s a fast-track consenting process for COVID-19 projects, some of which may or may not be related to COVID-19 and may or may not actually deliver homes or jobs or anything else either. But this process here actually sets out how councils and hearings panels are supposed to carry out their work.

It would be fair to say that without offering a similar process to the private sector developers who are bringing on tens of thousands of homes, some of them, like the Templeton Group, pointed out that they’ve got a billion dollars’ worth of work in the pipeline. They pointed out that any delays to the process they use under the Resource Management Act typically cost about a million dollars a year. That’s the overhead just to have the project sitting, waiting to get into the Environment Court, waiting for a decision. They said that some of their projects have spent seven to eight years going through the planning process, going to appeal, and then going to various courts, including the High Court and above, to seek direction, essentially, to have decisions made about very basic elements of town planning—where houses, where buildings, where streets should go. And what they’re asking for is to have the same rights that every other council will have, which is to have access to the intensified, streamlined planning process. In fact, any streamlined planning process that enables them to seek consents under the Resource Management Act or subsequent—[Bell rung] Thank you, Madam Chair.

So the question is: will the Government consider actually allowing private developers to have access to the same process; if not, is it because the Minister and the Labour Party and the National Party, that crafted this bill, actually believe that all solutions, when it comes to housing intensity, actually sit with Government or local government? Because most New Zealanders would actually believe that Government is the problem when it comes to getting things built. Its regulations, its red tape—it’s how difficult it is to get consent, even for things like desperately needed waste-water system upgrades in places like Queenstown, on the shores of Lake Wakatipu, where it’s been so difficult to install a waste-water pumping station that the council’s had to go and apply for consent to continue wastewater discharges into that lake, because it’s too hard to get consent to build the waste-water treatment stations that they want to. So they’re in breach of consents. So an intensified, streamlined planning process is a good idea in principle, but limiting it only to local councils and to plans made specifically to implement the medium-density residential standard seems not just short-sighted but lacking in aspiration for a wholesale and complete reform of the planning process.

We’ve heard recently in select committee that that may well be the intention of the Minister’s other legislation, the Natural and Built Environments Bill and maybe a strategic planning Act. We often hear these things referred to. They are some kind of Promised Land of planning and environmental management and urban development, and, yet, despite the fact that the Promised Land is, you know, not too far away, and while we’re all paddling our waka, they’re spending hundreds and hundreds of hours in select committee collecting thousands of submissions on that particular piece of legislation, intending to reform planning and enable housing and save the environment and save a whole lot of other things at the same time. This bill was being crafted in secret over months and months and months, while the select committee sat reviewing another piece of resource management legislation.

Many of the same questions that developers brought, councils even brought, and planning professionals brought to the committee asked the same question: why can the private sector not have access to a fast-track development process? Why are they subject to objections from organisations like Greenpeace, for example, and others who are given standing to object against what, essentially, are developments that deliver homes and communities and infrastructure to the people of New Zealand?

So some of these fundamental issues about who has standing, who should be allowed to object, are not addressed in terms of the fundamental problems with the RMA. The ability to consent infrastructure to actually service the land that this upzoning provided for by the medium-density residential standard—those matters are not dealt with. There was an opportunity to actually reform the RMA on the run, while more stuff is done down the track, like the Natural and Built Environments Bill. The ACT Party and other parties, developers, and submitters have all said that they want an opportunity to contribute, but there was no opportunity for consultation on this piece of legislation. There may have been a lot more easy wins in terms of intensified, streamlined planning processes than actually have been delivered to the House in this bill, and that comes back to the secrecy element, the fact that it was, essentially, cooked up over a number of months without the knowledge of the development community, the planning community, all of those professional engineers and architects and ecologists, geotechnical specialists who could have given advice to the Government and to officials on what a good short-term reform measure looked like. They weren’t consulted. So now we have an intensified, streamlined planning process which only gives these rights to councils.

So what I’m asking the Minister is to please explain: why is this not being extended to the private sector? Why was consultation on this process not carried out with the private sector, and councils for that matter? And what is his plan to actually speed up planning to get more houses built?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair. There are a lot of questions raised in that contribution, and I’ll try to address them. Can I thank the member Simon Court for the opening few sentences of that contribution, where he said to the committee that councils in our largest-growing cities have often found it hard to zone for intensity. And that’s a simple truth; it’s a self-evident truth, actually. And it’s not the only reason why we’ve got such high land price inflation, but it is a contributing factor to it.

This bill applies to the tier 1 councils—there’s five of them—and if there’s the occasional tier 2 council that needs it, we can bring them in, and tier 3 councils can also try and volunteer in if they want to, and some have said they want to.

The tier 1 councils are Auckland, Greater Hamilton, Greater Tauranga, Greater Wellington, and Greater Christchurch. In total, the territorial authorities that cover those areas, there’s 12 of them, and when it came to bringing this to the attention of each of those territorial authorities, the Hon Megan Woods as housing Minister, and I as environment Minister, split it in two and phoned six of the mayors each. We then touched based with each other after we’d done it. Both of us had four mayors who were very, very positive about this, because they recognise they need help to break through in what they need to do for their citizens, and these mayors want to do the right things for their citizens. They want them to have housing choices; they don’t want rents to go too high, they don’t want house prices to go to high, and they know, to use the language of the leader of the ACT Party, that it is actually the marginal cost of new supply that drives price. It is the marginal cost of the new house, including its land and its building, that drives the cost, obviously, of the new house, but it also drives the market for second-hand houses.

Therefore, the increment to supply that you can bring about by enabling the land that’s already within a city to be used more intensively—really, the efficiency that you have from land use and infrastructure use drives through to the marginal cost of the new supply which drives through to the price of all housing. These mayors get that; they got that. And so four out of the six that I phoned were very, very positive, one was neutral, and one was a bit anti. And the experience of Minister Woods was the same. She had four that were effusive, really, one was sitting on the fence, and there was one that wasn’t so keen.

In respect of some of the other issues that were raised, this isn’t the sole answer to the housing crisis, and there are other things in responding to the housing crisis that are going well. Housebuilding in Auckland has doubled from 10,000 in 2017 to 19,000 this year. It’s close to a doubling of housing, and it’s very interesting that more than two-thirds of those new houses are actually these new style of houses where they’re, effectively, semi-detached or attached three-storey houses. So that gives us confidence that we’re on the right track.

In respect of the private plan changes point: planning rules, by and large, in respect of zoning rules, are the primary preserve of councils. That’s what they’re elected to do, which is a point that has been made by, amongst others, the ACT Party in this debate. So we think it is appropriate that they’re the people to whom this is primarily delivered through. But, of course, the zoning rules that they allow in these cities apply for the benefit of all of the private developers, and the vast majority of development enabled by those changes to the planning rules will be by those private developers.

In respect of the process delays that Simon Court mentioned in terms of how long it can take a plan to proceed at the moment, I agree that that is unacceptable. This will actually assist in that, because we’re actually going to permit three-storey types of dwellings as a building type through virtually all of these cities. There are some exceptions that we’ve previously talked about.

In terms of the process, actually, you couldn’t do it any faster than we’re actually legislating it for this, but it does show the tension between some of the traditional processes which take too long. In the face of a crisis, you do have to act quickly, and we think this is appropriate.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. So, in the whole intensification, streamlined planning process, one of the recommendations of the select committee, which has been picked up in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), is that the scope of intensification planning instruments be broadened to enable provision of papa kāinga and recognising that promoting papa kāinga housing is an objective of the Government. But it’s still on a different basis from the infill development, which becomes a permitted activity as of right through this bill. So there is Supplementary Order Paper 111, in the name of Dr Elizabeth Kerekere, proposing to have papa kāinga activity as a controlled activity in a Māori purpose zone, residential zone, settlement zone, or any other zone on each site which is wholly or partly Māori customary land, Māori freehold land, or general land owned by Māori.

So the planning system and plan provisions and council’s failure to adequately provide and encourage papa kāinga has been a significant barrier to its development. So could the Minister provide some comment on, given that the SOP doesn’t go as far as enabling papa kāinga in the same way that it does enabling three-storey three unit infill development, what sort of guidance will be being provided by the Ministry for the Environment to our councils as to how they will go about enabling provision of papa kāinga?

The other issue is the comments that Simon Court made in terms of the select committee finding itself dealing with the detail of urban design around things like outlook, space, and building height to boundary recession planes and the like. There has been quite a lot of concern that the standard that was recommended by the majority of the committee for outlook, for example, which affects interaction with neighbours—it’s 4 metres between dwellings, whereas the Auckland Unitary Plan provides for a 6-metre outlook standard. Hobsonville, which is widely promoted by many as epitomising very good medium-density development, has a 6-metre outlook standard. What is the proposal of Government if any of these detailed standards, which the select committee and the Government and National have arrived at, are found to be wanting? What is the process to change them? And given the significant expertise which the urban design community, architects, planners, and others contributed to the select committee process, what is going to be the Government’s processes for developing the urban design guidelines to assist councils in terms of both the National Policy Statement for Urban Development and the medium-density residential standards (MDRS)? But, fundamentally, what is the processes for changing things that in the detail of the new Schedule 3A, we may have got wrong?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair. A lot of questions there, and if I omit any and the member takes another call, I’d be happy to address them. In respect of papa kāinga, thank you for the amendments that came through from the select committee, which we are adopting. Papa kāinga on land that is within these new zoned areas, of course, gets the benefit of the change of zonings. If there is other land that is outside of urban zones on which papa kāinga is to be to be built, then councils can include similar provisions in their plans for that.

In respect of the issues as to style, we shouldn’t, I don’t think, in Parliament prescribe design guidelines as if we want to be the architect—and we’re not. We’re not. That’s the error in the way in which it was put by Simon Court, because we’re not. We’re actually just permitting a certain density of housing to be built. How that’s designed, whether people want to build it like that, that’s up to them and if they have an architect, their architect. We’re not prescribing how that is done. That said, there has been a request that was made clear through select committee that some design guidance would be useful for both councils and developers. So, in response to that, Ministry for the Environment, in consultation with planners from councils, will try and provide some non-statutory design guidance. We are concerned that if we were to leap to design standards that were of statutory effect, that we would actually be putting ourselves in the position of being the designer, and we don’t want to do that. That said, there is probably a case for some design guidance to be developed in consultation with the planners who are dealing with these issues around the country—not just the planners; also the urban design groups and civil society groups who have an interest.

In addition to that, urban design guides do have a more prominent role in a lot of overseas jurisdictions where they are dealing with intensification or have been dealing with it for longer than New Zealand has been, and so we’re willing to consider that issue again through the replacement of the RMA, the Natural and Built Environments Act. We are wary of going too far, too early, in respect of those design guides because we fear that they could be misused to effectively undermine the intent, which is to enable—not require but enable—intensification.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I think we’ve just seen one of the problems with this whole exercise of attempting to do urban planning on every suburban street of New Zealand from this Parliament. The Minister just said, “Well, I don’t think it would be right for Parliament to try and do urban design from here.”, and he’s absolutely right. So he actually does understand and accept the problem, but, equally, by putting a zone prescription on every residential section in the country—and I say “every” because, according to the Minister, all the tier 2 cities, as he calls them, are going to be jumping up and down and wanting to have this. We shall see—we’re going to actually have a terrible, terrible problem here. And it’s this: this statute is going to put into law a medium-density residential standard that, effectively, says you can have a three-storey building a metre from your boundary, with no urban design standards, with a floor to ceiling window on the third floor looking into your kid’s bedroom and there’s nothing you can do about it. Of course, the Minister might say, “Oh, but it’s laissez-faire. Everyone should support that.” Well, actually, here’s the thing: if you think hard about public policy, then you understand that the role of Government as a regulator is to address market failures.

Here’s another thought: market failures are not when a market outcome is something you don’t like; specifically, it is when the game theory outcome of people participating in a market is not Pareto optimal. This is just basic 101 stuff.

People who believe in markets and free society often come to the conclusion that, in some of those circumstances, it’s actually worthwhile having a regulation. And one of those is urban design standards: things like overlooking, things like overshadowing. Often, the balance and the cost-benefit analysis of whether you need a certain level of intervention and regulation is specific to the place, to the characteristics of the location, to people and community, and to the provision of infrastructure in that place. Those are all the reasons why you might want to have urban design standards. That’s why, for example, in Auckland, we have the Auckland Design Manual to stop two people doing what is best for them but getting an outcome that is actually worse for everyone. That’s the simple basis for having regulations. It can actually increase overall welfare.

This statute, which puts in place this medium-density residential standard, denies that opportunity to communities, and that is why it actually reduces people’s overall welfare. Now, the Minister would like to say that “Oh no, no, it’s OK. We’ve got 150 pages of analysis.”, but I asked him in the previous stage: where is the analysis that defines the problem with housing supply as being one of zoning capacity? And he couldn’t do it. All he could say was: “In general, it will be more efficient if people live closer together.”, and “In general, it’s going to be good to have more zone space.” He couldn’t answer the question: where’s the analysis that it’s actually going to work in Auckland, in Hamilton, in cities in New Zealand as we stand right now thinking at the margin? So what he’s left with is an increase in zoning capacity that may not be serviced, but, if it is, it is going to lower people’s overall welfare because of the kinds of market failures, tragedy of the commons, development that goes on side by side where people actually lower each other’s quality of life.

Now, ACT has thought a bit about this, and, in particular, we have read the analysis that this bill was based on by Sense Partners and PricewaterhouseCoopers and we understand how it works, and that’s what we’ve been explaining throughout this committee. The Minister is either wilfully ignoring it or hasn’t read it, because what that analysis said is that when, in 2016, the Auckland Unitary Plan introduced the mixed housing urban and mixed housing suburban zones, there was a proportionate increase in floor area ratio in areas that were denser. He’s extrapolated that’s going to keep happening here. But what’s interesting is that they didn’t model the medium-density residential standard. That’s never been modelled. What they did model was mixed housing urban and that’s what they based their projections on. They also modelled mixed housing suburban, and what that analysis says—if we just accept for a moment that there isn’t actually a binding constraint of infrastructure and that, actually, there is going to be a linear extrapolation of the amount of homes they get built, allowing for proximity to city centre and a few other variables they used—is that, actually, you don’t get much less additional homes by using mixed housing suburban. That is a zone that is widely used in Auckland. It allows two homes. It allows a 3-metre high and 45-degree setback. It’s one that is familiar to the planners and the processes there.

We think, if the Government wanted to rely on the modelling it’s got—and I’ve given all the reasons why they shouldn’t rely on that modelling, because there’s a non-sequitur that because you added more zoning capacity and that gave you more homes, at one point in time that will always be true; at other points of time, it’s simply illogical. But if we just accept that for a moment, because, clearly, it’s going to be difficult to move the Government on it, then why not use a familiar zone that is going to have less effect on other people’s welfare? That, according to their own modelling, shows we’ll get almost the same amount of increased housing. Now, that’s got to be a good deal. You know, they could achieve some of their goal, they could get more housing, they could make it more acceptable to people who will be upset about this when they get no design standards, three storeys a metre from their boundary; floor-to-ceiling window on the third floor, looking in on their kid’s bedroom—people will be upset about that. They could avoid that outcome and get more housing. Now, that’s got to be a good deal.

Thankfully, my ever-diligent colleague Simon Court has produced a fairly detailed Supplementary Order Paper. There are amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 107 that would replace the medium-density residential standard that these guys have provided, with a standard that, basically, replicates the mixed-housing suburban (MHS) zone in Auckland. So, in Auckland, it would mean that all areas that are single-family home, for example, would be upgraded to MHS. MHS areas would stay the same, areas that are mixed housing urban would stay the same, areas in town centres will stay the same, terrace housing and apartment building areas—they would all stay the same. But the net effect would be to upgrade single-family homes to mixed-housing suburban, and, you know, the Government’s modelling shows that would actually give the increase of housing that they want, or very close to it, notwithstanding the other constraints in the supply chain, and it would be familiar, and it would be a lot more acceptable to people who will otherwise object. The Government should think about that. The National Party should think about that.

You know, it’s interesting, they say, “Oh, David Seymour, he just stands up for his constituents.”, but keep saying that, by the way, you know, like, every time you guys accuse me of standing up for my constituents, they hear it, and it’s helpful. So thank you. Please keep saying it. And people outside the electorate I currently represent, they hear it too. So, you know, the more you guys say that, I do appreciate it, and I hope you’ll keep saying it.

But this amendment would increase the outlook spaces—that is the zones outside primary windows, such as the primary bedroom window. It would increase the outlook space outside secondary bedroom windows to be like the mixed housing suburban zone that is so familiar to us in Auckland. It would allow urban design consideration so that we don’t end up with the kind of unfortunate circumstances where two neighbours do what they view is in their own best interest, but they end up in conflict and they both end up worse off than they could have otherwise been.

I say all this because, you know, the Minister likes to talk about me and my political philosophy; I don’t think he understands it that well. We’re engaged in making good public policy, of having the role of Government restricted in a principled way to make people’s lives better, to regulate genuine market failures, and to spend tax on things that are public goods that can’t otherwise be produced—although that’s not really relevant here. We are wary of market imperfections about network effects of infrastructure. These are all the things that you have to do when you do public policy as a big kid. But, unfortunately, the Government hasn’t left any time, because they want to rush this through Christmas.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): At the heart of this bill, it is pretty simple. We’re not requiring people to build three storeys, but we’re letting them. We think that Auckland and our other large centres need that in order to house people affordably. The ACT Party obviously disagrees with that, and they’re free to disagree—similar points were made in the earlier part. But that’s why we won’t be agreeing to the Supplementary Order Paper that would, effectively, render this bill ineffective by reducing substantially—

David Seymour: The Government’s modelling says it would be effective.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, according to the advice that I’ve got, adopting a—3-metre or a 4-metre?—

David Seymour: Has he read it? Has he read anything?

Hon DAVID PARKER: —a 3-metre boundary—of course I’ve read it. The 3-metre, 45-degree recession plane would reduce the housing outcome by 31 percent.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you. The Green Party won’t be supporting that Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) either, because it is the mixed housing suburban rather than the urban one, and so it goes completely against getting more intensification. But in Part 2, Schedule 2, which inserts a new Schedule 3B, it amends the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020. I would be interested if the Minister, as Minister for the Environment, as someone who has always recognised that the economy depends on the environment—why the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPSUD) primary objective one is about well-functioning urban environments that enable all people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing, and their health and safety now and into the future, and there is no mention of environmental wellbeing. For healthy cities where people have clean water to drink, clean air to breathe, space to exercise, get the mental wellbeing from being out in nature, what is the Minister’s response to Supplementary Order Paper 114, which seeks to insert in objective one of the National Policy Statement (NPS) on Urban Development a reference to environmental wellbeing as well as social and economic wellbeing.

New Schedule 3B, in the Minister’s SOP, inserts a number of other policies into the NPS on Urban Development. What the Green Party is concerned about is that there is only passing reference to nature in the existing NPSUD. It was something we brought up last June when it was being developed, and so we’re seeking through this Supplementary Order Paper a new policy that encourages an increase in urban tree cover, both through the retention of existing trees and also ensuring that there’s easy public access to natural areas as well as open space.

The only reference at the moment in the NPS is to having good accessibility for all people to natural spaces. There’s nothing about encouraging nature within the urban environment, and yet sustainable development is all about integrating nature, not exceeding nature’s capacity. So, if we are not to have cities that are just hard surfaces and expanses of concrete, is the Minister considering any future amendments to the National Policy Statement for Urban Development to better recognise nature? First question.

Then the other issue is there’s another Supplementary Order Paper in my name, SOP 109, which is all about development bonuses for developers if they meet certain site factors, and they relate to things like water-sensitive design, an ability to have solar panels on roofs, and encouraging more energy-efficient buildings, which, of course, will help our housing stock reduce energy use and contribute to reduction of emissions. Development bonuses aren’t something that the bill encourages. And yet the Government, through Kāinga Ora, has an urban design statement, which is the simple guide to urban design and development that Housing New Zealand put out. It’s got a lot of principles in there about environmental design, about encouraging good stormwater management, making the best use of existing natural environments, three waters management, sustainable use of resources—things like energy-efficient design.

We have heard from officials that things like that are best done through the building code. We know that the building code is inadequate. This bill, with the standards for medium density in Schedule 3, makes a number of provisions about building envelopes and the like. What proposals does the Minister have to use both the Resource Management Act and to encourage his colleagues around the Building Act to really improve our standards if, as my other SOPs have failed, I suspect this one will as well? But it’s the principle of ensuring that our building stock is more efficient, that it doesn’t increase stormwater runoff. We had a lot of submissions to select committee about increased stormwater flows and houses having to have increased capacity with tanks to avoid or to mitigate the peak flows. We are doing nothing through this bill to really encourage sustainable design. We are encouraging more intensification, but not well-designed houses in terms of energy efficiency, minimising water runoff, and ensuring that there’s an increased capacity for things like solar.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, the member’s right that we won’t be supporting that Supplementary Order Paper. And the member addressed one of the reasons why in her own contribution. We think that the system would get very gummed up if we, effectively, imposed the building code or Building Act issues relating to the quality of building materials into the planning code. If you want more energy-efficient building materials as a required minimum, there were arguments for that through the building code, but we don’t think that we should be imposing it through this legislation.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. There is a place for codifying establishing standards. The ACT Party believes that, for example, New Zealand should adopt the building material standards from countries that have complementary conditions, like Canada and Japan and California, for example, when it comes to rainfall and seismic. There is a place to codify the effects on the environment of development and activities.

The Infrastructure Commission, in their submission to another resource management bill, the Natural and Built Environments Bill—they proposed that rather than developers, contractors, and infrastructure operators having to get consents for everything—that if the effects were well understood, because we do this stuff every day, then rather than obtaining consents, those matters could be codified. But they also pointed out that requires extensive consultation, to make sure that the unintended or perverse consequences from hastily thought-out pieces of legislation don’t end up causing a whole lot of a fix down the track that impose cost on business and actually reduce the overall welfare of the communities that pieces of legislation are proposing to help. And that’s why the medium-density residential standard (MDRS), like many things this Government has promoted, is well-intentioned but ultimately doomed to fail. It won’t deliver the 100,000 homes, just like another policy announced by a recent Labour-led Government also failed to deliver 100,000 homes.

I want to talk a little bit about the medium-density residential standard. The ACT Party does not intend that we take on the role of urban designers or architects. It’s actually the Government that’s forced us to adopt that role, because by including the medium-density residential standard in primary legislation, that’s the field on which we are forced to engage. So our proposal to instead replace it with what the PricewaterhouseCoopers - Sense Partners cost-benefit analysis demonstrates will be just about as good, the Auckland Unitary Plan mixed housing suburban standard. People say, “Oh, but that’s only two storeys, and what we want is three storeys and three houses on a lot.” Well, Urban Auckland provided a fantastic submission where they show quite clearly that on a typical section in Auckland, 800-odd square metres, you can put three homes. You can achieve a couple of fantastic two-storey, great lifestyle apartment or terrace units, 82 square metres each, and a standalone two-storey home with a separate garage, 173 square metres. That’s a very large home by any standard, and that’s under the mixed housing suburban standard.

So what that demonstrates, actually, is that the medium-density residential standard—it’s not just unnecessary, it’s not just complex, it doesn’t just introduce a whole lot of unnecessary impacts on people’s lifestyle and wellbeing and ultimate welfare. It doesn’t have to force the stripping of all the vegetation and trees, as my colleague and the Environment Committee chair, the Hon Eugenie Sage, pointed out. The mixed housing suburban standard actually allows the retention of significant green spaces and trees and outdoor living, sunlight, views that the medium density residential standard does not.

So that’s why ACT advocates to incorporate, essentially, the Auckland Unitary Plan mixed housing suburban standard in the Schedule 1, to replace the MDRS. And while the ACT Party can’t support blanket tree protection, we do recognise that there are significant environmental benefits from having a certain amount of permeable surfaces, landscaped areas. These things all add to the wellbeing of the people who live in these homes and communities. That is why, as a recovering civil engineer, I’ve had to take on the role of urban designer advocate for architects, and that’s not a role I ever expected, or, in fact, any member of Parliament should have to, but that is what the Minister for the Environment is asking from us through this bill. And that is why ACT is advocating very strongly for the mixed housing suburban standards to replace the Government’s standard.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I repeat: the reason why we won’t be adopting that is it would, effectively, frustrate the purpose of the bill substantially by reducing the number of building opportunities by more than 30 percent. We think that that would not be as good an outcome.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think that’s a very interesting answer that’s well worth getting some more detail from the Minister, if, indeed, he can provide it. We always hold out hope.

The Minister has said that introducing the mixed housing suburban standard in lieu of the medium-density residential standard would reduce the anticipated yield of housing by—of additional housing that is—by 31 percent. So, you know, I’m no mathematical expert, but that seems to me that the mixed housing suburban proposal that Simon Court’s put up, as amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 107, would actually increase housing by 69 percent, that’s 69 percent additional housing, if we get that right. Now, of course, he might argue that not all of the extra housing we expect will come from this bill. I guess another way he might put it is that he’s going to get 69 percent of what he’s promised. Then you ask “Well, what he’s promised is actually just a modelled outcome that made an assumption that increasing zoning intensity would yield more floor area ratio at the same rate that the upzoning of the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) yielded in 2016.”, which, as we’ve said many times, and the Minister’s never answered, is a highly questionable assumption.

Now, I just wonder if the Minister—why he wouldn’t be happy with 69 percent increase if it also was more acceptable to neighbours, to councils, more familiar, would actually lead to higher quality urban environments of the type that the Green members referred to? The Hobsonville Point development has some similar features to what this amendment produces, such as the 6-metre outlook space outside principle windows. So why wouldn’t the Minister want that?

Here’s the next question for him: what sort of analysis is he relying on when he says that it would only be 69 percent as good as mixed housing urban? What’s he relying on there? It’s just purely the extrapolation from what happened in the AUP. It’s got nothing to do with what might happen in the present time. So if he can explain that, then he can explain what cost-benefit analysis he’s done with other costs, such as shading of neighbours, overlooking of neighbours, and the undermining of urban design standards that are actually part of the Government’s own policies—and part of Kāinga Ora’s policies, for another thing.

Can he explain how the Government chose between the mixed housing urban standard at one level and the mixed housing suburban standard at another level? Because they modelled the increase in housing from both of them, so can he explain why he believes that the costs of going to mixed housing urban instead of mixed housing suburban would be greater? And if he can explain why the mixed housing urban zone would be better on a full cost-benefit analysis than the mixed housing suburban zone on a full cost-benefit analysis, then, perhaps, he could explain why he didn’t use the mixed housing urban zone? Because if he can explain that, then, I guess, the answer is, actually, we should amend the bill not to use the medium-density residential zone but the mixed housing urban.

But, first, he’s got to explain 31 percent less than what? Is he saying that the mixed housing suburb, it’ll be 31 percent less than mixed housing urban or less than medium-density residential standards? Once he’s explained which one it is, what other cost-benefit analysis is he relying on? Just say that, actually, the mixed housing suburban wouldn’t give greater overall benefits, including extra housing and better urban amenity for people that want to live in these houses he’d like to see built.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The urban Auckland modelling that the member relies on used a site size of 843 square metres. The sites that are predominant in Auckland are, of course, much smaller than that, on average. The analysis that was done in the bill, as was presented to the select committee, was based on site sizes of 412 square metres. The additional analysis that the select committee then requested was what would be the effect on the housing provided as modelled when it went into select committee compared with a change to those height-to-boundary rules, but still in respect of a 412 square metre site, and that analysis was that if the height-to-boundary rules changed to 3 metres and a 45-degree recession plane, there would be a substantial unwinding of the intention of this, which is to enable the sort of intensification that is already occurring in some parts of cities, some parts of Wellington, some parts of Auckland, but is unable to occur because the choices of landowners are hobbled by restrictive planning rules that do not allow those densities to be built in those areas.

I think the language that the National Party uses in respect of this is quite fair, and I’m surprised that I haven’t heard any of this from the ACT Party. They say that, at one level, this bill is giving choice to landowners to develop their properties to three storeys, with smaller housing units in order to sometimes accommodate an ageing parent or someone who’s disabled or just because they want to cut off the back of their section and get a bit of money in retirement whilst enabling someone else to build a house there and live in it. It’s not a radical bill; it’s an effective bill to address the housing crisis by increasing the opportunities to build houses that have a smaller footprint and a smaller land cost. No one’s forced to build them, we’re just enabling it.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m tempted, but I’ll go with Simon Court, thank you.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to come to another matter. We’re actually circling back to the provisions relating to partly completed proposed plans. So while we understand that the Minister is not prepared to move on the medium-density residential standards, even though it appears that there is no updated cost-benefit analysis for the claims that he has made today, that was asked for at the Environment Committee this week—and we still haven’t seen the analysis, although the results of the analysis have been reported in the media as being only a reduction of 3 to 4 percent from the Government’s initial proposal of a 6-metre high wall. Now it’s a 4-metre high wall, 1 metre from the boundary.

But there is another matter, which we’ve covered to some extent, but which is still important and needs to be exposed, and that is that for private plan changes. We’re talking about developers like the Templeton Group, which have, through one of the companies they acquired—Todd Property—developed Stonefields in Auckland, a former quarry site, into one of the most exquisite master-planned developments, a combination of apartment living, terraced housing, and single homes. It’s a balance of intensification of lifestyles and opportunities for people to—at the time that the development was first offered, off the plans—buy affordable homes, close to transportation networks, close to amenities. That’s a site that was at one point tasked with being Auckland’s future regional landfill in the 1990s that instead was repurposed to an extremely high-quality master-planned development.

So it shows you that if we trust the private sector to actually deliver homes and communities, they will deliver much better outcomes than a regional landfill in an old quarry pit. They will deliver some of the best master-planned developments anywhere in the world.

The evidence from that group, the Templeton Group, from the Adare Co. in Hamilton, from Beachlands South consortium—which also includes the New Zealand Superannuation Fund as a large part of the consortium, an organisation which, while it can’t speak for itself because it is, essentially, not able to because it’s a Government entity. But what they have asked for is for their private plan change proposals, which set out the most exquisite community developments: intensity, apartments, terraced housing around retail and community centres, and, of course, single homes around the margins. As they pointed out, those single homes actually—the single-home zones, which, essentially, comply with the standards of the mixed housing suburban, they’re quite large homes and additional dwellings on these properties, they fit in with the natural environment in those parts of these master-planned sites, which are more sensitive, which are closer to streams and waterways, closer to existing remnant bush areas, for example, where the developers and iwi and their ecology advisers all agree it would be highly inappropriate to locate buildings at the scale and size that the medium-density residential standard proposes.

That is why I have today tabled a further Supplementary Order Paper proposing to replace Part 4 in Schedule 3 with a new Part 4. If the Minister intends that local councils should be forced to include the medium-density residential standard in their plan changes, well, what private developers are asking for, particularly those ones who have delivered the most exquisite, high-quality, and desirable developments New Zealand’s ever seen in the past 30 years, who have a pipeline of $8 billion worth of work, some of them, and billions of dollars’ worth of others—what they are asking for is just a blanket exemption. They’ve said the years and years of investment in technical investigations, in ecology reports, finding out when the bats come and go from the remnant bush on their development sites—they don’t want all of that to be wasted when they have to redesign and remodel their developments to accept these three-storey, three-unit boxes on what are currently designed for single-home sites.

The planning consultants who spoke to the committee also pointed out that when they’re designing these developments, what they’re designed for, the infrastructure accommodates much higher intensity and density at the centre, around the town centres, along transport corridors—kind of sounds like urban planning to me. That’s what they do, and they do it really well. They’ve said that the pipes are much larger. The waste-water pump stations are more frequent and have to be larger. The stormwater detention ponds and all those other environmental mitigations are designed for density at the centre and low density at the margins of these developments, because that’s what good urban design practice has evolved into over the past 50 or so years since World War II, since New Zealanders returning from World War II had the opportunity to buy a piece of quarter-acre paradise. Then those New Zealanders and the new Zealanders moved to cities like Auckland in the 1990s, who wanted to live in more dense communities subdivided existing eighth of acres or quarter acres and put an extra house or a couple of houses on the back.

Actually, all of that can be delivered in a far more planned and high-quality way through accepting that there is a good urban design set of principles and that the master planners delivering projects like at Peacocke in Hamilton East, the Adare Co., and the Beachland South developers in Beachlands Maraetai, where they propose that their high intensity, their higher densities are much closer to the ferry terminal, to public transport, and to nearby schools. They don’t consider it’s appropriate to have much higher densities much further from the town centres. They understood, having studied urban design and planning for decades, that, actually, you want to build up closer to where you’ve got social services, community services, transportation, and where your bulk infrastructure is located. The reason they’re asking for an exemption is not just because they’re confident that they can do it better than the Government, which, by any analysis, whether it’s a cost-benefit analysis that we haven’t seen yet or that they could—what they’re asking for is an exemption to be allowed to continue to proceed with the high-quality developments that are in train.

As I pointed out earlier this morning, it takes a long time and a significant cost and investment of resources and technical expertise even to get to the pre-lodgment stage with private plan changes. What people outside this House might know as a change of zoning right from, say, rural land or a bit of rural and a bit of residential: combine all of those titles and land types into one larger block of land, design a new community around the existing environment, the remnant bush, the streams and waterways that are there, and actually deliver some of the best quality of life that New Zealanders everywhere would aspire to. This bill would extinguish those developments—actually extinguish them. This is from a Government which keeps talking about wellbeing and which has all kinds of wellbeing measures, although we never actually see the measurement. They don’t actually want to report any of that wellbeing. But we know they believe in wellbeing, or they certainly did once.

That is why the ACT Party proposes in this Supplementary Order Paper labelled A—and it’s on the Table. It’s very simple. It says that if the Minister wants to impose this flawed medium-density residential standard on local councils, well, that’s up to him to negotiate. But what the ACT Party is seeking is, actually, just completely exempt private plan changes, master-planned developments—the private sector—from this flawed approach to urban planning and design. New Zealanders do aspire to live in high-quality homes in wonderful communities where their wellbeing is put first. So does the ACT Party.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): We’re not extinguishing one development—not one. So the member need not be concerned about that.

In respect of master-planned developments, we’re not requiring them to be built in any particular way. They can build them however they want, you know, subject to the existing rules that councils apply. All this legislation does is enable the underlying zoning to enable densification.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 108

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

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 106 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 108

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

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 108

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

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Part 2, as amended, agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage’s amendments to Supplementary Order Paper 106 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 114 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 108

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

Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 106 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 108

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

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Simon Court’s amendments to Schedule 1, new Schedule 3A, Part 2, clause 11(1), and replacing clauses 14 and 15, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 107 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Simon Court’s remaining amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 107 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 108

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Eugenie Sage’s amendments to Schedule 1, new Schedule 3A, Part 2, clauses 10(1) and 11(1) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage’s remaining amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 108

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Eugenie Sage’s amendments to Schedule 1, new Schedule 3A, Part 2, clauses 10(1) and (2) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 109 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage’s remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 109 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 108

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Dr Elizabeth Kerekere’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 108

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 113 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 108

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Schedule 1, as amended, stand part.

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

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.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 106 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 108

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

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Eugenie Sage’s amendment to new Schedule 3B, Policy 3, in Schedule 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage’s remaining amendments to Schedule 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 108

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Schedule 2, as amended, stand part.

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

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.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Simon Court’s amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 106 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 117 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 108

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

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 106 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 108

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

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Schedule 3, as amended, stand part.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 3 as amended be agreed to.

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.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we now come to the final debate: clauses 1 to 3, the debate on title, commencement, and the principal Act. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that clause 2 stand part.

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

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.

Clause 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that clause 3 stand part.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

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.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Sexual Violence Legislation Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 7 December.

Part 2 Amendments to Victims’ Rights Act 2002 (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we now come to the continuation of the committee stage of the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill. Members, when the committee was lasting considering this bill, we were on Part 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. In the spirit of the previous contributions that National members have been making on the bill, I obviously won’t reiterate the specific arguments that relate to previous parts. But I think that as we’re now entering the next phase of the debate, it’s probably worth just stating for the record the big picture that applies, including to this part—namely, that National, of course, as we expect all members of the House do, wishes to see procedures that are appropriate in a courtroom setting in relation to those who are complaining of a sexual violence - type offence. It’s appropriate for them to be heard respectfully and, of course, also important at the same time that a fair trial is conducted so that justice may be done and without prejudicing the rights of anyone to a fair trial, not only for their sake but of course for the sake of the system more generally.

So that was the tenor of the comments that we were making on the previous parts. They do still apply. We have probably a few more specific comments to make in relation to the current part, but noting that our particular Supplementary Order Papers making specific suggestions previously have been voted down. We do just sound a note a caution about the desire to ensure that we have on our statute book laws that, basically, don’t contravene that right to a fair trial.

That’s probably enough from me by way of opening remarks, and if the Minister has any comments to make in relation to that, we would be grateful to hear them. But I understand my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith will have some further comments to make as well.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Supplementary Order Paper 105 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 be agreed to.

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 105, as amended, be agreed to.

Amendments, as amended, agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Chris Penk’s amendment to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 5 be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Part 2, as amended, stand part.

Part 2, as amended, agreed to.

Part 3 Amendments to Criminal Procedure Act 2011, and the Schedule

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we now come to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 28 to 33, and Part 3 of the Schedule, “Amendments to Criminal Procedure Act 2011”. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): By way of final comments on this legislation, we’ve had a lengthy debate about it, and what we’ve outlined on this side of the House is that there’s an absolute agreement around the need for procedures that enable complainants in sexual violence cases to have their cases heard and to make the process easier for them, recognising the trauma involved in these very difficult cases. Our primary concern has been in relation to two areas, one being the pre-recording of videos, of evidence, and the concern that that makes it more difficult for defendants to effectively cross-examine and defend themselves.

We do have to remember that we don’t live in a perfect world and not every complainant is a victim, and that is the point of the trial process: to determine whether a sexual assault or violence has occurred. By necessity, it is a very difficult and traumatic experience because, whatever happens, the results are very high stakes for the defendant, who could find him or herself behind bars for many years as a result of the outcome, and therefore it should be scrutinised with the highest degree of process and done properly in the basis of a fair trial. So we’re very concerned to ensure that this legislation does not lead to the inability of defendants to effectively defend themselves.

So when we come to this Part 3 of the legislation—Mr Chair, in terms of the commencement, is it in this part or is it the next part?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): It’s in—not in this part.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Pardon?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The commencement clause is not in this part.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: OK. So my question to the Minister in relation to this part is: where is his confidence that the defendants in this situation, following the changes proposed in this legislation in terms of the proposed changes to both the videos, pre-recorded videos, and the inability to raise questions around a relationship with a partner or a previous relationship—how he can assure the people of New Zealand that everybody will continue to have access to a fair trial to defend themselves using all the information available in the actual case as it arises?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Hon Kris Faafoi’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 105 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Chris Penk’s amendments to Part 3 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 (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Part 3, as amended, be agreed to.

Part 3, as amended, agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to the Schedule set out on Supplementary Order Paper 105 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Schedule, as amended, stand part.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we come to the final debate: clauses 1 and 2, the debate on title and commencement. The question is that clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): The only question I’d put to the Minister is: will he consider including in this legislation a review after three years of this legislation as a matter of course? Because we have heard through this debate very confident assertions from the Minister that everything will be fine and that New Zealanders will continue to have access to a fair trial to defend themselves against serious charges. We’ve outlined serious concerns about two elements of this bill, with the first being that rather than having a complainant in the courtroom and cross-examined with all the facts of the court case before them—being the standard practice—with a pre-recording maybe a year before on video being rare and exceptional, this legislation changes that to potentially becoming a matter of course. Now, that has very real implications for the ability of a defendant to effectively cross-examine that complainant.

Now, we recognise the concerns raised by many people about re-traumatising victims of crime through the process, but we also have to recognise that the stakes are incredibly high for the defendant as well, and we also recognise that the whole point of the trial process is to determine whether a crime has been committed or not. We live in a world where not everybody tells the truth, and that is the purpose of our criminal justice system. We are very much concerned about the rights of, particularly, young men to defend themselves.

So we’ve heard from the Minister that there are safeguards in the system to ensure that a fair trial will continue, but the widespread advice from many lawyers involved—particularly on the defence side of these cases—is that that is not the case. So we want to be assured that this won’t just happen and be forgotten about but that Parliament will come back in three years’ time, take stock and see what the consequences have been, and make adjustments if necessary.

So I’d like to hear from the Minister, finally, on this very important topic. Will he ensure that that review happens, and, if not, why not?

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. In this, the title and commencement phase of debating this legislation, I’ve only really a couple of points to make, other than to add emphasis to those points made by the Hon Paul Goldsmith. Given the genuine concerns raised outside this Parliament but also within its walls, including by way of Supplementary Order Paper, I think that’s a very fair proposal. So I do hope that the Government will take that seriously, including in a legislative programme going forward.

A couple of different points that have a similar theme of timing: I note that the House as a whole is about to pass a piece of legislation that’s got consequential amendments in relation to the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Act. That, in fact, was passed at its third reading last night, but may or may not yet have received Royal assent some 13 or 14 hours on. That’s probably more a point of interest for the legal nerds—whether or not, in fact, that is, as we speak now, today, an Act or technically perhaps still a bill.

In any case, relating to the title and commencement of this bill, I would seek the Minister’s assurance on behalf of the Government that if it should be the case that a senior court determined that some of the provisions of this legislation are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, will the Government legislate to remove such anomalies or errors in the future? So that’s my final question to the Minister on that subject.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I’ll just take a very brief call on this, the final committee stage debate, actually to respond to some of the issues that were being raised by the Opposition members, and the point about questioning the Minister about whether there’ll be changes if it doesn’t meet a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. This has had two Bill of Rights vets as it’s gone through the process. It’s quite extraordinary to me that somehow that can’t quite land with some members in the National Party.

Also, I do just want to restate for the record at this stage actually what’s in the legislation around the process of pre-record, because we’ve had the suggestion that it will just become the default. So what is in the legislation is that the prosecutor will be responsible for selecting the way that evidence would be given after consultation with the witness. That may be pre-record, that may be behind a screen, or that may be CCTV, depending on what the witness’s preference is and what they deem is most appropriate for the case. That decision will always take into account the benefits and the risks, and there is not an absolute entitlement at all in this legislation. The defence has the right to contest that application, and the judge will consider and can decline on their own motion. There are checks right through in terms of that process.

It has been well established by our Court of Appeal that pre-recorded cross-examination does not necessarily clash with the defendant’s right to a fair trial, and that’s been shown again and again in overseas jurisdictions where this is the norm. You know, this has been in place in Australia since 1992, and it has been well reviewed in those jurisdictions and found not to have any negative impact and, in fact, some positive impacts on the quality of trial evidence. Also, even when the method has been nominated, and if it’s going to be pre-record, there is the ability to reschedule if the defence or the prosecution does not have their evidence together for that time frame. Then, finally, there’s the ability to recall a witness, which we hope—and in overseas jurisdictions that has been very rare.

So I really just wanted to put that on record, because there’s been a lot of discussion as if this is just, you know, carte blanche, pre-record is always going to happen a year in advance. Also with this is that there is now a process of working out the guidance and, I think, from memory, regulations around the process of pre-record, and that will involve the defence lawyers in that process.

Everybody in every step of the way in this legislation has been incredibly conscious of the need to protect the right to fair trial. It is at the heart of our justice system. But the problem is at the moment, when we look at our prevalence data of sexual violence and our conviction rate, it shows we have a 1 percent conviction rate, and that is telling us clearly that a large number of victims are not getting a fair trial. Our duty as a country is to hold the integrity of the system for every party, and this legislation is a really important step towards achieving that.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 105 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

Report of Committee of the Whole House

Report of Committee of the Whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

SPEAKER: Now, I just want to check: are we breaking for kai now, or are we going to have one speech?

Willow-Jean Prime: One speech.

SPEAKER: All right.

Bills

Education and Training Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Education: I present a legislative statement on the Education and Training Amendment Bill.

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

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Education and Training Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

The Education and Training Act came into force on 1 August last year. That Act replaced the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Act 1992, the Education Act 1964, and the Education Act 1989, so this was an incredibly big undertaking. This bill does not deal with issues of policy but makes technical and non-controversial changes. These types of changes are inevitable after such significant legislative reform. It tidies up areas that were unintentionally amended and clarifies areas of ambiguity.

One of the main changes made by the bill is to amend the sunsetting provision in the Act. When the education legislation was amalgamated into one Act, there was a great deal of prescriptive legislation around the way early learning centres, schools, and tertiary providers operate. To provide greater flexibility around legislation that may need to be amended more frequently, some provisions were moved into Schedules with the intention that they would be converted into regulations. These Schedules would then be repealed automatically on specified sunset dates, providing time for regulations to be developed in the interim. However, it has become apparent that there are some provisions in the Schedules that are more suitable for primary legislation rather than regulation. For example, Schedule 20 includes some provisions that have an impact on the general right of students to enrol in a State school. This bill amends the sunsetting provisions so that most of the Schedules will remain in the Act.

The bill also aligns the Act more closely with the provisions of the Children’s Act 2014 to ensure our tamariki are safe while engaging in education. The bill clarifies that education workers who meet the definition of a children’s worker in the Children’s Act must be the subject of a comprehensive safety check before they start working. Only those education workers who are not children’s workers will be the subject of a police vet under the Education and Training Act.

The bill makes a number of other minor and technical changes. It amends section 171 of the Act, which relates to the thresholds for interventions in State schools, so that it replicates the provisions of the 1989 Act. The Act inadvertently changed the thresholds.

The bill amends the physical restraint provisions of the Act to change “teacher”, or the references to teacher, to references to “person holding a teaching position” so that former teachers who are now employed in a non-teaching position are not permitted to use physical restraint under section 99 unless specifically authorised by the school that employs them. This reflects the position under the now repealed Education Act 1989, which was not intended to be changed.

The bill extends the transitional provisions in relation to tertiary education providers that prevent them from charging a compulsory student services fee to those who are doing on-job training for a further year, as we continue to work through more permanent arrangements and improve that part of the legislation.

The bill clarifies the early childhood education regulation-making power in the Act, and it ensures that regulations can be made to cover applications for ministerial approval to apply for an early childhood education service licence. Requiring approval to apply for an early childhood education licence is a new process provided by the Act, but it has not yet come into force. Regulations will be required to operationalise the process, and those regulations will be in place by 1 August 2022.

The bill amends section 6 of the Act to specify five education agencies that must give effect to statements of expectations issued jointly by the Ministers of Education and Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti in relation to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. These agencies are the Ministry of Education, the Education Review Office, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, the Tertiary Education Commission, and Education New Zealand.

The bill was reported back to the House unamended by the Education and Workforce Committee. I again want to thank the committee’s bipartisan and collaborative approach to the bill. And on that note, I commend this bill to the House.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for both the lunch break and the end of yesterday. Therefore this bill is set down for further consideration next sitting day, which starts at 2 p.m. this afternoon. The House is adjourned until then.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 12.56 p.m. (Thursday)