Wednesday, 6 April 2022

WEDNESDAY, 6 APRIL 2022

WEDNESDAY, 6 APRIL 2022

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.

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

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

SPEAKER: No petitions have been presented. No bills have been introduced. A paper has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Māori Purposes Fund Board, annual report 2021.

SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Report of the Officers of Parliament Committee on the inquiry into the reappointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

SPEAKER: That report is set down for consideration.

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 her statement that “we have a responsibility to do our very best as a Government through trying times to ensure that we are lifting the outcomes” and “This has been our focus the entire time we’ve been in office”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, and whilst there is more to do, I remain very proud of what we have achieved across our time in office. On our COVID response, we’ve the lowest rate of COVID cases, hospitalisations, and deaths in the OECD. On our economic response, we’ve record low unemployment and GDP is up. We have more than 175,000 people who have taken up our free apprenticeships and targeted trades training, and our Apprenticeship Boost subsidy has helped employers keep on more than 40,000 apprentices. We’ve made the largest increase to benefits in a generation and lifted incomes through our Families Package. Our income support changes since 2017 mean more than 100,000 families are, on average, $175 a week better off. All nine child poverty indicators have improved under Labour, and 66,500 children have been lifted out of poverty since our time in office. More than 200,000 children receive free, healthy lunches in schools. I could go on, but on this side of the House I stand by our statement. We are focused on lifting the wellbeing and the economic wellbeing of New Zealanders, unlike that member, who is focused on removing the top tax bracket for those on $180,000 or more.

Christopher Luxon: Can she explain how the Te Huia train from Auckland to Hamilton, currently costing $280 for every passenger, is a good outcome for the $100 million of taxpayers’ money spent on it to date?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Whereas in contrast to our investment in rail and in alternative transport options, I notice on that side of the House, in the words, I believe, of Matt Doocey, “We want to make roads great again.” I notice as well that the member, when it comes to the challenge of climate change, wants to rely almost solely on the emissions trading scheme (ETS). Now, if he were to do that, that could lead to $1.30 extra on petrol prices and, according to the Climate Change Commission, would mean that one in 10 farms would be converted to pine forests. If that member’s sole goal when it comes to all focus on climate change is nothing but letting the ETS do the heavy lifting, I can tell you that he’s going to have a hard time with rural New Zealand and every New Zealander who will feel it solely at the pump.

Christopher Luxon: Did the $51 million spent on the cancelled bike bridge deliver a good outcome for taxpayers?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, this is where we have been focused on making sure that we are seeing mode shift in New Zealand. Now, again, here we have an opportunity to link up significant transport projects, including rail to the airport, with the third harbour crossing, which, if I recall, the member’s party used to support. That was part of the shift that we’ve made in our decision making. On this side of the House, we’re willing to make bold infrastructure decisions. On that side, we see the continued delay, and that is the reason we inherited such a lack of investment in New Zealand’s infrastructure.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Does she agree with the statement that one of the most important things we can do to address climate change is to build more roads, as asserted on breakfast television this morning by the Leader of the Opposition?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do share a concern that the member has that that seems to be the only plan that the member across the aisle has. I guess the issue that I have is that on the one hand, the National Party purports to support the zero carbon legislation, and yet have voted against almost every single action that has been taken to make sure that we do that. Unless we invest in this transition, New Zealanders will bear the brunt of future energy shocks, New Zealand will bear the brunt of severe weather events, and primary producers will bear the brunt as exporters. This is not an option—we must move.

Christopher Luxon: Is she aware that the famed bike bridge was, in fact, cancelled, despite us spending $51 million of taxpayers’ money on it?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If I recall, the previous MP for Auckland Central, one Nikki Kaye, was not the only person who supported the link across the harbour bridge, and, in fact, there were other National Party MPs who did as well. The fact is that, unfortunately, that proposal was no longer possible for structural reasons. When we, of course, heard of that information, we made sure that we had alternative investment plans so that we could continue the much-needed mode shift that Aucklanders are seeking.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Before I take any more supplementary questions, the noise from my left is too loud. There are at least three members who I’ve had to call to order and have kept on interjecting after I’ve called them to order. If that occurs again, I will regard it as grossly disorderly.

Hon Michael Wood: Thank you. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government has brought forward planning for an alternative Waitematā harbour crossing from the 2040s, with options to be consulted on later this year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I can, and, as I reflected in my earlier answer, this is part of an integrated approach to significant transport plans in Auckland. Auckland has suffered the consequences of a lack of investment in major infrastructure projects; we suffer the consequences and impacts on productivity. Previously, the National Party had been in favour of expediting the third harbour crossing. It is disappointing to hear that they are now panning those plans.

Christopher Luxon: Why, despite job vacancies being at an all-time high, are 60,000 more Kiwis stuck on the job seeker benefit compared to when she took office, and is that an acceptable outcome when it’s costing taxpayers $1.6 billion more every year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, if you want to compare apples and apples, then you always look at the rate of people on a main benefit as a proportion of population, and, in that regard, where we are is comparable to the time when the National Government was in office in the global financial crisis. And many would argue the shock of COVID has been far greater than it was at that time. We are also seeing record departures from our main benefits as well, and that is because, unlike the National Party when they were in office, we have taken an active case-management approach to support people into work. We have Mana in Mahi, we have the Apprenticeship Boost, we have He Poutama Rangatahi—all programmes to support those who may be on Government support, particularly our young people, into work.

Christopher Luxon: Can she explain how spending on education has increased by $6 billion a year but there has been no improvement in literacy or numeracy outcomes for Kiwi kids?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: This is where I would, again, put to the member—you cannot have it both ways. The member thinks that there is no issue with inequity in this country—no issue with inequity—and yet education and health are areas where we, time and time again, see the impact of disparities in our society playing out in our education system in our outcomes. Yes, we have spent more because the last Government didn’t build new classrooms, didn’t grow our teacher roll, and didn’t make sure we were dealing with population growth. And what we are still catching up on is the fact that there was not enough focus on equity to improve outcomes across all of our populations: Māori, Pacific, children with disabilities—and that is what we continue to repair.

Christopher Luxon: Does she believe delivering just 1,300 out of a promised 100,000 KiwiBuild homes, after almost five years of trying, is a good outcome for spending more than a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: National built a hundred houses over nine years. I will not be lectured by a party that, instead of building public houses, sold them and pulled them down. Over 8,000 public housing places have been created under this Government—more than any Government since the 1970s. And, still, we know there is more to do. That member’s answer seems to be simply the Resource Management Act reform—and we’re doing that too.

Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that Kiwis struggling with the cost of living crisis have a right to be angry at her Government’s shocking record of spending more of their money but delivering worse outcomes?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In 2020, as a percentage of GDP, we spent less than National did in 2009. In 2021, we spent less as a percentage of GDP than National did in 2010. We’ve taken on a similar amount of debt to respond to COVID-19 as National did in its first five years. If the member’s so interested in outcomes, I am happy to have that debate toe to toe—we had children living in cars; we had a mental health crisis; we had an under-investment and no investment in hospital infrastructure, classrooms, and all of the things that determine the outcomes for our children in this country. In five years, we have turned around those stats and we will continue to do so. But when we go from no investment to investment, I would happily debate outcomes on every single term.

Question No. 2—Finance

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Last week’s Xero’s small-business index bounced back in February as strong sales supported growth as firms grappled with the initial challenge of Omicron. The index was well above average, at 114.5, largely driven by small-business sales and wage growth. Sales surged 13.3 percent, year on year, led by the construction and manufacturing sectors. Hospitality was the only sector to see a decline. Wage growth picked up pace to 4.3 percent—compared to 3.8 percent in January—led by construction and hospitality. Job growth was 3.3 percent. Xero said it was encouraging to see our small-business community performing well over February but noted that there are challenges—particularly for the hospitality sector—and that we needed to be doing everything we can to support those small businesses, as we have been doing.

Barbara Edmonds: What reports has he seen on the support available for businesses dealing with Omicron?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the Government’s targeted COVID support payment is helping viable but vulnerable businesses through Omicron. So far, a total of $956 million has been paid out under the three fortnightly COVID support payments to 193,233 applicants. Auckland has received 53 percent of the payments, going by business, followed by Christchurch on 9 percent and Wellington on 8 percent. By sector, the accommodation and hospitality sector received 16 percent; construction, 14 percent; and retail trade, 8 percent. This is about providing cash flow and confidence and helping to protect jobs and support New Zealand businesses through this very difficult time.

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the export sector is continuing to support the economy with exports rising 22 percent to $5.5 billion in February. The main contribution, once again, came from dairy products, which rose 37 percent to $1.7 billion in the month, led by higher prices for milk powder and butter. Meat sector sales rose 21 percent to $981 million, while mechanical machinery and equipment rose 29 percent to $151 million. On an annual basis, exports were up 9.8 percent to $64.9 billion. Our exporters are contributing strongly to the economy, and I’m sure all members of this House would like to thank them for their work in such a volatile and uncertain environment.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with ANZ’s view that “Concern about the domestic economic outlook is rising, and is the top factor constraining investment by quite some way”, and is he concerned that the cost of living is growing faster in New Zealand than in Australia?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): As I’ve said a number of times in the House, I acknowledge that 2022 is a challenging year for New Zealand businesses and households. Forecasts of economic growth this year have been pared back, but they do remain positive as New Zealand deals with Omicron, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the ongoing disruption of the pandemic on global supply chains. As I mentioned yesterday to the member, we are in a strong position to be able to continue to support New Zealanders through this uncertainty. As to the second part of the question, there are a wide range of reasons for why inflation is at a particular level, in a particular country, including at what stage of the pandemic each country is at. I would note that, looking at the December quarter numbers, the two countries’ inflation rates are not dissimilar, with New Zealand at 1.4 percent and Australia at 1.3 percent.

Nicola Willis: Is he aware that inflation in New Zealand for the year ending December was 5.9 percent while, for the same period in Australia, it was 3.5 percent, and has he seen a single forecast projecting New Zealand’s inflation to be less in the coming year than it will be in Australia?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, I am aware of that, and I’m sure the member is also aware that inflation pressures are being felt all around the world, and we recently had the United Kingdom Budget, reflecting inflation projections of well over 7 percent. This is affecting people all over the world. It’s the reason why this Government has a focus on making sure those the most affected by price rises—those on low and middle incomes—are supported, rather than cutting the top tax rates so that those earning over $180,000 would get the benefit, as the member would prefer.

Nicola Willis: Does he agree with ASB that New Zealand’s inflation outlook is “worryingly high”, and what steps, if any, is the Government taking to support monetary policy to keep a lid on New Zealand’s soaring levels of inflation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: All New Zealanders will be concerned about rising prices, and that’s the reason why we’ve taken the initiatives that we have. I’m glad that the member references monetary policy there, because that is indeed the role of the Reserve Bank, to be able to make sure that we have price stability. Alongside that, we will continue to operate a fiscal policy that is carefully balanced, making sure that we invest in the long term, making sure that we keep our debt levels under control, and making sure that all New Zealanders get a fair go. If the member wants to talk about things that might add to inflation, untargeted tax cuts that National is proposing that would benefit the highest income earners don’t stand up very well.

Nicola Willis: What is his explanation for rents rising faster than ever—up $50 a week in the past year alone—and is it seriously his position that international factors are to blame for this growth in a core component of New Zealanders’ cost of living?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ll give the member this. That’s not all about international factors. That’s about the fact that the National Party oversaw the sell-off of State houses and managed to build a hundred affordable houses over nine years. It’s about supply; houses don’t get built right away. On this side of the House, we are now building houses at a faster rate than any Government since the 1970s, trying to make up for the member’s party’s mistakes.

Nicola Willis: Is it now the position of New Zealand’s Minister of Finance that the reason our country has experienced record growth in rental costs is because five years ago some State houses were transferred from ownership by the Crown to ownership by community housing organisations?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, actually, that not very clever explanation doesn’t wash. The National Party needs to own its records. They sold off State houses in the middle of a housing crisis.

Nicola Willis: Why does he keep blaming COVID for New Zealand’s poor economic performance when, despite Australia currently experiencing a surge in cases, consumer confidence surveys show Australians feel far more confident about their economic prospects than New Zealanders do?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member might like to talk the New Zealand economy down, but I invite her to read the IMF’s report where they congratulated New Zealand not just on the way that we dealt with COVID from a health perspective but also from an economic perspective. We have 3.2 percent unemployment in New Zealand at the moment. We have debt levels that are lower than the countries we choose to compare ourselves with. We have a thriving export sector and we have good prospects for New Zealand. New Zealand’s economy is in good shape to get through COVID-19.

Nicola Willis: Why does the Minister keep congratulating himself for his economic approach of more taxes, more regulation, and more poorly executed spending when the cost of living is soaring and New Zealanders’ confidence is collapsing?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The IMF congratulated New Zealand for its economic performance. That is a result of the hard work of businesses and of households right across New Zealand. New Zealanders can be extremely proud of what they have managed through COVID-19. Now we’re in a strong position to be able to recover and rebuild from there.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm reports that during January of this year Australia’s consumer confidence plunged to levels not seen since 1992 as a result of a wave of Omicron similar, of course, to the experience New Zealand is having, which we too will recover from?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, and as I said in my primary answer, an impact on the economy is often comparable to where we are in the pandemic cycle. New Zealand is in the peak of our Omicron outbreak, but we are extremely well positioned to be able to come out of this. What, however, would not help us is untargeted tax cuts that the National Party is proposing for people earning over $180,000 a year or, for that matter, increasing expenditure on everything from—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order. I seek leave for a snap debate forthwith so that the Deputy Prime Minister, who has relied on his attacks on the National Party over the last week and a half, can better explain his position and—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. The member knows that he may not interrupt an answer for that sort of approach. I suggest that if the member wants to seek leave for such a debate, he could do one at the end of question time, and it might well be granted. There’s a general debate. [Interruption] Well, I think the Minister was rudely interrupted, and I’m going to let him start again.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Oh, very good, Mr Speaker. Yes, as I said in my primary answer earlier on, Australia and New Zealand are experiencing the pandemic at different times. In New Zealand’s case we are in the middle of Omicron and it is having a major impact on us. What we do know, though, is that we are in a strong position to recover from that. We also know that the kind of approach being favoured by the National Party of tax cuts to those who earn more than $180,000, while at the same time claiming that they’re going to be increasing expenditure on health and defence and housing, simply doesn’t add up.

Question No. 4—Energy and Resources

4. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent announcements has the Government made on renewable energy for Māori and public housing?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): One hundred and eighty families living in Māori and public homes are set to benefit from locally generated clean, cheap power as a result of Government funding for small-scale renewable energy trials. This includes 12 projects to develop renewable products which will also help to bring energy independence to remote communities. This programme is in addition to other Government action to support people with their energy costs including the winter energy payment, Warmer Kiwi Homes, and cutting petrol excise by 25c per litre.

Arena Williams: What are some examples of projects previously funded by the Māori Housing Renewable Energy Fund?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: One example is Te Arawa Whānau Ora, who installed solar panels on 14 homes around Rotorua last year. Over summer, those households saved on average about $100 on their monthly power bills—a reduction of between 30 and 50 percent. These projects also support broader energy benefits such as supporting Māori energy businesses, building skills, and enabling mana whenua to return to traditional energy sources.

Arena Williams: What else is the Government doing to increase the uptake of renewable energy for public housing?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Kāinga Ora is currently trialling solar panels on 100 public homes in Lower Hutt and Porirua. These are expected to be installed by October. Kāinga Ora is planning further solar installations throughout the country. By 2024, approximately 1,000 public homes will be fitted with renewable energy systems; 400 properties are already committed to across Whangārei, Christchurch, Nelson, Napier, and Auckland.

Chris Bishop: What steps, if any, has the Minister taken to make sure that any public announcements around Kāinga Ora comply with public sector neutrality, particularly concerning Labour Party MPs and candidates?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’m sure the Minister of Energy and Resources would be happy to talk to the Minister of Housing but these steps have been well traversed by the Minister of Housing in this House, including conversations—

SPEAKER: I shouldn’t have allowed the question. I apologise.

Question No. 5—Finance

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question—

SPEAKER: Order! Mr Goldsmith, be quiet.

David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I wonder if you’d consider awarding the ACT Party an extra supplementary question for that interruption.

SPEAKER: I will consider it.

David Seymour: Thank you. Your consideration is appreciated.

5. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Finance: What was core Crown tax revenue forecast to be for the financial year to June 2021 in the 2020 Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update, and how much tax revenue was actually collected for that year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): As the 2020 Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU) outlines in its very first paragraph, it was set against the backdrop of continued uncertainty about New Zealand’s economic outlook due to the COVID-19 pandemic, where Treasury in the PREFU warned the effects of COVID-19 on the economy were expected to be more persistent than before, and as such had lowered its nominal GDP forecast compared to Budget 2020. PREFU included a forecast for core Crown tax revenue in the year to June 2021 of $84.660 billion, or 28 percent of nominal GDP, which forecast at the PREFU to be $32.9 billion at 30 June 2021. PREFU also forecast net debt to be 43 percent of GDP at 30 June 2021, or $130.2 billion in nominal terms. I have good news for the member: New Zealand’s economy was stronger in the June 2021 year than forecast in the PREFU. Nominal GDP was reported at $339.7 billion for the year to June 2021. As a result of the stronger economy which led to higher business profits, more people in work, and higher wages, tax revenue in the year to June 2021 was $98 billion, or 28.8 percent of GDP. This also meant lower net debt, at 30.1 percent of GDP—that’s $102 billion versus the $130 billion forecast at PREFU.

SPEAKER: Before the member asks a supplementary, I have given consideration to his request. I will grant it by transferring one question from the National Party to ACT. Supplementary question—

David Seymour: Squid Game!

Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I ask why you have decided to take one supplementary off National and give it to the ACT Party? Mr Goldsmith, I think, basically laughed—momentarily—at the start of a question. That is not out of order.

SPEAKER: I was actually considering whether it should be one or two, and I have decided to be lenient.

David Seymour: So did the Minister’s answer mean he expected $84 billion and he got $98 billion, meaning he ended up with $14 billion more tax than he’d expected?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That’s the Treasury’s forecast in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update, and so yes, there were $14 billion more. As I noted in the primary answer, it was a reasonably volatile and uncertain time in the global economy.

David Seymour: What happened to the extra $14 billion of tax he didn’t expect to collect? Or does he just not trust Treasury’s forecasts?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. Although a number of things happened, but one of the main outcomes was lower net debt, as I noted in my primary answer.

David Seymour: How is it possible that the Government can suddenly find itself with an additional $14 billion and not be able to afford a single cent to cut income taxes for households that are being squeezed from every direction and do not benefit from the various benefit increases and other transfers the Government seems so obsessed with?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’ve traversed this ground a number of times in the House. There are many different priorities that fall on the Government, particularly in the period that we’re covering through the member’s question. As we dealt with the end of the Delta outbreak, as we dealt with further COVID costs and as we invested as we need to do in long-term issues like health and education and in housing.

David Seymour: Is not the real reason for the Government’s tax windfall that inflation also took off beyond the Treasury’s forecasts, being 3.3 percent in the year to last June, instead of the 1.2 percent that was forecast, pushing up the price of everything, with the Government profiting $14 billion from the cost of living crisis.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No doubt, inflation has been a factor in this. I would also note that the Government, not only when there’s an inflationary environment, takes more money in, but we have many more outgoings as well, as a result of inflation increasing. While the member’s on that topic though, I do note that the PREFU forecast wage growth of 0.9 percent but it turned out to be 4 percent, so wages grew during that period.

David Seymour: Does the Minister accept that inflation is giving more and more taxes to the Government, but the Government is not prepared to give anything back by letting New Zealanders keep more of their own money when they’re squeezed from every direction?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As again we’ve covered in this House, we recognise the significant impact of the cost of living increases on New Zealanders, and it’s the reason why we have added a packaged on 1 April that has seen a significant lift in the incomes of low and middle income New Zealanders.

David Seymour: If the Government gets another happy surprise for itself of greater tax revenue than forecast in this financial year, might it finally be able to let those hard-working families squeezed from every direction keep just a little bit more of the money that they earn?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Obviously I will never pre-empt future Budget decisions, let alone one, using the member’s dates, that would be in Budget 2023. What I can say is that on this side of the House, we’ll continue to focus on a balanced approach. That means yes, we try to keep debt low. That means yes, we try to make sure that we’re investing in the long-term things that New Zealanders need. Those New Zealanders he’s referring to deserve a health system that means that they get good quality healthcare wherever they are in New Zealand. They deserve for their children to be in classrooms that are warm and dry. They deserve to know that there will be good public transport and roading networks right across New Zealand. Those things don’t come for free either.

David Seymour: How can the Minister explain the massive growth in tax revenue and his refusal to cut taxes by talking about health and education, when on the same figures total health and education expenditure was actually less than forecast?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, I do think it is important that the member remembers that if we look at the most up-to-date forecast with the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, core Crown tax revenue will be below 30 percent of GDP across the forecast period. That is around about where it has been for a number of years. On this side of the House, I think we understand that there has to be a balance when you put a Budget together. Just saying that you’re going to spend more but cut taxes and reduce debt does not add up, and that is the problem for the Opposition at the moment.

Question No. 6—Conservation

6. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Conservation: Does she stand by her statement yesterday that “The Department of Conservation has advised me that there are currently no burrows with any sign of kororā in the rock wall at Pūtiki Bay”; if so, what does she say to the Protect Pūtiki group, who documented footage of kororā at Pūtiki Bay last night?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): I thank the member for her question and ongoing advocacy for the community at te ākau o Pūtiki. As the member will be aware, I take responsibilities as the conservation Minister, including the protection of our taonga species incredibly seriously, which has led to the work we’re doing to review the Wildlife Act, the partial review of the conservation law, and centring the Aotearoa New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy at the heart of conservation here in Aotearoa. With respect to the footage referenced: yes, I can confirm that I have seen that footage, and, consequently, made further inquiries today to my officials, expressing my dissatisfaction that the context of the information in which it sits was not provided to me in a way that I considered was fulsome or adequate. While I stand by the statement I made yesterday, in the context of which it was made, it’s become clear to me that the information was inaccurate, including that kororā have sometimes been returning to those burrows in the evening. Further, I can confirm to the member that in subsequent inquiries made today, I have been advised that since the authority was granted under the Wildlife Act, no kororā have to date been identified at the site during the period of works, but, in the event that they are, can be relocated in alignment with the authority granted under the Wildlife Act.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When granting a permit to move kororā, what assessment, if any, did the Department of Conservation make of the advice of Professor John Cockrem that his conservative estimate is at least 60 kororā live in the full rock wall?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I’m advised that the Department of Conservation, and primarily their ecologists, work closely with Dr Cockrem and leaned into the advice of many of the community groups there on Waiheke Island, including Protect Pūtiki, various bird rescue groups, and the like. My understanding from the information that the department has provided to me is, first, that many of the references to the information provided were with respect to the broader consents that have been granted by the Auckland Council, with respect to the broader marina development. With the specific reference to just the application under the Wildlife Act, I have been advised that, on balance, whilst the bird, the kororā, live in that rock wall and do return to that area sometimes in the evening, that during the daytimes and during the period which the works will be undertaken, there is a very low chance, as I best understand, that those kororā will be on site. However, when granting the permit, those are at the forefront of the Department of Conservation’s considerations. They’re left with two options: (1) relocate those kororā in the event that they’re found; or (2) leave them there and let the works occur around them. On balance, the Department of Conservation made the determination that to grant the authority under the Wildlife Act was the best in the circumstances for the preservation of the kororā.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has the Department of Conservation conducted any on-site monitoring for the removal of the rock wall while it has gone ahead this week; if not, why not?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I understand from my inquiries made this morning that they have made observations with respect to the monitoring in building up to the granting of the permit. However, I have expressed very clearly my expectation as the Minister of Conservation that the department take an active role and be physically present to monitor the works whilst they’re being undertaken when that work is ongoing through the period of the permit that’s left to run.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What can members of the public do if they find evidence of kororā in distress at Pūtiki Bay, at the site of construction?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: That’s a great question from the member. There’s a couple of things that can be done. Of course, when any member of the public does see any taonga species in any form of distress, they can ring the Department of Conservation—0800 DOC HOT—and they will be put through to people that will advise them on the best next steps. I can also assure the member that a number of inquiries have been put through to the Department of Conservation over the past year, with respect to the Pūtiki area, and the department have advised me that they’ve acted swiftly to respond to those inquiries.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Minister agree that the law as it stands is failing to protect these kororā, and, if so, what advocacy has she undertaken for improving protection of native species, such as kororā, in consultation with the Minister for the Environment in the proposed new Natural and Built Environments Bill?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I agree with the member that the conservation law that governs some of our taonga species, across the board, I consider, is inadequate, it’s outdated, and it needs some fundamental reform. That, of course, needs to be done in partnership with communities at place and it will take some time. We have undertaken work since I have taken office, working in collaboration with a number of environmental non-governmental organisations to do the fundamental first review work that needs to be done of the conservation law environment. With respect to the natural and built environments, and the resource management reforms more generally, my colleague the Minister Parker and myself are ardent advocates for biodiversity and will ensure that that’s a key linchpin in the reforms ahead.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order. I seek leave to table these images of kororā from Phil Stebbing, taken in August 2021 at Pūtiki Bay. They’re, of course, of kororā at Pūtiki Bay.

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

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

Question No. 7—COVID-19 Response

7. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What recent changes have been made to vaccination requirements in New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Thank you, Mr Speaker. From tomorrow, young people aged 16 and 17 will be able to receive a free booster dose of the Pfizer vaccine at least six months after completing their primary course. They’ll be able to do so by visiting any walk-in vaccination clinic around the country. A booster dose is particularly recommended for 16- and 17-year-olds who are at higher risk of severe COVID-19 symptoms and hospitalisation, and that includes those who are immunocompromised or who are living with a family member who is immunocompromised, and our Māori and Pacific rangatahi.

Dr Liz Craig: How many rangatahi will now be eligible for this booster and what assurance has he had on the safety of this decision?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can advise that 36,000 rangatahi aged between 16 and 17 years old will be eligible to receive a booster dose. Medsafe follows a very robust approvals process to ensure that all vaccines we use here in New Zealand meet acceptable standards for safety, quality, and efficacy. We know that immunity to the virus does wane over time, so getting a booster is the best protection someone can have against COVID-19. It’s also a reminder to any New Zealander who hasn’t yet had their booster that even if they’ve already had COVID-19, getting a booster at least three months after they’ve tested positive for COVID-19 can help to reduce the risk of being re-infected and passing it on to others. It also reduces the chances of becoming very ill and ending up in hospital.

Dr Liz Craig: What other recent changes have been made to vaccination requirements in New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: From Monday, New Zealanders no longer have to use a vaccine pass, or a My Vaccine Pass. While vaccine passes have been extremely useful in helping us to get to high rates of vaccination and they were particularly useful in our fight against Delta, with around 95 percent of our eligible population now at least double-vaccinated, we don’t need that tool any longer. Businesses that want to continue to use My Vaccine Pass, however, will be able to continue to do so, but they’ll need to have a justification for doing that, taking into account the latest public health advice.

Dr Liz Craig: What will these changes mean for Government mandates and what should employers do if these mandates no longer apply to them?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Government vaccine mandates for all sectors, except for health and care workers, prison workers, and border workers, have been removed. They remain for health and care workers and prison staff because they come into contact with a lot of people who are at high risk of serious illness from COVID-19, and, of course, our border workers because they are the first people who’d be likely to be exposed to any new variants of concern that emerge internationally. Employers who have had a Government mandate applying to their workforce should undertake or update a work health and safety risk assessment, reflecting updated public health advice to determine what controls are appropriate for their workplaces.

Question No. 8—Immigration

8. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by his statements and actions?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Yes. In particular I stand by the Government’s plan to reconnect with the world. Over the last two years, New Zealanders have relied on our Government to take a careful approach to the border, and this caution has paid off, with lives and livelihoods protected on a scale not seen elsewhere in the developed world. We are now taking a staged and balanced approach which will see New Zealand open up fully throughout the course of 2022. We’ve already welcomed back highly skilled workers and working holidaymakers, and next week we’ll also welcome back people offshore with a valid work or student visa—up to 5,000 students—to study in semester two, and also we’ll welcome back our Australian brothers and sisters.

Erica Stanford: Why has he not changed the criteria of the 2021 residency visa so that all migrant nurses are eligible, regardless of their visa type, to help fill the shortfall of 4,000 nurses as identified by the Minister of Health on Sunday?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The criteria of the 2021 resident visa was very much focused on making sure we could secure the workforce that have been here and contributing over the last two years. The primary purpose of people’s visas had to be work, and we have given certainty to a number of people who have already applied and been given residency, but, importantly, also given their employers certainty about retaining their staff.

Erica Stanford: In light of that answer, then, what does he say to GP Paul Jones and his anaesthetist wife, Fleur Harding, working in New Zealand, who recently left New Zealand because they were on the wrong visa type to be eligible for the 2021 residence visa, and why won’t he change the criteria to include all doctors?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Again, part of the bedrock criteria for being eligible for the 2021 resident visa was being on the appropriate work visa. If people were here on the likes of a working holiday visa and acting as a locum, their primary purpose was being here to work and have a holiday, not to work in New Zealand.

Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. For two supplementary questions in a row, the Minister has been asked by my colleague Erica Stanford around why criteria haven’t been changed, and in both answers—I let the first one go—the Minister didn’t get anywhere near addressing the actual question that my colleague asked.

SPEAKER: I can’t focus two supplementaries back; the last one answered the question absolutely. He was very clear.

Erica Stanford: Is he concerned, based on numbers from the Immigration website, that the 2021 resident visa is on track to grant an extra 40,000 to 60,000 migrants residency, above the 165,000 approved by Cabinet, yet still manages to miss out the doctors and nurses that we desperately need?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I’m not concerned about making sure that we give more people certainty that have made a commitment to New Zealand, especially over the last two years, to make sure that they can be here to work. The criteria are clear, and the people who are eligible have to be here primarily on a work visa that is focused on work.

Question No. 9—Environment

9. RACHEL BROOKING (Labour) to the Minister for the Environment: How is the Government improving the planning system to build more houses and infrastructure?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The Government has removed barriers within our planning system, enabling the building of more houses and infrastructure. Since 2017, the number of houses consented annually in Auckland has doubled from 10,000 to over 20,000, with townhouses and flats increasing fivefold from 2,000 to 10,000 per annum. This Government has ensured that our major cities must enable further intensification in their plans by August 2022. Under the new rules, up to three homes three stories high can be built on most sites without the need for a resource consent, and I acknowledge the support of the National, Green, and Māori Parties for this significant change to planning laws. We’re far from done. We plan to introduce legislation this year that will repeal and replace the Resource Management Act (RMA).

Rachel Brooking: What reports has he received about the inadequacy of New Zealand’s planning system?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m sure that many members will have read with interest the report that came from the Infrastructure Commission this week, which found that New Zealand’s “prohibitively expensive housing market could have been prevented by congestion mitigation policies and less restrictive planning rules.” The commission says that when urban planning policies limit development up in the centre of the city or out at the fringes, it leads to both reduced housing supply and higher housing prices. They also note that unless the planning system is very specific about prioritising housing and infrastructure as core objectives, amenity concerns about urban and natural character will prevail over building the homes that New Zealanders need. The commission is correct, and prioritising a massive increase in housing infrastructure is a focus of the planning system reforms.

Rachel Brooking: How will the repeal and replacement of the RMA enable more houses and infrastructure?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The RMA takes too long, costs too much, and hasn’t protected the environment. It has imposed significant costs on both the natural environment and developers by often leaving individual consenting decisions to resolve higher-level planning issues, enabling nimbyism to strangle housing. The reform will create more certainty about what development will be permitted to take place, reducing costs and delays for developers and other participants, and further increasing housing supply.

Question No. 10—Defence

10. Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT) to the Minister of Defence: Does he stand by his statement that “We’ve already put towards Cabinet a number of options, which include some lethal support”; if so, what lethal support was included?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Defence): Yes. Cabinet continues to look at the most significant contributions New Zealand can offer that will make a material difference to Ukraine. Our support to date has been comprehensive; it includes military intelligence, economic sanctions, trade tariffs on Russian goods, humanitarian aid, providing visas for family members to shelter in New Zealand, through to support for criminal investigation in the International Criminal Court. We have always said we will continue to consider what more we can do and that nothing is off the table, given the unprecedented nature of this invasion by Russia.

SPEAKER: No. It is a very clear question, which had two parts. The Minister’s addressed the first part, but he hasn’t addressed the second.

Hon PEENI HENARE: As the Minister of Defence, my job is to inquire of Defence what best support mechanisms we can offer to Ukraine. Ultimately, Cabinet makes that decision, and Cabinet has made a decision and will continue to assess the situation to make sure that we can respond accordingly.

David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, he’s made a statement publically, saying that he took a range of possible supports to Cabinet. He’s been asked on notice in the House what those other supports included; surely he’s required to answer that question and tell us what they were?

SPEAKER: He is either required to address that question, which he hasn’t done yet, or to indicate that it’s not in the public interest to do so—and quite often in the Defence area, you do get to that area. But I would have thought that people who had read the news might know the answer.

Hon PEENI HENARE: Then, it isn’t in the best interests of the public to know that.

Dr James McDowall: Does he support Cabinet’s refusal to send any of our Javelin anti-tank missile systems to help defend Ukraine from the atrocities being committed against them by the Russian Federation?

Hon PEENI HENARE: We haven’t made a decision specifically on that, and I will reiterate the point that Cabinet will continue to make the appropriate decisions which are in line with the needs of Ukraine.

Dr James McDowall: Will the Minister take his proposal—to supply lethal aid—back to Cabinet for reconsideration in light of new revelations and mounting evidence of Russian war crimes against Ukrainian civilians, including children?

Hon PEENI HENARE: My job is to always present options to Cabinet for consideration, and I will reiterate the point that we as a Government stand against the actions of Russia at this point in time and have supported the call for a war tribunal to make sure that, for those atrocities, people are held to account.

Dr James McDowall: If the Minister won’t commit to taking back the proposal, or presenting a new one to Cabinet, does he no longer stand by his decision to do so in the first place?

Hon PEENI HENARE: That’s not what I said, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I probably should have ruled the question out because it wasn’t what he said.

Dr James McDowall: How bad does the situation in Ukraine have to get for the Minister to convince his colleagues that providing lethal support is the right thing to do?

Hon PEENI HENARE: I reiterate the point that Cabinet considers a large number of options, and we’ve already moved very swiftly on quite a number of those. And I want to also echo the sentiments from our partners offshore—the UK in particular, who commends New Zealand for the actions and the swift action we have taken to date. They have committed to our working together to make sure that our response is in line with the need of Ukraine.

Question No. 11—Police

11. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, “I reject the premise that gang tensions have increased under this Government’s watch”; if so, how does she reconcile that with reported police intelligence, which states parts of the country have experienced unprecedented levels of gang violence in the past year?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): I stand by the full context of all my answers at question time. In answer to the member’s second question, gangs have been a feature of New Zealand society for well over half a century. What police intelligence shows us is that the arrival of 501s in 2015 has fundamentally changed the nature of gangs, making them much more overt and sophisticated. This Government has no tolerance for gang violence and that is why we will continue to support police in their work to crack down on gangs by deploying 700 more organised crime staff and passing legislation to give them more tools to address gang violence.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does she agree with Auckland Labour list MP Helen White, who wrote an article claiming gang activity—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Who was that? [Interruption] No, no, it was someone—

Hon Mark Mitchell: It was up the back there, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Which member interjected?

Simon Court: Mr Speaker, I withdraw and apologise.

Chris Bishop: Point of order. Fair’s fair, Mr Speaker. Last time you took one off the ACT Party. Could we have that one back, please?

SPEAKER: The trouble is that they are finished for the day. Have they got any left tomorrow? [Interruption] All right, well the ACT Party lose one of its three questions tomorrow.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d like to speak in favour of Chris Bishop’s earlier point of order that you shouldn’t remove a question for such a trivial interruption.

SPEAKER: Some people say that consistency is the last refuge of fools but I’ll stay consistent with this one. Mark Mitchell, you now have an extra supplementary, which I think gets you to four.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does she agree with Auckland Labour list MP Helen White, who wrote an article claiming gang activity had increased in Auckland when just two days before the article was published she told the House she rejected the premise that gang tensions had increased under this Government’s watch?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I have said consistently this Government is concerned about crime and that’s why we boosted police funding by $450 million and deployed an additional 300 organised crime staff. Ms White acknowledges the impacts of COVID-19—that that has had on Auckland and that is why the Government has provided a range of supports to those affected. It’s also why we’ve put an additional 360 police on the beat in Auckland since we came to Government and set up the retail crime unit.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Is it correct that from January 2021 only 13 net new organised crime staff have been recruited?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What is correct is our commitment to ensuring we have sufficient cops on the beat and they have sufficient resources in terms of funding and equipment and legislative tools. We are well on the way to meeting our targets for 1,800 new police, 700 being deployed into organised crime.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t think I can get that question any more tighter and it was very specific.

SPEAKER: And the member knows if he asks a general first question he can’t expect the Minister to answer a specific supplementary. Just mentioning gangs is not enough to expect the Minister to come prepared with a detailed response to a very specific question.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why under her watch are gangs regularly taking over public spaces and roads, abusing and putting members of the public at risk?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: There’s no doubt that gangs are a feature—a harmful feature—of our communities and that’s why this Government is committed to giving police the tools to crack down on gangs and gang crime. Funding 700 more organised crime staff, deploying the tactical response units—and that’s why we’ve introduced legislation to give police more tools.

SPEAKER: Does the member want to use the final supplementary?

Hon Mark Mitchell: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No obligation.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Have 501s increased gang tension in New Zealand?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Let’s not forget that Australia’s exporting of this gang problem to New Zealand began under National in 2015 and they responded by cutting the number of cops on the beat and we are playing catch up. I agree with Christopher Luxon that 501s are changing the nature of gangs in New Zealand and that is why we are funding the largest ever increase of organised crime staff, tightening up our gun laws, and increasing the police budget by more than 30 percent.

Question No. 12—Workplace Relations and Safety

12. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: How will Fair Pay Agreements improve outcomes for those on lower incomes?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In yesterday’s first reading of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill, we heard stories of front-line workers in some of our lowest-paid jobs: security guards, supermarket workers, and cleaners. The contribution of Kiwis performing some of the most essential work in our country has been systematically undervalued for too long. The Fair Pay Agreements Bill is about setting minimum pay and conditions for these types of work to improve outcomes for those on lower outcomes and, in turn, create fairer, safer, and more productive workplaces. Combined with other Government policies, such as increases to the minimum wage which have increased the wages of minimum-wage workers by $218 per week since 2017, this shows the Government’s commitment to supporting New Zealanders on low to middle incomes, boosting wages, and productivity.

Camilla Belich: How do fair pay agreements encourage higher productivity?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Fair Pay Agreement Working Group, chaired by the Rt Hon Jim Bolger, identified that sector-based bargaining provides the opportunity for employers to invest and engage without the fear of being undercut by other employers engaged in a race to the bottom on wages. The working group considered that there may be mutual benefits for workers and employers through increased worker engagement, increased productivity, and better workplaces. It doesn’t take a giant leap to recognise that a more engaged workforce that values their work and is compensated fairly is likely to be more motivated and productive. We see a good example in Australia, where, with sector-based bargaining there for the past 40 years, they have a rate of labour productivity far higher than New Zealand does currently.

Camilla Belich: Will fair pay agreements result in compulsory unionism and strike action by workers?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Categorically, no. The bill is explicit in its requirements that unionism remains voluntary and that the benefits of fair pay agreements apply to members of unions and people who are not members of unions. It also explicitly prevents recourse to industrial action either by employers or employees. Any information to the contrary is categorically false, and while I expect there to be vigorous debate around this issue, I encourage anyone engaged in the debate to do so on the merit and substance of the bill, to deal with the problems of low wages in New Zealand that we are trying to resolve, and not to engage in misinformation.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Deputy Leader—Labour): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

I’m going to start and make the unusual move of acknowledging the hard work of a member of the Opposition. I’m going to acknowledge the comments of the honourable member, the List MP who’s based somewhere here in Wellington across the other side of the harbour, and that is Chris Bishop. I’m going to thank him for the comments that he has made that have highlighted the inequities and the unfairness of the National Party tax policy. I want to thank him for reinforcing what this side of the House has always said about the attitude of the National Party towards hard-working New Zealanders. You see, Chris Bishop is a rare National Party MP in that in an unguarded moment he was caught out telling the truth. Mr Bishop was caught being honest, and, in doing so, totally exposed and undermined the whole National Party tax plan. That’s the tax plan that favours people like himself and his mates at the expense of hard-working New Zealanders. The National Party needs more MPs who are prepared to tell the truth.

So what exactly was the context of Mr Bishop’s act of honesty? Well, in an interview, he was asked: how much would he get from the National Party tax cuts? And he said, “Well, I would get quite a bit because I get quite a bit of money. That’s the thing about tax cuts.” And that is the thing about tax cuts. Those who earn more, they get rewarded with more money in their back pocket. It is a matter of the rich getting richer while others get $2.50 per week.

So if we were to ask some other New Zealanders just exactly how they fare under the National Party tax policy, what would they say? Well, let’s take Sonny, who is a labourer up north that I know, who works where he can when he can. What would Sonny say if he was asked, “What would you get out of the National Party tax policy?”? He would probably say, “I’d get stuff-all.”, because that is the thing about tax cuts. What about Pat and Glenys, superannuitants also up north, who have worked hard all their lives but are now living on the pension? If they were asked, “What would you get out of the National Party tax cuts?”, they would say the same. The same as Sonny the labourer, they’d say, “We would get stuff-all.”, but that is the thing about tax cuts. Well, what about Mereana, the teacher up north, who’s worked for 10 to 15 years as a teacher, and is earning about $70,000 a year? What would she say about the National Party tax cuts? Well, she would probably say, “Well, I’d get more than Sonny, the labourer. I’d get more than Pat and Glenys, the beneficiaries, because I earn more. But I’d get stuff-all in comparison to Chris Bishop and his mates.”, because that is the thing about tax cuts.

What could many New Zealanders say they could purchase with their $2.50 that they would get under the National Party tax cuts? Well, what could they buy? What’s the purchasing power of their $2.50 a week? To be honest, I can’t actually come up with anything specific that they could buy using their $2.50 a week. But I could tell them: go into one of those $2 Shops that have sprung up all around the country, in towns around the country, go and look on the shelf, select something that costs $2 and buy it, and then, the thing on the shelf next to it, pay for a quarter of it.”, because that’s basically what they will get from the National Party tax cuts. They’ll be able to buy one thing off the shelf in a $2 Shop and a quarter of the thing next to it. The tax cuts, by going into a $2 Shop, they’ll be able to buy 1.25 items, and that is the thing about the National Party tax cuts. They favour the rich, they favour the wealthy—those of us in this room will get thousands but it’s not us that we need to worry about. It’s those hard-working New Zealanders, it’s those New Zealanders who are doing it tough by their tax cuts doing nothing whatsoever to help those people’s situations. That is the thing about tax cuts: they leave people behind. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to start by acknowledging that now we’re in the third year of the pandemic, people are feeling the pressure. The fact that we’re having an outbreak with higher levels of mortality now than we’ve had recently, the fact that people are struggling with rising rents, they’ve still got their concerns about their health. That is having the impact on people of increased stress, an increasing sense of people needing to deal with those very immediate issues to do with themselves, their family, their households, and so on. And amidst those concerns, I know that people are having to deal with a number of other issues as well, that are also mounting on top of those.

My colleague Kiritapu Allan came back from Gisborne in Tai Rāwhiti just the other day, where, of course, they’ve seen two, one-in-100-year rain events just in the last six months. As somebody said, it’s been a short hundred years between those two. The people of Westport and Buller, of course, have seen some extraordinary storms both in July last year and February this year—again, events that were only supposed to happen one in every 100, or one in every 200 years are occurring in the same six-month period. Until yesterday, there was an unseasonal drought in Southland which was causing a lot of consternation, obviously, for the farmers down there who are trying to grow food. In a period of the year when normally you would have plenty of rain water, they had none—and, obviously, celebrating the breaking of that drought yesterday. All of these events, of course, are increasing in their frequency and their severity, and all of that is happening whilst people are having to deal with the pandemic and the consequences of the pandemic in terms of their lives and livelihoods.

Yesterday—the same day that that drought was finally broken in Southland—we also had the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) telling us the news that we have kicked the can down the road long enough, and that we are now out of time. One of the extraordinary things that they laid out in that report yesterday was that globally our emissions need to peak in the year 2025, which, of course, in Governmental terms is right around the corner; literally just three years away, before they need to peak and then continue to fall every year.

We know that the lived experience of the people of Tai Rāwhiti, the people of Westport and Buller, the people of Southland and other parts of the country, who are experiencing these increasingly severe storms and droughts and floods, is backed up. Because we’ve always had dramatic weather in this country, the extent of which people’s lives are changing is hard to tell. But we know that, actually, what is happening here in Aotearoa is that the kinds of rainfall that we’ve seen recently in Gisborne and Tai Rāwhiti is 15 percent more intense now than it was 100 years ago, and it’s 20 percent more like to happen than it was 100 years ago. So when people are starting to report back to us, it does feel like these things are happening more frequently, and it does feel like, when it rains, there’s more rain than there used to be, then, actually, that experience is backed up with the data as well.

As the IPCC says, we’re out of time. And I think, historically, over the course of the last 30 years, we’ve been in this situation where these reports have talked about what’s going on globally, but we here in Aotearoa, we don’t necessarily connect that to our personal experience. But that is now shifting. We know that what we need to do here in Aotearoa needs to not just mirror what needs to happen in the rest of the world, but, actually, as a developed country, as a wealthier country, we actually need to do better than the global average in order for us all collectively to meet that global average.

Over the course of the last four years, we have had an enormous programme of work to try and bring down our emissions. We’ve passed unanimously in this House the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act, major reforms to the emissions trading scheme, we’ve banned new off shore oil and gas exploration, we set up the Green Investment Fund and the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund, and so on. We have changed the future trajectory of our emissions, but not yet enough in order to bring them right down. I just wanted to say that the reason why we’re focusing on this right now is because next month, in May, we’re going to be publishing the emissions reduction plan, and giving New Zealanders that sense that things are changing, and changing for the better.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Today, I want to talk about some of the changes and some of the significant things that came into effect—

SPEAKER: The member is allowed to take her mask off if she wishes.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: —oh, yeah, thank you—on 1 April. It didn’t come as a surprise. People knew what was coming their way, and the timing couldn’t be better, given some of the challenges that we are facing, alongside many other countries, because of the global pressures.

It was really important that we as a Government had moved to reverse the cuts to benefits that had happened in 1991 and that we had followed the advice of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s recommendations and responded to the needs of some of the households with the lowest incomes in New Zealand. In contrast, we on this side of the House have been very targeted with our investment, very targeted with regards to who we are prioritising, and, on the other side of the House, it’s been very sad to see them return to type and continue to put this narrative out that is divisive and really comes down to divide and rule politics.

When we first got into Government in 2017, we had on the table a proposal from the National Government to make tax cuts—tax cuts which would have seen $400 million go to the top 10 percent of income earners in New Zealand. We took that money when we got into office and we put it into our Families Package instead. That was just one of many changes that indicated, demonstrated, our commitment to the New Zealanders who really do need support most. Not only did we see benefit increases on 1 April but we saw increases to student support, we saw increases to the family tax credit, and, fortunately, as well, we saw significant increases with respect to superannuation.

These are the people who need our support more than anyone else right now. When we compare that to the offer of tax cuts from the other side and we see, as Minister Davis is saying, that some of the lower-earning households in this country would be lucky to get $2.50 versus the thousands of dollars that people in this House would get, then surely, I’m hopeful, the rest of New Zealand will see why that does not make sense.

I’ve been very committed as the Minister for Social Development and Employment with regards to not only addressing income adequacy but also addressing the other important part of our welfare system, and that is support for upskilling and training and employment for those that are in the welfare system. We are seeing more exits off benefit into employment than what we have seen since electronic records were kept. There are results and outcomes that we are seeing that far outweigh anything that we’ve seen before. Yet, we continue to hear from the other side of the House criticism about the fact that we still have New Zealanders on benefit.

Compared to what we saw two years post - global financial crisis, we are actually better positioned than what we were then. At that point in time, 13.1 percent of the working-age population were on benefit. At the moment, we are talking about 11.2 percent of the working-age population that are on benefit. And we see it, week on week, going down. Currently, I think we have 20-something thousand less people on benefit than we did this time last year. When we came into the pandemic, the projections with regards to the unemployment rate that we might experience, the numbers of people who may end up on benefit, were absolutely dire. The other side of the House seems to have forgotten that this was anticipated, but we have not reached the depth or the numbers that have been initially forecast. That comes down to some good economic management. We do need to acknowledge the work that this Government has done to manage the economy, but also the efforts that our team of 5 million have put into ensuring that not only have we prioritised the health of New Zealanders but, as a consequence, we have also seen our economy better off for it.

Even with the changes that came into effect on 1 April, I, along with everyone else on this side of the House, continue to say that there is more to do. We are absolutely committed to doing it and we have the energy to make sure that that work is done.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to talk. Eighteen months, roughly, into this Government’s second term, we see a confused and scrambling Government everywhere we look. We hear, on the one hand, the Minister of Police saying there’s not an issue with gangs in Auckland, and then, of course, we hear from the local list MP in Auckland Central saying maybe there is a problem, and she reflects, I think, the many backbench Labour MPs who are looking at the polls and figuring out where they’re at. Mrs White knows that she’s not going to be a list MP in 18 months’ time the way things are going, and maybe it’s time to talk about the things that actually matter to the people in Auckland Central, and one of the things that matters in Auckland Central is whether you feel safe walking around in the city and whether you feel safe from the massive increase in gang intimidation and crime. So she spoke the truth and, no doubt, has been told off.

I’m sure we’ll be getting similar statements from Vanushi Walters, for example, in Upper Hutt. She’ll be working out that she won’t be back in Parliament in 18 months’ time, and I fully expect that we’ll hear about the problems with gangs up in Upper Hutt before too long. What about in the Hawke’s Bay? Anna Lorck, I’m sure, will be doing the calculations, and knows she’s got no chance of winning Tukituki next year. She’s got no chance of coming back on the list, and so maybe it’s time to sneak up on some of the people of Hawke’s Bay and talk about the massive influence that gang intimidation is having down there.

Then we’ve heard about the move to red. We can’t get out of red in this country because the hospital system isn’t ready yet. After two years of preparation and dealing with COVID, we’re still not ready. The problem, of course, that people are asking themselves is, “When will we ever be ready by that measure? When will we get back to normal?” When the winter comes on and we’ve got flu, we’ll be under pressure in the health system, and we’ll still be in red the way things are going. So I’m hoping to hear some sense of forward momentum.

And then yesterday we had the scramble over the road-user charges. The Government comes in, in a panic after the polls, and reduces the petrol prices and then suddenly realises that it doesn’t know what to do with diesel, and comes back a few weeks later with a plan, which is very slow, very late, and very confused. Instead of “ready, aim, fire” when it comes to their legislation and dealing with the issues that this country faces, it’s “fire” and then “ready” and then “aim”, and that’s what we’ve got with this Government.

Then there’s the inconsistency around tax. We hear the Minister of Finance going on about how terrible it is to have tax relief and how it is not focused or targeted, and yet in the same breath he gives half-price public transport to everybody. I mean, consider it: there will be people from Remuera, there will be people from high-income parts of the city using this public transport. How targeted is that? I can’t quite work out the system, the logic behind the way they’re thinking.

Then we finally come to the fair pay agreements, so-called, introduced after four years of preparation from Michael Wood, and two days after they introduce it, they have to bring in a change because they’ve actually changed their mind, because they didn’t figure out how it’s going to work, and they’re going to have a backstop because you’ve got to have two partners: an employee partner and an employer partner. The employer partner, Business New Zealand, told the Government to, “Stuff off. We don’t agree with it. We’re not going to be playing your game.” So they still introduced the bill, and then, two days later, they have to change the bill they introduced.

This is a Government that is confused and scrambling, and everywhere New Zealanders look they see examples of waste from this Government. My colleague Simeon Brown just outlined the most obvious example: the Te Huia train. How much is it? It’s $100 million they’ve spent on a train with a handful of passengers on a good day, taking much longer to get to Auckland. Is it not possible that they could’ve used that money wisely and better, to actually help people get around, which is the purpose of transport policy—to help people get around quicker?

Finally, I come to the fair pay agreements. They’re not about fair pay; they’re about imposing mandatory union deals on Kiwi workplaces. That is exactly what they’re about, and the question is: will it make New Zealand’s economy stronger? No, because they will make it less agile, less flexible at the very time New Zealand businesses and people that are providing the jobs and opportunities to New Zealanders need to be as agile as they can. Just look around the world and see what’s going on—the changes, the pressure, the technology; everything is in a state of flux and this Government wants our workplaces to be less flexible and less agile to respond to that. It makes no sense and it will make us poorer if it ever carries on.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Ki tōku whaea a, Temuranga June, me tōku matua kēkē a Moana me koe hoki a Wira. Kei te noho mokemoke ahau kei te noho rawakore Te Ao Māori i ā koutou wehenga atu. Kei tua i te ārai koutou ki te taha a taku pāpā a Bob, ki taku matua kēkē anō a Syd mā, nā rātou anō rā i whakatakoto i te ara hei hīkoinga mā tātou, ko ngā uri ināianei, ko koutou tērā, nō reira moe mai, moe mai me hoki wairua mai.

[To my mother, Temuranga June, and my uncle Moana, as well as to you, Wira. I am lonely and the Māori World is destitute following your passing. You are now beyond the veil by the side of my father, Bob, and my uncle Syd and others, they who have laid down the path for us, the living descendants, to follow, that is who you are, may you rest in peace.]

Can I just start off first by thanking the House—the whole House—who supported the motion to my old friend and relation to my wife, Wira Gardiner; to my beloved mother; and to my uncle Moana Jackson. It really was appreciated and I want to mihi to the whole House.

I want to mihi, also, to everyone who supported mum during the tangi, and all the parties showed up—apart from one. So I want to thank our party, of course, and our Prime Minister, the Māori caucus. I want to thank the National Party very much for turning up—Shane and Harete Hipango, and for all the good wishes that came from the National Party—thank you for giving my mother a damehood; she always reminded me of that, that the National Party gave her a damehood! So thanks to National, thanks to the Greens, and thanks to my mates in the Māori Party. The only party that didn’t turn up was ACT, so can I say that ACT would have been very welcome if they had turned up. But I thank you for supporting the motions. So it was a real honour and I’m really humbled by the support of the House.

That’s all the niceties. I’ll come now to my other kōrero about ACT. And I really do feel sorry for their leader, David Seymour—sorry because he’s so desperate to reclaim the National Party vote at the moment. He’s prepared to play the cheapest hand in New Zealand politics—that the “Mao-ries” have too much political stunt, which is sad, you see, because Mr Seymour doesn’t want a referendum on co-governance. In my view, he wants to dog-whistle up the Ōrewa speech and pretend that it’s a debate.

What’s so miserable about Mr Seymour’s sudden concern with co-governance is that it was his party with the National Party who began the co-management and co-governance framework that he is now denouncing. His supporters are insinuating a “hidden Mao-rie agenda”, that the “Mao-ries are going to take over and try and own everything and want everything”. Mr Seymour, that’s the Māori Party—that’s not the Labour Party. My mates don’t want to own everything; we just want a share in things. This Government is brazenly open—and good on them, you know—but it doesn’t quite work when you’ve got to work with the partner. This Government is brazenly open about our agenda for Māori—and that’s living up to the promise of the Treaty. There’s nothing hidden about the Labour Party and this Government’s agenda.

Chris Finlayson, hardly a card-carrying member of the Labour Party, was the architect of the co-governance model. He came out on Radio New Zealand last week and denounced Mr Seymour’s use of a referendum because he says it will bring out the worst kind of people. That’s on you, David Seymour.

Co-governance is already happening. Your party, ACT, helped build it with National. I can’t help it that Rodney Hide feels he was forced to sign a paper with regards to the Māori statutory board—I can’t help that, Rodney Hide. But the ACT Party, along with National, helped sign up the Urewera Settlement with Tūhoe; the Waikato River settlement; the co-governance framework to look after Te Waihora, the largest lake in Canterbury; the Waitomo Caves co-management plan—those are living examples of co-governance and co-management. And it hasn’t heralded the end of the Westminster system; this country is not collapsing.

I just can’t wait to debate with Mr Seymour on Q+A; I am so looking forward to this—“Mr Clever”, “Mr Brilliant Seymour”. We’ll see how clever he is this weekend. I welcome the debate because I think good Kiwis everywhere, Mr Speaker, sir, including yourself and the good people of Wainuiōmata, are not blind to history; Kiwis are fair-minded. They know that we just want to play a part in this. We want to be good partners. My only sadness is that my uncle Moana Jackson is not here to participate in the debate, because I feel confident he’d make David Seymour rue the day he learnt the word “ethno-State” and tried to use it in a debate against him. It’s a sad indictment on Mr Seymour and the ACT Party. I look forward to the kōrero and the debate. Kia ora anō tātou.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister for Seniors): I want to begin my contribution by acknowledging the work of Dr Bloomfield, Director-General of Health. As a Minister, I’m especially grateful for the high-quality public health advice he has provided to Government that has seen us have some of the best outcomes in the world in terms of our pandemic response. As a doctor, I respect his commitment to improving the health of New Zealanders, and the contribution he has made in that respect is second to none.

But, as my colleague Mr Jackson has just said, that’s enough of the niceties. This Government is absolutely committed to saving lives, as we have through the COVID response, and improving the livelihoods of New Zealanders. That is an important factor that we take forward as we plan and execute our COVID recovery.

We are extremely concerned about the cost of living impacts that impact everyone, but, in particular, I want to address my comments today to their impacts on seniors. Many superannuitants, many just on a pension, and, through our 1 April package, we have seen the support that they receive increase substantially to deal with these pressures. For example, a single superannuitant receiving an increase in their support by $52 a fortnight and a couple to $80 a fortnight. In addition to this, we are also dealing with the increased pressure caused by costs of energy over winter, with $700 in support going across the colder months of the year. Seniors also benefit from public transport and petrol price reductions—and indeed, not all public transport is covered by the SuperGold card; not all trips—so that support, no doubt, is welcome too. This is in addition to the number of measures we are taking to reduce the cost of living for all—by raising benefits and increases to the minimum wage, among others.

Now, I know that members on the other side of the House would address these challenges differently. They have proposed tax cuts that benefit the most well-off New Zealanders: those earning over $180,000 a year. For all their hard work, superannuitants who have worked hard all their life will not get a jot from a proposed tax cut. In fact, tax cuts raise pressure on those supports that seniors depend on in their retirement.

We’ve heard it said many times in this House that National can’t have it both ways. They cannot claim that they can support tax cuts while also supporting Government spending on things crucial to the support of seniors. They have to come clean about whether or not they’ll continue to support superannuation at the level that we currently do, and, in fact, we know that National has already signalled a change to superannuation policy: increasing the age of entitlement to 67. Now, this Government considers super as an earned and deserved support for seniors, and those approaching the end of their working life on low wages won’t substantially benefit from National’s tax cuts and they will get their super delayed as well.

It is also a fact of life that, as we age, we rely more on the health system. Free care and public hospitals when you’re sick is part of the deal for a lifetime of hard work. We know that our health system is under pressure from a pandemic and, prior to that, years of underfunding. We know the National Party’s tax cuts come at a time when the health system needs greater investment than ever. This is a Government that believes that systems should be there for you when you need it; it should be based on need and not your ability to pay.

The seniors I speak to know this Government cares for them. They know the work we have done has saved their lives through the pandemic. They know National wanted the borders open before people were vaccinated. They’ve heard National’s calls for dropping alert levels, for reductions in isolation, for scrapping the traffic lights. We’ve heard Mr Goldsmith’s contribution earlier, he wants a sense of forward momentum—but, I wonder, who are you driving over for your sense of forward momentum?

The decisions this Government took saved lives. If we had had the experience of the United States, we would have 19,000 deaths; of the United Kingdom, 13,000 deaths—almost all of the lives that we saved, or a large proportion of them, were seniors. They may not matter to people on the other side of the House, but they matter to this Government.

We will continue to prioritise seniors. We will continue to invest in the services that they need and deserve. The old National Party is back and they care about no one but themselves.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the member before me—Minister Verrall—pointed out, and it’s been said before in this House, there’s absolutely no doubt that people are doing it tough at the moment. Many of those factors that have exacerbated the situation that we’re facing collectively lie outside of our sphere of control. Things like the impact of a global pandemic on global inflation rates, things like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—all of that has led to an increase in the cost of living. I know that. I’ve spoken to people in my electorate of Maungakiekie who tell me how they’re doing it tough. As Ministers, we’ve seen that through those that we engage with outside of the ministries, as well.

Now, as I mentioned previously, these aren’t things that lie within our control, but what we are doing is taking steps to address the cost of living to support New Zealanders to get through it. In the same way that we had a plan to support New Zealanders through the COVID-19 health crisis, now we turn ourselves towards accelerating our recovery in the face of this global pandemic.

So what are we doing? I had a chat with some of the students who live in my electorate, pensioners, families, and beneficiaries, about some of the steps that we’ve taken that came into effect on 1 April—for example, the fact that student allowances have gone up by $25. While members on that side of the House may scoff because it doesn’t make a huge amount of difference to them given their pay packets, the one thing that the students I talked to told me, without doubt, was that they would spend that increased money on food—something quite so basic. What they said to me was, “Now, we no longer have to go to KFC with our coupons. We can actually buy some vegetables and meat and have a more nutritious meal.”—something quite that basic.

The minimum wage has increased progressively, from $15.75 in 2017, to $21.20 as of 1 April this year. I think from what Minister Wood said earlier in a response in the House was that that is $218 per week more since we took Government on this side of the House.

I often share with people who question that increase to the minimum wage the story of a woman I met some years back. She was an E tū delegate. She had worked for a company, which I won’t name, for 26 years. She was in her late 50s. For all of those 26 years, she was on the minimum wage. For people like that, if we don’t progressively increase the minimum wage, they will suffer, as they’ve done under previous Governments.

Superannuation goes up by $52 per fortnight for an individual, and $80 for a couple. A pensioner that I spoke to in my electorate talked about the fact that this will give him a little bit more security as he goes into his later years, and without me even asking, he talked about the winter energy payment and the difference that that will make when it kicks on 1 May, as well.

This, of course, is in addition to various other steps we’ve taken over the years to ensure that people are a little bit better off as the cost of living increases. For example, we introduced the Families Package, which provides targeted assistance to improve the incomes for low and middle income families with children. We reversed the tax cuts that National promised in 2016, and diverted that into the Families Package.

I’m experiencing a moment of déjà vu, because what we’re hearing now from the same old National Party is the tired old line of tax cuts to those who earn the most. This is exactly what they trotted out in 2016, it’s exactly what New Zealanders rejected at the 2017 election, and they still can’t see that this will not make a difference for the majority of New Zealanders.

This is in addition to the fact that we have a record number of people moving off a main benefit and into work, and that is important. We’re not just shoving them off the benefit, but we’re actually getting them into work—so listen up, National Party. We’ve got a number of initiatives that actually support employment. We’ve got an employment strategy that will build a skilled workforce and will support workplaces to modernise, and I lead, as the Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities, an employment action plan that will lift the employment outcomes of former refugees, recent migrants, and ethnic communities more broadly.

In the last 30 seconds that I have, I will say that I am so proud of the work that the Ministry for Ethnic Communities is doing. I just want to point out to the leader of the ACT Party a quote that he said about a longstanding policy that they have had to disestablish the then Office of Ethnic Communities. So perhaps as he trots around to ethnic communities events in the weekend, maybe our communities should ask him a question or two about his support for population agencies like the Ministry for Ethnic Communities.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to talk today about mental health and wellbeing in New Zealand, and it’s been a tough few years for New Zealanders. Through the COVID pandemic, we’ve seen a lot of people facing stress and anxiety—people who we never suspected would be struggling—reaching out for help from their friends and families, saying that they’re not doing OK. We’ve heard from business owners who have been struggling, not knowing whether they’ll have enough cash flow to keep going for another month, to keep employing their staff, who they know desperately need jobs to provide for their families. We’ve heard from parents who are worried about their children who won’t get out of bed in the morning because they’re not going to school any more. That’s what has happened through these last few years with COVID, and the extended lockdowns that have forced children to stay at home away from their friends and their support networks.

But we have also heard from children who are really struggling themselves. They have a lack of hope—a lack of hope for the future. They don’t know what the future in New Zealand will look like, and we know that there is an element of so much continuum of care—people who have serious health conditions, and people who have stress and anxiety—and we need to look after all of these people in New Zealand. Now, with the cost of living crisis, we’re going to see more and more families struggling as well, and reaching out for help. But I want to talk to two particular examples. There was a young man that I met who said that the help that he had received from the DHB was like a flea on an elephant’s back—it did nothing for him. And a man that I met who said that his daughter had an eating disorder and she just was not getting better. We need to do better for both of these people so that we have better mental health services for all New Zealanders.

So what has the Government actually done? Well, they promised in 2017—a big promise—that they were going to commit to improving our mental health record. They allocated $1.9 billion extra in the coming year, and now we’re spending a record $1.8 billion this year on mental health. It is our duty to scrutinise whether we are actually getting good results for that money. Two examples spring to mind that are outrageous. We have spent $235 million on building new mental health facilities and produced extra beds, over two years. We’ve also allocated $4 million for tertiary mental health services and, over two years, that’s only led to 300 counselling services.

The Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission had a report out last week that said, “Despite significant investment in mental health and addiction services in 2019, improvements in services have not materialised as we had hoped for over this time.” That is scathing. They said, “We would like to see greater choice around acute and crisis care and expanded use of peer services and community providers who are clearly proving their worth in the delivery of services.” I want to take just youth mental health as one example here. They said, “We have seen little change in wait times, with continued concerning wait times for young people.” And the contracted funding for youth services is well behind schedule. The commissioning of these services is behind, with less funding actually committed than intended. Young people have visited more primary mental health services, that is true, but they’ve also seen a huge increase in the dispensing of psychiatric medications—a 21 percent increase in antidepressants—and the commission said, “It’s likely that these increases have resulted from an increase in stress from COVID-19 and a lack of non-medical treatment alternatives.” We need to be a country where we’re providing access and choice to people—real choice—so that they have the best care for their own therapy, rather than just accepting what’s on offer, and, rather than just accepting a pill, rather than getting to that real treatment of the cause of their illness.

The ACT Party has a solution. We would empower the mental health commission to get the services that it truly is asking for. We would ask them to commission proper services, give more access and choice to New Zealanders, get the best providers for people’s real care in New Zealand, because we still face a real lack of care, choice, and access in New Zealand. Yes, we have put more money aside. Has it led to better health outcomes for young, vulnerable New Zealanders? No, it has not. We can and we must do better.

SPEAKER: Order! Before I call a member, I’m just going to remind members—especially Mr Smith—that when you’re wearing a mask, it involves putting it over the nose. The photographs that have been taken of your deputy leader might well be undermined by your inappropriate mask-wearing.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Last week, a range of income changes came into effect that will make a real difference for people in New Zealand. Working for Families increases will see more than 300,000 families $20 a week better off; meanwhile, the National Party wants to give families that are doing it tough $2 a week. Superannuitants will get $52 a fortnight for single people, $80 a fortnight for couples; meanwhile, the National Party wants to give superannuitants $2 a week. Student allowances and living costs go up $25 a week, but, meanwhile, the National Party wants to give students $2 a week. Full-time minimum wage workers will earn an extra $48 a week, while the National Party doesn’t want those on the minimum wage to earn any more than they are. In fact, Chris Luxon is apparently too worried about the price of his coffee going up; while Christopher Bishop says about National’s proposal to cut taxes for the wealthy, “I would get quite a bit because I earn quite a bit.”

New Zealanders are hearing the same, tired old story from National Party leader, Chris Luxon, that fails to give us any new ideas. He wants to cut taxes for the wealthy, reduce debt, and keep on spending—if only it were that easy! National’s proposals will mean cuts to important services. They need to front up to Kiwis and say which health, education, and housing services they will slash to make that happen. National’s proposals, which include supporting property speculators and giving a huge tax break to the highest-paid earners, are likely to cost at least $3 billion, resulting in less money available to invest in key services like health, housing, and education. We’ve seen from previous Governments a decade of under-investment in services—particularly in health. It’s not hard to see what happened to our health system. Like in my electorate of Nelson, the impact of under-investment in health infrastructure under the last Government has been a rundown, earthquake-prone building. But don’t worry, Nelsonians, Chris Luxon wants to give you $2 a week! Well, that won’t fix Nelson’s broken hospital. I’m proud that the Government is investing in health infrastructure and has committed to rebuilding our rundown hospital buildings in Nelson while also providing material gains for working people in New Zealand.

Alongside Pak’nSave worker Jenny Wells in Nelson, I’ve been campaigning for years for fair pay agreements to lift wages for the lowest-paid workers in New Zealand. Fair pay agreements will improve wages and conditions for employees as well as level the playing field so that good employers don’t get undercut and disadvantaged. As the Employers and Manufacturers Association has said, these agreements will help drive up wages. We can’t continue with the low-wage, low-productivity model that has cost us all so much. For too long, New Zealanders working in critical roles, like supermarket workers, cleaners, and bus drivers, whose work has kept our country going through this pandemic, have lacked bargaining power to seek better wages and conditions. Countdown is unionised; Foodstuffs has little unionisation because of how it is structured as a group of franchises. As former union leader the late Helen Kelly would say, it’s “by design”. And Foodstuffs have designed a structure that keeps wages in their supermarkets low while putting millions into the back pockets of supermarket owners. Let it be said that National and ACT are happy to keep a system designed to keep wages low for hard-working Kiwis while supermarket owners get rich off the back of their hard work.

On this side of the House, we say it’s time to design a system that creates a level playing field for workers and employers. On this side of the House, we reject the individualistic view that says that, if you’re on a low wage, it’s your own problem. We want to turn that around and ensure workers get a fair go. We’re proud to be a Government that helps everyday Kiwis. I’m proud to be on this side of the House, where we are lifting wages and incomes for those who need support, and we are easing the pressure on Kiwi families.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The last speaker in this debate was talking about slashing. There are only two things the next National Government will slash. The first is the wasteful spending undertaken by this Labour Government, and there is a lot of it. We would not have spent $51 million on a bridge over the Waitematā for cyclists who didn’t want it, that’s never going to be built. That $51 million could do a whole lot of other things. It could help some of the people that have the least in the country. Or, here’s a novel thing for the Labour Party, give it back to the taxpayer, who earned it and had to give it to you.

The second thing we are going to do is fix productivity, and we’ll start in this House. We are going to slash the number of Labour MPs, because this is the least productive Government that we have seen. We know that because, actually, the excuse for everything that’s not working is (1) COVID (2) the war in the Ukraine. And once, in the Ukraine, that fighting has stopped and the war crimes have stopped, they will find the next thing on the international stage to blame for their lack of productivity and the lack of delivery from the Labour Party.

The tourism sector is very, very deeply disappointed in the Labour Government. They had high hopes at the time of the pandemic that Labour was going to support them. Do you remember in this House, in the Budget, two years ago when we were in limited numbers because of the lockdown, the announcement of $290 million to support tourism businesses throughout New Zealand to get them through until visitors came back. The Minister of Tourism at the time, Kelvin Davis, who was one of the worst tourism Ministers this country has seen, rivalled by the new tourism Minister, who is now an apologist for the things the Government has got wrong, said at the time—Kelvin Davis—that we are going to be focusing on strategic tourism businesses. Do you know what the definition of “strategic tourism businesses” was? We heard it from the new Minister too the other day: it was self-defining by tourism businesses.

The Auditor-General decided to look into this because the tourism sector was so concerned at the way the $290 million was being spent and has come out with one of the most damning reports I have seen of the spending of this Labour Government. From start to finish of that report, there is nothing that the Government has done that has worked for the tourism sector.

When asked about spending for the first three announcements the Government made, before anybody in the country could put in an application for the fund because the criteria had not been published, the Auditor-General criticised the Government for accepting applications from AJ Hackett, Discover Waitomo, and Whale Watch Kaikōura early. These three businesses wrote a letter. They did not claim any immediate financial risk to their assets. They did not have to provide any financial records or information, and money was given to them.

This is taxpayers’ money. If Kelvin Davis was still the Minister of Tourism, we would be asking for his resignation. Stuart Nash wasn’t the tourism Minister then, but he needs to front up to this House and explain. He needs to apologise to the New Zealand taxpayer for the way the money was shovelled out the door without any records. Those three companies got money, and when the Auditor-General asked for the paper trail and the information used for the Government to make that decision, Ministers to make that decision, there was no paperwork that could be found, and the Ministers told the Auditor-General, “Well, we’re not sure why the decision was made, because a whole lot was going on. We had to do it quickly.”

Well, here’s the reason, and it’s very clear. Stuart Nash may not know it, but in Queenstown they do. You see, on 24 June 2020, after the announcement of this fund, the tourism Minister announced $10.2 million for AJ Hackett to save about 15 jobs. Two days later, the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern travelled to Queenstown. That announcement was made after a letter was written without any substantiating information, without any criteria met, so that the Government and the Prime Minister didn’t have to face tough questions in Queenstown and sent the message: “We are doing something about tourism. We’re supporting them.” All over Queenstown, other businesses didn’t get the funding that they needed. They stuck to the rules when they finally published. The Prime Minister didn’t visit again and, so, they didn’t get an early announcement.

That is not how you spend taxpayers’ money. Stuart Nash needs to front up to this Parliament and explain what went on. He needs to come before the committee if called. That is the reason the tourism sector is so deeply disappointed in this Government. They did everything asked of them, and this Government threw money around without actually benefiting those that needed it the most.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We’ve heard countless speeches from the Opposition. There is no one single word of promise about what they can do for working people, for essential workers who got us through the dark times of two years of the pandemic. Of course they don’t have a plan. Everything is about business, business, business! Of course, we don’t have problems with business—our Government, our Prime Minister, and our finance Minister have engaged with business more than any other Government has in the past.

On this side of the House, we are the Government for all New Zealanders, with no exception. Which is why at the heart of our economic recovery from COVID-19 plan is our people. We are rolling out policies that will put more money in the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders to make our economy more resilient during the current cost of living crisis.

Our 1 April changes saw an increase in the minimum wage, bringing it up to $21.20. That is about $4.70 since 2017, when we came into Government. This year, that’s going to put about $48 a week into the pockets of hard-working, full-time, low-paid workers. The increase in minimum wage will actually benefit around 300,000 workers; the same workers that the Opposition always—always—love to overlook.

But on this side, when it comes to securing our recovery, we know that the National Party is all about rich people and it’s all about cutting taxes for top earners—they are only about 3 percent of the population. Can the National Party tell us what their plan is for approximately 300,000 low-income New Zealanders who work tirelessly and drive our economy, who have also been carrying us through this pandemic time? The sacrifice of all the essential workers throughout the pandemic, many of them are on the minimum wage.

We hear from the National Party over and over again that the increase in minimum wage is a problem for business. I can quote them. Christopher Luxon said that he wanted to cut tax so he can reduce debt and spending. Basically, what they want to do is they want to take their cake and they want to eat it.

We hear from the National Party, over and over again, arguments about support for the businesses; nothing for working people. The National Party are all about no increase in minimum wage; removing Labour Day; no fair pay agreement (FPA); and instead of the FPA, spreading disinformation and scaremongering about it. That’s a shame. On this side of the House, we don’t leave anyone behind; we are for everyone. We intend to look after everyone, whether that’s a low-paid worker or—we’re not even overlooking business.

The Hon Paul Goldsmith, when he was the National Party finance person, said that when they came into Government, they would suddenly start to stop that—the next minimum wage, if they were elected to power. That’s a concern for businesses struggling.

The Hon Scott Simpson said, “We … want to see sustained wage growth, but sharply increasing the minimum wage during a period of extreme uncertainty for small businesses is economic vandalism”.

On this side of the House, over and over we’ve proven that we are for all Kiwis, no matter who they are—whether they are top earners or they are low earners. We are the Government for the people. It’s about the people. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Welcome.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Thank you. Can I start by, firstly, thanking members from across the House who have reached out with offers of support over the last couple of months. It’s been a particularly challenging time and I really appreciate those who have reached across political boundaries, in particular, to express their concern and your well wishes for my recovery. I would also just like to, of course, note the support from the wider Waikato community and across the country. I have been inundated with wonderful messages from all of my fantastic constituents around the Waikato, who have sent cards or messages online, and it has been really wonderful and heartfelt and a huge help as I’ve transitioned through this challenging time. Lastly, of course, family and friends and my incredible wife, Hilary—I will note right here that she is fantastic.

Now, right, the reason I have sought or requested to take a call in this debate is because as National’s spokesperson for defence, I am becoming increasingly concerned that we are in an evolving, a dynamic, a challenging, and a very concerning situation globally as well as domestically. I think we can all understand some of the implications of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and what that might mean for us, as well as any other country around the world, reflecting on the capability of their defence force to provide support and to defend the interests of their country when necessary.

Now, we absolutely condemn the actions of the Russian Federation with that invasion and have expressed support for Ukraine but, unlike a lot of our Western allies, we haven’t gone much further than expressing that support. We’ve seen a little bit of aid in terms of some second-hand helmets and body armour—possibly some of the stuff I wore a number of years ago—and I’m sure that has been helpful. But, actually, we heard yesterday and today that the Minister had sought support from Cabinet to send lethal aid and that was declined.

Now, in an environment like this, it’s becoming increasingly important to identify where we stand from a values-based perspective, and standing alongside our traditional allies, and in this particular instance, standing alongside Ukraine and the defence of their own sovereignty and their own freedoms, it’s absolutely vital that we stand up strongly in protection of those rights and those values and I don’t think we’ve been sending that signal strongly enough from New Zealand, so I would ask the Government to do a lot more. The defence Minister needs to be stronger in convincing his Cabinet colleagues that they should approve this additional aid. We heard in question time today his answer that they’re doing what has been asked. Well, they’re clearly not. President Zelenskyy from Ukraine has specifically requested Javelins as support. We have some; we haven’t sent them. We need to be looking at providing support, making it clear where we stand in support of these values and these rights to align with our traditional partners, because if we can’t do that now, then when will we? When is the right time to stand up for values?

Alongside that, we have the concerning news just recently that the Solomon Islands have now signed an agreement with China that is providing enhanced access for China into the Solomon Islands theatre. Now, part of the 2021 defence assessment that was released late - last year made it very clear that there were two specific issues identified through that assessment. One was around adapting to the challenges of climate change, and the other was around dealing with the increased strategic competition within our region. Now, that’s an area where we need to step up. We need to be showing a much stronger level of leadership, and we’re not seeing that from our defence Minister or from our Government at this stage. We need to be making it very clear where we stand and what our priorities are.

We saw just a week or two ago that the defence Minister now has scrapped plans for the previously proposed investment in a Southern Ocean patrol vessel and who knows what else is going to be scrapped from the Defence Capability Plan in 2019. This was an impressive piece of work that was put out back then that had a range of priorities under navy, air force, army, and in the information domain as well. Yet, we’re seeing those now being pushed out with no clear time frame, no commitment being made, and it’s very concerning for what the future might be for New Zealand. And so I’ll call on the defence Minister to step up, to show some real leadership, and to support New Zealand’s interests when it really matters from a values-based perspective. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill

First Reading

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): I move, That the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill, and, at the appropriate time, I will move an instruction to the committee that it report back to the House by the end of May.

I would like to have the House’s indulgence just for a moment and talk about a beautiful little place in the middle of the central North Island, a place that once upon a time people travelled to from all around the world—prior to COVID, obviously; well prior to COVID—to come and see the hot lakes, to come and see Māoriland, to come and see the geothermal paradise of the world. It is a place that is very dear to me—me and about 65,000 other people. It’s a place that we call home and it’s a place that actually has really meaningful roots. You see, when the township of Rotorua was established, it was a partnership that was envisaged by the local iwi—by Ngāti Uenukukōpako, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Ngāti Whakaue—and the Crown at the time, under the auspices of judge Fenton, who was a Native Land Court judge at the time. It was their aspiration in working together that they would create a city that they would be able to be proud of.

Part of that arrangement was the gifting of reserves, of lands and reserves all around Rotorua for the establishment of the town, so that the people could really see that partnership in action. You see, by that point, we’d had a lot of tourists through already, and there was a real need to be able to settle down the unruly tourists but to also create a bit of order. So the people at the time who got together, who negotiated that agreement, they were very forthright in what they wanted, and what they wanted was a really decent partnership. I want to acknowledge that actually the agreement that they came up with was essentially a co-governance, co-management arrangement—that’s right. You see, back in the day, they said the agreement was that the Crown would lease the township out to the public for 99 years on behalf of the owners. The agreement was split into 16 clauses which set out the area for the township, how the ownership would be determined, and the reserves that were gifted by the owners to the Crown for both races, survey costs, rates, and the composition of the town board.

Now, while the township scheme was widely publicised and initially successful in attracting leases, the delay in the establishment of the proposed railway, a national economic downturn as well as a very significant eruption that happened at Mount Tarawera in 1886 led to a string of defaulting leases, contributing to an enormous loss in expected revenue, and the Crown stepped in and took full advantage of the situation at the time. In 1889, the Crown sought to purchase shares from the owners in the block, and the alienation of the block from the last few owners and the vesting of the township block—the Pukeroa Oruawhata block—in the Crown was completed through the compulsory acquisition of shares by the Thermal Springs Districts Act 1910. The Crown later sold these interests between 1930 and 1950, opening up the township lands to private ownership. Over the next few decades, Ngāti Whakaue sought answers from the Crown over the failure of the township scheme and the care of those gifted reserves.

You see, it all went pear-shaped, and for a long time, the locals in Rotorua have sought redress for what happened all those many years ago, to the point where in 1993, the council actually sought to work through better relations with their Te Arawa brothers and sisters. So they established the Te Arawa Standing Committee, which was a committee of council made up of Te Arawa representatives and chaired by the mayor. You see, what happened, though, was that the committee only had power to make recommendations to the council, and that was supposed to be the primary means of council engagement with Te Arawa. Over time, naturally, Te Arawa became very disillusioned with the Te Arawa Standing Committee. They realised it had a lack of impact and a lack of teeth and many sought new and innovative ways to be able to interact.

That led to a working group in 2012 being formed to try and get that true representation. What happened was that Te Arawa in 2014 proposed what they called the Te Arawa partnership board, otherwise known as Te Tatau o Te Arawa. The Rotorua Lakes Council resolved by majority decision to adopt a version of the model. So what does it do? At the moment, Te Tatau o Te Arawa have appointed representatives from Te Arawa on all of the committees within council. What’s more than that, they actually get voting rights and full participation rights in that as well. It’s a commitment to working in partnerships.

But last year, something significant happened as well. Last year, this Labour Government chose to prioritise Māori wards all around the country to make sure that we had guaranteed Māori representation at those tables. Our people back home, they got really excited about that idea—the idea of not just sitting on committees, not sitting on advisory committees that are unpaid with no teeth; they got excited about the true idea of a meaningful partnership, which was envisaged way back in the day when the Fenton Agreement was signed, which was never really honoured. For that reason, a bit of work was undertaken last year about what exactly Māori wards would mean for the people of Rotorua, and the council came up with this, which is the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill. They had a meeting recently to decide exactly how they wanted that to look. They took that out, they socialised that with the people of Rotorua, and what they did was they came back with what was a less-than-ideal arrangement. They voted in council for something that they didn’t really want, but what they thought—because we’re savvy back in Rotorua—was that we would come up with our own local bill, which would enact the actual partnership, the meaningful partnership that we want to see in Rotorua.

So what that arrangement looks like is one mayor elected at large; one Māori ward with three seats across the whole of Rotorua; one general ward with three seats across the whole of Rotorua; and four at-large seats, which can be voted for by anybody, if you’re on the general or the Māori roll. As well as that, the continuation of the Rotorua Lakes Community Board and also a Rotorua Rural Community Board as well. They called me up and said, “Would you be the local member that will take this to Parliament? Because we believe that it’s the right thing to do. Will you do it for our city?” And I said to them, “I will do it for our city.” More than that, I want this to come to our Māori Affairs Committee, of which I am the chair. But we started this work last year. With the Māori wards legislation that I’m so proud that we’ve been able to implement, across the country we are getting Māori sitting at decision-making tables. And this year, the year for local government decision-making, the year for our elections, we’re going to start seeing a change in the make-up of councils all across Aotearoa.

The relationship that Māori have with our council back home in Rotorua is an evolved one. We’ve been living in and around and with each other for a very, very long time, and it’s with that depth of knowledge, it’s with that depth of relationship, that I bring this local bill to the House today. This is partnership. This is what we want. This is what Māori have always wanted. This is what Ngāti Whakaue, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Ngāti Uenukukōpako envisaged when they, back in the day, negotiated the terms and conditions for the Fenton Agreement. They always envisaged that there would be a meaningful partnership between Māori and the Crown. It was never honoured then. In the various iterations that we’ve had since, it’s never really been honoured, and this—this—is what they want.

The Treaty of Waitangi guarantees us as Māori tino rangatiratanga and the mana motuhake to be able to make decisions about what we want, how we want to be represented. I’d like to say that we would have already had that, but we haven’t, and that’s why we’re here now. It’s part of a larger conversation, because there are councils all around the country right now that are talking about the idea of co-governance. It’s a very important kaupapa. I know that many councils will also this year be asking themselves the same questions: what is the ideal situation for us?

We should never forget that the city’s foundation of Rotorua was built upon a unique relationship between the Crown and tangata whenua—the good, the bad, and the ugly. The Fenton Agreement should be remembered as being an integral part of our shared communal history as a city, but this local bill is going to take us into the future. It’s going to make sure that Māori are sitting around the decision-making table to be able to make great decisions for the future of the town that is the geothermal paradise of New Zealand. Thank you. I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I acknowledge the member for bringing this local bill to the House. I, obviously, rise on behalf of the National Party, as the member for North Shore and as the National Party spokesperson for local government. The National Party, in this instance, will be opposing this bill and I want to use this opportunity to outline our reasons why that is the case. I think that is important in order to bring context in terms of the opportunity and the challenges that we see with the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill.

The member who has brought this bill to the House has quoted “This is what they want.” and mentioned that a number of times. If I’m being blunt, the vote in regard to this by local council in Rotorua was a vote of six to five. So in terms of my basic maths, that is not a unanimous position in terms of support for this bill and, actually, in terms of the mayor having to place their vote to be able to get this across the line. So what this indicates, and local bills are quite unique in the context of this House—we don’t see that many of them and when we do it has very much been historically the case that there is a high threshold for ensuring that these bills have been well syndicated, well consulted, and well considered before they come to this House, because they are in effect bills on behalf of our local communities. In this case it is our view that this bill has not been through that degree of engagement and stakeholder consultation and actually in terms of where it’s been positioned, there is also a significant amount of variation of views around the table at council of actually supporting and opposing this bill. That, some may say, is just the way it is, but, as I said, the threshold in terms of this type of legislation is generally much higher, and so that is a concern for us.

The other aspect is that there was in the region of around 159 submissions that the council obtained as part of their consideration for this bill coming to this House in terms of their support, and there was significant opposition as part of that submission process to this bill as well. I think that is also important context when we stand here this evening in order to assess this and say, “Is this the right thing that we should be doing?” I just wanted to bring that background context to the House so that we know that when statements are made such as, I quote, “This is what they want.”, we can substantiate that with the facts that are on the ground.

It is the view of the National Party that this bill is unnecessary, and it is unnecessary for a variety of reasons, and I’ll go into that a little bit in detail. Rotorua is an absolutely stunning part of this country. My wife is from Rotorua, so I say that with vested interest, and I’ve spent a lot of time in that part of the world. But Rotorua should be working within the limitations of the Local Government Act for their governance arrangements. It is not appropriate, in this instance, for them to be trying to take a nuanced approach or a different or special approach for something that they can achieve through existing legislation. And I think that is one of the key areas of why we believe that this bill is unnecessary.

The other aspect which was raised by the member who has brought this bill to the House was around the co-governance aspects. The council in Rotorua, as have a number of councils, has committed to introducing Māori wards, so therefore some of these changes will be able to be undertaken legally through those laws. We don’t require a special law or this House to make such changes as are being proposed in order to achieve some of the outcomes that are being desired. Therefore, again, this bill is unnecessary.

I think it is important to acknowledge that when a bill is coming to this House, the ability for central government to start to get involved with nuanced or bespoke arrangements for individual councils, of which there are 67 across this country, does create a significant degree of complexity. It involves a significant amount of unintended consequence in terms of those decisions. And I think, as I said, this goes above and beyond what is required and what the council could already do through existing legislation.

The other element I want to raise is obviously we talked about the city and the surrounding areas of Rotorua. And as I said, Rotorua has a significant number of opportunities, but it also has a significant number of issues. One of the key priorities of local government is “to enable democratic local decision-making” and, in particular, “to promote social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing” for their community, both present and future. And I quote there out of section 10(1) of the Local Government Act 2002.

Why I use that as a reference is that councils across the country and local government across the country, at the moment, are faced with a significant burden of reform under this Government. This example is another element of reform and change which will be impacting those hard-working resources that we have within our local government entities across our towns and cities and, particularly, in this case, Rotorua in terms of their focus. The key issues that are facing Rotorua are significant. We talk about the impacts around cost of living impacts in terms of the population there—emergency housing, some 381 children in emergency housing and motels in Rotorua at the moment. Why I say that is that there is a lot that council and local government should and could be doing in order to support our local communities for their areas of priority that they should be focused on.

Focusing on doing something such as this is unnecessary and is a distraction in the context of their core business, which is to support the welfare of their communities. And at a cost of around $49,000, which has been spent so far—sorry, $46,500, and that excludes staff time, which in many cases is probably the equivalent, if not more, of the actual fiscal cost. This has been to date already an expensive fiscal undertaking, costing the Rotorua ratepayers in order to go through a process that, as I’ve said, we believe is unnecessary. So that’s the context in which we place that. That’s the reasons and rationale of why National won’t be supporting this bill this evening.

I think it is important to recognise that local councils and local government across this country do do a significant amount for our communities. They are a pivotal part in terms of the delivery of services to our communities. And what I’ve seen, as I travel around the country and when I’ve been to Rotorua, is the immense amount of value that could be contributed by such entities. So I would ask those members of local government in Rotorua to focus back on the key priorities for your city, focus on the elements of social and economic wellbeing that will benefit your communities. Don’t get distracted by trying to undertake legislative change such as this, which can be achieved through other mechanisms, and focus on core business. I think that would be echoed by the many ratepayers and community members across that area. And if you do want to proceed with such structural change, then do it in a process which involves everyone, undertake full and fair consultation and engagement with all of the stakeholders, and ensure that before you come to this House you’ve done that in a way which is comprehensive and significant, and therefore you are able to articulate to us a position that is well supported.

Sadly, that is not the case with this local bill and, as such, National will be opposing this bill.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) (remote): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill; I’m delighted to speak in support of it. Can I congratulate the Rotorua District Council for bringing this unique issue to the House, which we are addressing in this bill, and can I especially thank the member in charge of the bill, my good colleague Tāmati Coffey, and thank him also for outlining the rich whakapapa that underpins this bill, which goes right back to those early agreements and that partnership that was forged through the township agreement—through the founding of the Rotorua township. And can I also acknowledge the Te Arawa Waka, ngā iwi o Te Arawa Waka, who are steadfast, absolute mana whenua in such a beautiful region of the country. I do agree this is a very beautiful region, and I actually thought Tāmati Coffey was describing Te Tai Tonga—the great South Island—when he was describing Rotorua. But, minus the mud pools and the hillsides, these are very, very similar, equivalent areas that we are connected to.

But I want to cut to the point. This is a local bill which the Rotorua District Council has brought to this House. The actual bill has been voted on unanimously in support by the council. So, contrary to what the previous member did say, the 6-5 split vote—that’s irrelevant to this bill; that was in relation to some previous iterations of compositions which were considered in the past. But this bill has the full support of the Rotorua District Council, and that is why we have the fulsome support behind it too. This is all about giving expression to that partnership, as my good colleague Tāmati has outlined, and we can do this through the creation and the adoption of the Māori ward legislation. That is so significant, and I want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and our good Government for introducing such a landmark piece of legislation, which is going to transform local government right across Aotearoa. I’m looking forward to the results of the elections later this year and seeing so many new Māori faces around the council tables.

So this bill puts in place the optimal composition for representation for the Rotorua District Council. They’ve been going through a representation review process, and, then, coming up through that process, it comes up against the Local Electoral Act and certain formulas and calculations that lie within that Act. This bill is a way to provide a unique solution which ensures that the desired composition, which provides a fair representative partnership reflected around the council table, is given effect—as has been mentioned, one mayor to be voted on at large, three councillors voted within a Māori ward by the Māori roll, three general members elected within a general ward, and four members elected at large. So excuse me if I might have—I’m sure I got that right. But the 10 members of the council will be represented as such. That’s what this bill does, and there is some haste to the passage of this bill to ensure that it coincides with, or is able to flow into, the upcoming elections that will take place this year. And this arrangement will be in effect for the next two elections to follow.

So can I once again just thank the Rotorua District Council and Tāmati Coffey for bringing this important bill to the House. I’m no stranger to local bills, and I’m currently the member in charge of the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. And, again, they’re all about ensuring that mana whenua presence and representation around the table, which is so important and that reflects the promise of the Treaty—that that can be reflected around the council table not only, in my hope, around the permanent representation down south with Ngāi Tahu but also now through this bill through the composition that will give equal weight and equal balance between the mana whenua, Te Arawa; the iwi; the Māori roll; and the general members.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare; thank you. The Green Party is very pleased to be supporting the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill. When the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill was passed last year, that was a major step forward for Māori representation in local government and in recognising the Crown-Māori relationship at a local level. It was that law change that the Green Party had sought to do through a member’s bill in the name of Marama Davidson, and we were delighted when the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and the Labour Government picked it up. Previously, that requirement that councils had to run a community poll if they wanted to establish a Māori ward, but they didn’t have to run such a poll if they were establishing a general ward, was hugely discriminatory, and there was a lot of public support for removal of this double standard.

So that law change has given councils a chance to decide that they will have Māori wards at the local elections without having to run that poll. It’s providing one more tool to provide space for Māori around the council decision-making table. So, of course, Rotorua District Council has sought to make the most of that opportunity to ensure that their communities are fully represented. But the provisions in the Local Electoral Act have caused problems. So this bill, sponsored by Tāmati Coffey, this local bill, is an effort to remedy those problems. And we know that the Hon Nanaia Mahuta is working on more widespread changes to deal with these issues, but they won’t be ready in time for this election.

So the Rotorua District Council, as councils are required to do every six years, set out to review its representation arrangements last year, and it was doing that in the way that the Local Electoral Act required. I’d just like to do a shout-out to the Rotorua Daily Post and the journalist Felix Desmarais there, because of the very matter of fact and helpful articles that the Rotorua Daily Post has been providing about the whole representation review—the processes, the requirements of the law, and just what has happened. And I think that really shows the benefits of the funding that the Government has provided to media for reporting on local democracy issues—it allows a lot more coverage than might otherwise have happened.

As the Rotorua Daily Post noted, this bill has been on a long journey. There was, first of all, the governance model that the council first proposed. There is what it now prefers. There’s the interim model that it agreed to last November when it got advice from the Local Government Commission that its preferred model was inconsistent with the Local Electoral Act. And then there is what is contained in this bill.

So the council wants a representation arrangement that the Local Electoral Act doesn’t currently provide for. It wants a representation arrangement which provides greater representation and a greater say and greater space at that council table for Māori. At the moment, the council has 10 councillors and a mayor, and as others have noted, this bill will provide for one mayor elected at large, one Māori ward with three councillor seats, one general ward with three councillor seats, and four seats where councillors are elected at large.

This is the preferred model that Rotorua Lakes Council has chosen, because it means that those on the Māori roll are electing the same number of councillors as are being elected by those on the general roll—three in the ward and four at large. But this option is inconsistent with the formula in the Schedule to the Local Electoral Act, because that formula, plus the 10 percent plus or minus rule, which relates to the number of voters that each councillor represents, isn’t complied with. The Māori electoral population in the Rotorua district is 28 percent of the total population, so if the formula in the Local Electoral Act was applied, that would mean that the six ward members should be split into four for a general ward, and only two for the Māori ward. That would see Māori voters voting for fewer councillors than those on the general roll. So this bill, in allowing for that three by three split, is much more equitable, will allow much stronger representation, and will mean a more diverse community—and one that in the Green Party’s view better recognises the diversity of Rotorua—and we are pleased to support it.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Mr Speaker, thank you. May I start by thanking the Rotorua Lakes Council for their work in carefully assessing the representation required by their community and the service of bringing together a piece of legislation which captures those hopes and aspirations which they heard from the people of Rotorua. I also offer my congratulations to that council in its adoption of Māori wards in May 2021 which, as my colleague who made a contribution before me noted, was a major step forward in the ability of Māori around the country to be represented at the governance table locally in all councils. That’s important because these towns, these cities, these local environments, whether it’s the river or the maunga, these iwi are kaitiaki of those and they must be at the table to represent the interests of those areas as well as the people for whom they are guardians.

May I make some quick comments before my speech on the governance arrangements that we’re talking about today which acknowledge iwi and Māori around that governance table. We need a mechanism for shared discussions between Māori and Government at all levels in order to achieve what was guaranteed to all New Zealanders under Te Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840. It’s important that we have those voices—whether they are Māori, whether they are Pākehā—coming together as equals to be able to have those discussions that we need.

National and Labour Governments have supported co-governance arrangements around the country. These arrangements bring us closer together; they don’t pull us apart. At a local level, they are particularly important for empowering iwi to look after not only their own people but the people in the area who share the whenua, who have a historical connection with the land as they do, and who share those goals of looking after it like they do.

Now, let me turn to why this bill is necessary: because it creates that meaningful partnership, the sort that Ngāti Whakaue envisioned in this city of Rotorua when it was founded. It gives effect to the outcome of the local council’s review of the representation needs. It would apply to the next two elections and be able to give changes which would otherwise be prevented by the Local Electoral Act 2001. The ideal representation structure that Rotorua council came to is not currently enabled by that Act. Instead, the council has adopted this makeshift position; as my colleague Tāmati Coffey pointed out, this is not the ideal structure. It has a number of setbacks for iwi, who are represented, as well as those sharing the council table in order to make decisions for everyone involved.

Why I do I support it? Well, this local bill, which has come to Tāmati Coffey to take to Parliament, embodies all of those decisions that have been made at a local level already. It only applies to this Rotorua District Council, at their request, and doesn’t reflect what happens all around the country; instead it’s a bespoke arrangement, and it’s important that it’s considered within that lens: to effect the particular outcomes that are needed in Rotorua for those iwi who hold mana whenua for the region.

It is an important step because it would allow iwi who have been working very well with the council to be represented at the table in a way which they choose and other councillors and members of the community want for them. It’s important that we give effect to those aspirations so that they are able to do that.

With this reading, there is a lot of water under the bridge for the Māori Affairs Committee to inquire into. There will be an opportunity for me and my colleagues in the committee to hear from those local groups. We heard that there had been some 150 submissions to the council and I anticipate a number of other submissions at the committee. It will be a pleasure to hear from people of Rotorua about how this will affect them but also what they hope for their city in the future; not only those technical mechanisms that the council can give effect to for these decision makings but what they want out of having Māori and an empowered iwi around the governance table. What can we achieve with iwi working hand in hand with local government? Things like Eat Streat in Rotorua which makes the best of the beautiful lakefront along with the geothermal power and the Māori art and design principles; those things which make the city better are inherently going hand in hand with iwi involvement. It’s that kind of future that I want to see for Rotorua and that kind of future that I want to see for New Zealand. That’s why I support it.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This problem comes from a fundamental misunderstanding about what it is that New Zealand needs and what it is that Rotorua needs. The Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill will do nothing to solve the problems that Rotorua faces. Co-governance does nothing to solve the problems that Rotorua and deprived communities in places like parts of Rotorua face. It doesn’t solve the problem with infrastructure funding and financing that’s led to water quality in Rotorua being severely affected by waste water for decades and decades. It doesn’t solve the problem of how to get more homes built—homes to house the hundreds and hundreds of people that this Labour Government has dumped on Rotorua because it doesn’t know how to deal with them. This bill does nothing to help Rotorua heal and move forward from the way it’s been treated by this Government, but, more importantly, from the way its existing councillors and the Labour mayor—a former MP in the Labour Party—has treated Rotorua. I’ll give you an example.

But before I start, I just want to tell you: I treasure Rotorua. I studied in Rotorua. I studied at the Forest Research Institute library when I was studying to become an environmental scientist and engineer. I’ve spent years of my life staying with family in Rotorua, on holidays, and for special occasions. I lived there for six months in the 1990s. I think of Rotorua as my second home. So it actually causes me a great deal of emotional pain to see what’s happened to Rotorua under this Government and under the leadership of its Labour mayor.

We think about how co-governance could help fix Rotorua’s water quality problem, the quality of the lakes. Well, actually, a few years ago, it was decided that the waste water from Rotorua township should be pumped up and sprayed into the forests and hills around Rotorua because that addressed some of the legitimate concerns that mana whenua had with discharging waste water into the lakes and into the river. It seemed like a good thing to do. But what we know now is that that contaminated groundwater is now moving into the lake, even though it was discharged to ground and should have been taken up by the trees. It’s quite clear that solutions to waste water and environmental and other problems require good science and good data rather than co-governance to solve.

I’ll give you an example about homes and housing. Rotorua’s been the dumping ground—the dumping ground—for this Government for hundreds of people into emergency housing and into motels. This bill does nothing to house people in Rotorua and actually to solve some of Rotorua’s terrible underlying social problems, which are actually the result of years and years of Government-sponsored, State-sponsored poverty. There’s families who’ve been on benefits for multiple generations and who know nothing more than the deprivation of living on benefits. Now, it’s clear that this Government thinks that by increasing benefits by $50 or $25 a week, or whatever it is this time around, is going to help them, but it’s not, because what it doesn’t do is actually deliver thriving communities and a healthy economy. That’s what Rotorua needs to grow.

That’s why the ACT Party, fundamentally, disagrees with this bill. It doesn’t solve a single problem that the people of Rotorua need Government to help solve. It doesn’t help people in business in Rotorua employ more people.

The Rotorua District Council is suffering a complete meltdown. Under the leadership of its Labour-led mayor, it’s created six or seven new general manager roles, paying them hundreds of thousands of dollars. They couldn’t even come up with a job description for these new general managers after nearly a year. This is a council which sponsored a piece of public artwork on the waterfront but couldn’t even get the foundations designed properly, so it had to be removed.

This bill about co-governance does absolutely nothing to help the people of Rotorua. That’s why the ACT Party cannot support this bill. We believe, in fact, in reforming infrastructure funding and financing so that local councils have the right incentives to do their job.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and it’s a pleasure to be speaking on the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill, a local bill put forward by the local member Tāmati Coffey. Can I just correct some of the words that I’ve heard that have been all negative, and that’s not my perception and experience of Rotorua. It has been nothing but positive every time I go there.

Can I acknowledge Tāmati Coffey for really explaining and laying out those terms of reference right at the beginning in speaking to this bill, because I get a little bit sick and tired of people rolling out continuously negative facts and figures around Rotorua. If we want action, my onus is and the upbringing I had is that you help—you get in there and help—and I don’t believe that this is just the responsibility of a hard-working mayor and a former member.

Stevie Chadwick has certainly proven her stripes. She’s gone through that district as their member of Parliament and now mayor. But I must say that even though a Labour member, which I assume she is, she did not stand under a Labour endorsement or under the Labour brand. She stood for all the people of the district, and the good people of Rotorua voted her in.

I want to just continue that because it’s important to note that they, the council, have put this to the people, and when the majority of people get a bit nervous about sharing power. Looking at the assets and the public services that the district delivers and owns, it can be scary. But look, the district makes no apology, in my opinion, about their desire to say, “Look, with our history”—which was well explained by Tāmati Coffey. I’ve not heard that in such detail and of such a succinct nature, where one can actually go “Wow, I didn’t know that.” But this reflects that and heralds the reset that’s desired by the Rotorua Lakes Council.

I look at Māori wards and the debate that we’ve had, and I’m proud of that debate. It needed to happen. It definitely needed to happen, because, too often, people like myself when I was on the Wellington City Council would say, “Oh, it’s easy—it’s easy for Māori to get on council. Look at Paul Eagle.” That’s absolutely not the case. It was as difficult for Māori to get on any council a hundred years ago as it is today, and just because we see more brown faces, it doesn’t mean that the current system works. So I applaud the desire of this Government to make sure that there’s a true, meaningful partnership on local authorities right throughout New Zealand.

When you take a look at what the Rotorua Lakes Council did in terms of conducting their representation review, it did say it was one mayor elected at large, one Māori ward with three seats, one general ward with three seats, and four seats at large. I think that’s entirely reasonable. That’s been adopted by the council back on 21 May 2021, and the process has then taken off from there. I’m proud that they’ve decided to say, “Look, let’s not wait and let’s not have the debate in terms of the fundamentals of that conversation. Let’s take it through a local bill process to promote the legislative change.”, which they’re able to do at the local level.

I’m happy to be on the Māori Affairs Committee, and I’m glad that it’s coming to this committee, because it means that we can have that debate with those who disagree and, of course, those who agree with it. It is time. I’m not apologetic for such an action by the Rotorua Lakes Council. I think it is leadership in action. It promotes partnership, and we will have that debate. But we will also allow the people of the district to talk positively about this and to enter a new era where they already share, co-govern, work in partnership, and work together for what’s best for the Rotorua District.

So I applaud the mayor and the MP Tāmati Coffey. I’m glad that I’m part of this Government and on the Māori Affairs Committee. I commend this bill to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā rawa atu ki a koe. Ki te kaunihera, ki Ngāti Whakaue, Te Arawa, tēnā rawa atu ki a koutou katoa. Ngā māreikura, ngā whatukura o te motu, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Mr Speaker, warm greetings to you. To the council, to Ngāti Whakaue and Te Arawa, warm greetings to you all. To the esteemed members from around the country, greetings, greetings, greetings one and all.]

I’ve been reflecting over the past week, since we’ve been having the debate, the discussion of co-governance, and I look into those two words and think, does this reflect the mature debate that we are having as a country? Does it reflect the aspirations and the opportunity for all New Zealanders?

But I come back to this piece of legislation, the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill. I acknowledge the Rotorua Lakes District Council for their courage—that they have thought through considerably on this piece of work about how they can elevate representation for Māori; be better representatives for their rohe; but ensure that they are creating greater outcomes for all of their people and their communities, families, and tamariki that are there.

This bill specifies representation arrangements to apply to the next two tri-annual general elections of the Rotorua District Council. These arrangements would conform with the findings of a representation review held by the council in 2021, but are not currently enabled under the Local Electoral Act 2001. I look again at this conversation, and I think for Rotorua, and in this debate, we’re playing a greater role here—we’re educating our communities, we’re educating Aotearoa. We’re having a respectful and a mature debate—not sure about a couple of speeches ago. But it does offer us all the opportunity to think about how we can better govern our country, how we can better fulfil our Te Tiriti obligations, how we can better protect our environment—a critical role of such councils like Rotorua District Council in this particular one.

What this does is it sets up a new structure for the council: one mayor elected at large; one Māori ward with three seats—Te Ipu Wai Taketake ward; one general ward with three seats—Te Ipu Arukari ward; four at-large seats; a Rotorua Lakes Community Board; and a Rotorua Rural Community Board. That is wonderful representation. It covers all four corners of Rotorua, of Te Arawa, of Ngati Whakaue. And, you know, there are tensions and challenges, but it’s about the steps that we take as Māori, as non-Māori, in this country. As somebody having both Māori and Pakeha decent—both cultures that I’m really, really proud of—I’m blessed, really, that I’m able to have a unique perspective where I see the value of such pieces of legislation like this.

Sadly, I listened to member Simon Watts, the Opposition’s spokesperson for local government; together we are representatives on Auckland’s North Shore, and over there we’ve got a lot of work to do. We’ve got to partner much more closely with our mana whenua. We need to reflect some of the progress that other parts of Tāmaki-makau-rau—Auckland—have made in being better Te Tiriti partners. So to hear that he and the Opposition aren’t supporting this particular bill this afternoon is disappointing. It’s against their candidate for Rotorua Lakes Council that I heard on the AM Show earlier in the week, against her view. While I disagree with her that co-governance nationally isn’t a great thing, her view was that locally it is a very good thing.

So this particular piece of legislation is totally a step in the right direction. I acknowledge Rotorua Lakes Council for the courage, the bravery, that they have taken the steps towards progress at being better representatives for all people in Rotorua, to make progress in this very, very deep, important, sensitive, yet progressive conversation of co-governance. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): We’ve often heard members of this House speak on issues like that. I’m glad the debate has been respectful. I want to start my contribution by saying I, with many others of this Parliament, believe every citizen in this country is equal, that laws should apply to all, that we should respect the property rights of all, that Treaty settlements should be full and final—including the apology that comes with them—and elections should always be fair, democratic, and proportional. Last year, the Government brought a bill before Parliament that said that it would make a decision to allow councils to decide how local government would arrange itself. They said, at the time, that the current system was not fair to Māori and there were few Māori wards. They didn’t trust New Zealanders to say, actually, what we will do is allow everybody to have a say on this, to make it fair, irrespective of the type of ward you may want in a council area, or no wards. Everybody will have a say. And they brought the legislation before Parliament and they rushed it through very, very quickly with only weeks, actually, in the select committee for New Zealanders to have a say before it was pushed through, because they said it needed to enter into law last year before the elections this year.

We, at the time, opposed that in the National Party and said, actually we do support Māori wards and we will fix it so that local people can have a say, because it is important that local voters—all of them, every single one of them that wants to vote—can have a say on important issues like this. Unfortunately, because the legislation last year gave that responsibility to councils alone, all over the country the councils have been using the normal system they would to talk to voters, and then, often behind closed doors, come up with an arrangement that they believed was fair under the guidance and the framework and the law set by this Parliament, so that every council district in the country would be able to use the criteria to make sure that the election was fair and proportionate. Unfortunately, the proposal brought to this House by the Rotorua Lakes Council does not do that. It is, as we have heard earlier, outside the law that was passed last year, so Rotorua itself needs an extra law just for them. Rotorua is a unique place but, in as far as the way that we elect our councillors and how that is structured, every part of New Zealand should be the same so that we have a level and equal playing field.

I support Māori wards as a voter on council elections locally, but what this does is actually innately unfair in the way that it has been structured because, when members opposite are talking about co-governance—and we need to be very clear; this is what this proposal is—last year the Government rejected that when they put through the local government election Act for Māori wards. But this is around co-governance. What this does is says if you are Māori and you’ve opted to be on a Māori roll, which is 28 percent of the voting population in the Rotorua Lakes District, you have an equal say to the other 72 percent. It actually doesn’t recognise that there are possibly as many Māori on the general roll who are also disadvantaged when it comes to how they elect their councillors, and that is the reason that we’re opposing this, and, actually, it needs to be fixed.

There is one final thing here. It is important that we get this right. It’s not good enough that this House has been asked to say this is only for two elections because, actually, it ends up being a much wider and much greater debate than only Rotorua. We’ve heard others here say, actually, in all parts of the country, we should have co-governance. That’s a debate that must be had. It can’t be done quietly—quickly last year when the Government rushed the legislation through—and now by a way of a local bill just for one council.

Some of the councillors and the mayor are not standing for re-election later this year. This should be campaigned on. The case should be made widely to the people of Rotorua; everybody should have a say. The council should actually say: “This is of such significance that we are having to ask Parliament to change the law that applies to the whole of the country. We’re asking them to change it just for Rotorua. There should be a referendum on this locally, at the very least. It should be campaigned on, and then the new council should be the ones that make this decision.” There are many people in Rotorua that feel that they haven’t been listened to, people that feel that they have been left out of this debate, that they actually didn’t get their say. We won’t be supporting this because it does not deliver elections that are fair, democratic, or proportional. Every part of the country should actually elect in the same way, and we will be voting against this.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker It’s a real pleasure to rise and speak on this bill—and just to clarify for the member who’s just resumed his seat, Todd McClay, the select committee process will enable people to have a say as well. So that’s a great opportunity to have a say on this bill.

It’s really interesting to have a local bill come before this House and I just want to acknowledge the local member Tāmati Coffey for his sponsorship of this bill. I think it’s really important that he has engaged alongside the council—

Hon Todd McClay: He lost his seat twice.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Don’t be mean. He has engaged alongside the council—

Hon Todd McClay: Lost the first election and then lost his seat.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: —and agreed to sponsor this bill. I think someone over there’s got sour grapes.

I’d also like to congratulate the Rotorua community for bringing this bill and thinking so much about it. I’d like to acknowledge the mayor, Steve Chadwick, who is retiring this year and it has been a particularly fascinating community to watch. I’m based in the Tauranga community and one of the things that I have done in the past is buddy MP into the Rotorua community and it has been a real pleasure to watch partnership in action with tangata whenua and council. And it’s something that I can only hope; that we as a council eventually get to that place in Tauranga.

Essentially, this bill is very clear about what it wants to do. There was an interim option, and I’d like to correct Hansard for the other National member that has resumed his seat prior to the previous speaker. He did say that this bill was not agreed to unanimously. This part of the bill, the local bill, was; the interim agreement or interim option was not the part that was agreed to unanimously.

So what we know about this bill, and I think it is particularly useful thing to repeat, is that we’re looking at voter parity. So the preferred option that has come to this House to be discussed is that there will be one mayor, one Māori ward with three seats—so that’s Te Ipu Wai Taketake—and three general seats: Te Ipu Auraki ward. So there’s a general ward and a Māori ward. There will be four at-large seats and then, of course, there’s the Rotorua Lakes Community Board and the Rural Community Board. This, to me, sounds very much like democracy. It sounds very much like there is actually parity amongst voters.

I want to acknowledge the fact that there are 21,700 people on the Māori roll. There are 55,600 people on the general roll. And what I would like to do is encourage each and every person on that roll to get into local democracy and to vote. I’d also like to encourage them and those who are going to appear before the Māori Affairs Committee to actually really think about the implications of how this would look rolling out across the country—rolling out across the city.

One of the things that I think is particularly interesting is the history, which the member Tāmati Coffey talked to us about. He talked to us about the Fenton Agreement. Gosh, I wish that we had a museum in our city. I did some Googling and managed to find some information from the Rotorua Museum, and I want to again state this quote: “We should never forget that the city’s foundation was built upon a unique relationship between the Crown and local tāngata whenua; the good, the bad and the ugly. The Fenton Agreement should be remembered as being an integral part of our shared, communal history as a city, an example of great generosity by iwi and a forward thinking willingness to work together.” Isn’t that a great thought for our country, and isn’t that a great thought for the city of Rotorua that we could go back to go forward? And on that note, I commend this bill to the House.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) (remote): Tēnā koe e Te Pīka, tēnā tātou i Te Whare. Rere tonu ana ngā mihi ki te taniwha a Moana Jackson, haere atu rā e koro. He whatitiri ki te rangi, ko Te Arawa ki te whenua.]

[Greetings to the Speaker, greetings to us all in the House. I also acknowledge the great leader Moana Jackson; may you rest in peace. Thunder in the heavens, the Arawa on Earth.]

On 21 May 2021, Rotorua Lakes Council resolved to establish a Māori ward and then commence the representation review. Following the representation review, on 19 November 2021 the council resolved that the ideal representation arrangement for Rotorua would comprise of one mayor elected at large; one Māori ward with three seats, Te Ipu Wai Taketake; one general ward with three seats, Te Ipu Wai Auraki; four at-large seats; a Rotorua Lakes Community Board; and a Rotorua Rural Community Board.

This arrangement is currently prevented by clause 2 of Schedule 1A of the Local Electoral Act 2001 as it does not satisfy the formula currently specified for calculating the number of Māori ward members of the council. Te Paati Māori policy and kaupapa support the establishment of Māori wards and mana whenua representation in local government, and it has long been a priority for us. As the member for Te Waiariki, I support wholeheartedly our people of Te Arawa and the Rotorua community in our fight for greater decision-making roles in our rohe.

The framework adopted by the council will provide for greater tangata whenua representation in decisions, and it is supported with iwi partnership, as mentioned by Tāmati Coffey in his opening speech of this debate. Greater Māori participation in local decisions will help improve Māori outcomes at a local policy level across environmental, social, and economic areas. The framework with the three Māori wards, equal in number to the general wards, is one of the fairest models for Māori representation in local government—across the whole country—that I have seen.

As Rotorua is nearly 50 percent Māori, this is not only an alignment to the Fenton Agreement but it moves towards a more Tiriti-centric approach. The Rotorua township agreement, or the Fenton Agreement, was signed in 1880. There was a vision to establish a township that would respect the rangatiratanga of mana whenua, that would welcome Pākehā. It didn’t just set aside the major reserves, lakefront, hospital, Government Gardens, etc., but also promised one seat out of three on the town board. The dedicated seat was removed within 10 years. How quickly the Crown forgets its commitments to Māori when it suits. There will be people in this House that will be against the wants of the Te Arawa iwi and the people in Rotorua because of their racist rhetoric and scaremongering propaganda of co-governance.

Co-governance happened in Rotorua 15 years ago. It happened when the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement established co-governance between the council, Rotorua Lakes Council, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, and Te Arawa. That settlement has been an outstanding success in working together to think long term and for the health and mauri of our beautiful lakes. When we ensure that Māori and Pākehā are both at the table, we create good outcomes for our whole community.

Don’t be afraid of allowing Māori voices at the table. I heard the ACT Party say that this bill will not make a difference to Rotorua’s problems. This is because they want the status quo, which is the current State; a colonised State. As quoted by Dr Moana Jackson, the colonised State is a racist State. If you take over the lands and the power of other peoples—in this case Te Arawa—and replace it with yours on the notion that they were inferior to you, then that’s a racist State. This is smoke and mirrors for their continued attack on Māori and iwi, which is laced with racism. Only indigenous knowledge will save this planet. And the issues outlined by ACT—in having Māori equally making decisions—will not only be better for Te Arawa but for the country.

The council voted in favour of this proposal. With respect, this House should support it without hesitation. I want to congratulate the Rotorua Lakes Council, Te Arawa, and Rotorua community for your courageous move in designing an exemplary model that can be adopted by other councils around the country. This sets a positive precedent.

I look forward to the discussions in the Māori Affairs Committee, and Te Paati Māori wholeheartedly support this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I just acknowledge the support around the House for this bill. This will come to the Māori Affairs Committee. It’s great to have the support of the Māori Party and also the Green Party of Aotearoa. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, but also to our Labour caucus who have been fearless in the face of making sure that we have Māori sitting around our decision-making tables in meaningful partnership with our iwi, with our hapū, and with our whānau. It’s something that we’re actually passionate about over here on this side of the House. Every election, especially in our Māori seats, Labour enjoys support from our Māori communities. But it’s the aspiration that underpins that. It’s the aspiration of our people that say, “We want more of a meaningful partnership. We want to have our say; we haven’t had it before.”

As I mentioned earlier, the Te Arawa Standing Committee had no powers. They had no powers; they were advisers. It was actually desperation that led them to seek alternative solutions. We’ve got Te Tatau o Te Arawa right now, and that’s our partnership board. But, again, actually, there’s nothing like sitting around that decision-making table.

This bill will come to the Māori Affairs Committee and we’re ready for it. But also, I can imagine some of the submissions that will come through. There have been a lot of submissions through the Māori wards debate, through the latest item of business—the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. There’s lots of kōrero and lots of calls for democracy, because, actually, people across New Zealand have become really wedded to this idea of democracy being one-way. Can I say to the people of New Zealand and all of those people that are listening to this that are thinking about putting in submissions: democracy, at its very fundamental is Greek. The parliamentary process that we partake in right here, that we’ve cut and pasted for our Chamber, right here, is actually English; this is from a Westminster system. There is nothing to preclude us being able to tweak democracy to make it work for us here in Aotearoa.

Because we signed this thing called Te Tiriti o Waitangi, all the way back in 1840—which was prior to the Te Tatou Partnership Board, prior to the Te Arawa Standing Committee, prior to the Fenton Agreement—and even though Te Arawa didn’t sign the Treaty, we were heavily affected by it. Lands were taken. We’ve been seeking meaningful partnership for a very long time.

Earlier, just before, the member before me, the member for Waiariki, Rawiri Waititi, talked about how this actually is democratic. This is a local bill that is allowed within the confines of our rules here in Parliament. This is democracy. The fact that it was actually given to us by elected members of the Rotorua Lakes Council that voted unanimously for it means that it’s democratically come here to the House. Not all things that come here to the House are popular. Sure, there are some people that will absolutely disagree with it.

We’ve just heard from the local member for Rotorua, the Hon Todd McClay, how much he doesn’t want this bill to succeed, and he’ll have to respond to his people back home who really, really are looking for leadership in this area and find this dismal response from the member for Rotorua. But this is what was signed up to all those years ago, in Te Tiriti o Waitangi—

Hon Todd McClay: Says a list MP.

TĀMATI COFFEY: —when we were seeking tino rangatiratanga. For that member, I’ll tell him what that means, because he probably doesn’t know. Tino rangatiratanga is actually the ability to determine for yourself what you want. It’s not about actually getting a cut-and-paste model from overseas and then cutting and pasting it to how you make decisions here locally because that’s the way we’ve always done it. No. This is about Māori coming to the table and saying, “This is how we see our tino rangatiratanga, our mana motuhake playing out in a local context.”

If we had had that representation way back in the day, maybe things would have been quite different in Rotorua. Maybe we’d have high numbers of people showing up to our local body elections. Maybe we wouldn’t have had the paru seeping into our lake over successive generations and successive councils that have made bad decisions for the people of Rotorua today. Maybe if they had been making mokopuna decisions, thinking about the benefit of Rotorua in generations to come, maybe Rotorua would be in a very different position. That opportunity hasn’t been afforded; it has now through this local bill. I put a challenge out there to everybody that believes in everything that I’ve gone and said right now to make sure that you participate in this process. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 March.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you—

Matt Doocey: Point of order. In the member’s speech—sorry, in the previous debate—the member said that he was going to lodge a shortened report-back date.

Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order, no motion was moved; so there’s no instruction to the committee.

BARBARA EDMONDS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee in support of the second reading of the Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

Now, members’ bills can be unique creatures. This particular bill is even more unique—not just because it is a member’s bill but because it is technical in nature and covers a range of issues to strengthen and update the Unit Titles Act 2010. As the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, Dr Duncan Webb, said earlier in this debate, it is an important bill. It might be seen as more of a tidy up, but its importance can’t be understated, because, ultimately, we need to make sure that people who purchase homes which are in unit titles can do so with a degree of confidence.

I’d like to acknowledge the member whose name is on the bill, Nicola Willis, and also acknowledge the Hon Nikki Kaye and the Hon Judith Collins, whom Nicola Willis referred to as “mothers of this bill”. If they are the mothers of this bill, I would also like to acknowledge the aunties of this bill—aunties, in a more colloquial setting, are seen as wise counsel and, generally, the person who you can confide in to help solve your issues without getting in trouble with your mother. So, to the aunties of this bill—Helen White and the Associate Minister of this bill, the Hon Poto Williams—I acknowledge both your efforts. Helen White has had a significant interest in unit titles over the last few years. The member was quite focused during the deliberation of this bill on ensuring that there was balance between what the member had heard over the years and what was in submissions, the practicalities of such changes, and, ultimately, the policy that made the cut in this revised, tracked version of the bill. The Associate Minister allowed us to lean on her officials so that the committee had the technical support to consider the 85 submissions we received.

So why does this side of the House support this bill in the name of a member of the Opposition? As mentioned in previous speeches in this debate, the Unit Titles Act 2010 provided a framework for the ownership and management of properties that were divided into unit titles. High-density property arrangements have become increasingly common in New Zealand, but when the Act came into being, it was less common. For example, in Auckland alone, the number of multi-unit housing developments increased from just over 15 percent of new houses in 2010 to more than 40 percent in 2017. In response to this growth, a review of the Act was initiated in 2016, which recommended changes to the unit title regime. This side of the House supports the bill as the member’s bill makes some of the changes we would like to see.

The bill is definitely in a much different shape than when it was introduced, and it was good to work constructively across the House in the select committee stage. As advised earlier in this debate, there were 85 submissions received on the bill. We also held a hearing in Auckland to hear a number of submissions over one day. There were detailed submissions across the key reform areas, including submissions from both individuals, bodies corporate, body corporate managers, the insurance industry, and local authorities. Submitters had a range of views but were broadly supportive of greater transparency, accountability, and protection for the unit title holders. Key changes in this version of the bill include retaining the requirement for pre-settlement disclosure, removing the proxy limitation, removing the ability for the buyer to request additional disclosure, and, in amongst other things, an amendment to the list of documents required by regulation 33 and 34 for pre-contract and pre-settlement disclosures.

In relation to pre-purchase disclosure, disclosure for a prospective buyer is an integral part of the Unit Titles Act. When someone buys a standalone property with no communal obligations, it’s quite straightforward for the prospective buyer to obtain the relevant information about the property: they could go through physical inspections, they could get a valuation easily, and they can also obtain local authority records. However, for unit title developments, a prospective buyer cannot access all the relevant information about their future obligations and potential liabilities. For example, it’s really easy to inspect the roof cavity of a single improvement but less so if there are unit titles in many layers of the actual unit titles.

Forty submitters commented in relation to the changes to the pre-disclosure regime, and they all recommended retaining pre-settlement disclosure. Many noted that the time between pre-contract disclosure and final settlement can be a year or more. Pre-settlement disclosure requires a seller to provide updated information, which protects buyers’ interests and strengthens the overall disclosure regime. Other submitters commented that pre-settlement disclosures protect the body corporate’s interests too. Sellers currently need to request information from the body corporate to meet their pre-disclosure settlement obligations, but if the seller owed outstanding levies to the body corporate, it could withhold this information until the levies were paid. We agreed with submitters that pre-settlement disclosure is an important part of the Act, so the select committee has proposed retaining the disclosure requirements. The information sellers must provide would remain the same as under the Act at present—as set out in proposed regulation 33, set out in clause 37. That would include issues in relation to weather tightness, earthquake-prone issues, and any other significant defects in the land that may require remediation.

Another area I wanted to touch on is in relation to body corporate governance rules—particularly in relation to proxies. The bill as reported back still makes several changes to the existing body corporate governance provisions. The changes seek to create better transparency and accountability for unit holders while ensuring there is sufficient flexibility and autonomy for bodies corporate to govern their unit title developments. The changes are intended to strike a balance between benefits for unit holders and additional compliance costs on the body corporate. The majority of the select committee recommended that clause 10, included in the bill as introduced, be removed. Now, clause 10 proposed a limit to the number of proxies a person can hold. Now, the current Act provides that unit title owners can nominate another person to vote on their behalf. Currently there are no limits to the number of proxies a person can hold. In clause 10, it proposed that a proxy cannot act for more than one principal unit owner if there are fewer than 20 principal units—for developments with 20 or more units, hold more than 5 percent of the total number of votes. Submissions received on this matter were less than universal.

Seven submitters—mostly individuals and resident-owner groups—supported having limits on proxies. The mischief they were concerned about was that unlimited proxies can allow for the abuse of the voting process. In contrast, 18 submitters opposed having proxy limits. These submitters did include body corporate managers, other professionals, and the unit title working group. These submitters were concerned that limiting proxies could limit the ability of unit title owners to have a representation at a meeting. This is particularly difficult for time-share owners, who may actually not know who the other owners are. Therefore, their usual practice is to appoint the chairperson as their proxy. Submitters were also concerned about the risk that having proxy limits would mean that some bodies corporate would struggle to meet their quorum requirements. If a quorum is not met at a general meeting, the meeting can be held one week later at the same time whether or not quorum is met. This may reduce the ability of unit owners to attend and will increase administration costs, as officials have told us.

So the select committee had to think and had to consider, “Is there a problem?” And we recognised that some submitters are concerned about proxy farming, which may reflect their personal experiences. However, there were many submitters who did not support proxy limits who were body corporate managers and other professionals. The committee took the advice of the officials and agreed that these submitters cumulatively have experience across a large number of bodies corporate and were not concerned. Without strong evidence of a widespread concern, the select committee returned that the limits on proxies be removed from this bill. It is possible that the number of proxies that could be given will reduce over time anyway, as officials advised us, and that’s due to the ability to attend by remote access, which this bill allows. There are also many other ways for interested unit owners to get involved in the meeting: they can attend in person, the current law and proposed amendments allow them to attend by remote access, and they can make a postal vote. The motions proposed for a general meeting are provided for with the agenda. So, therefore, the committee, by majority, did not agree to proxy limits, and we agreed to remove clause 10—as recommended in the revised, tracked version of the bill.

So, again, in summary, Labour supports the reform of the Unit Titles Act 2010. This bill makes some of the changes that we would like to see—particularly in regards to corporate governance; transparency; and, as I’ve set out, the proxy limits. So, therefore, I would like to commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.

Ayes 110

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I move, That the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Sorry, first time doing this bit of the legislative process. Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It’s a real privilege to get a chance to speak on this bill. For those who missed out on the first reading speech, I’ll just summarise what this bill intends to do, which is to amend the Human Rights Act of 1993 to make it clear that any discrimination against someone because they have a disability assist dog would be considered discrimination on the basis of disability. It is important to recognise that we do have a definition of a disability assist dog in the Dog Control Act of 1996.

Since the first reading, we’ve heard from people with lived experiences, organisations, and allies who broadly spoke in support. We had 75 submissions who were overwhelmingly in favour, and that was really pleasing to see—and I’ll get on to that.

One of the submissions that I want to lean on, in terms of speaking to the whakapapa of this bill, is the submission by Deaf Action New Zealand, who rightfully talk about my former colleague Mojo Mathers’ involvement in drafting this bill. All the way back in 2015, when Murray Whittington was struggling to have access to housing, Deaf Action New Zealand did advocacy for the late Murray. Mojo took on that advocacy and drafted this bill in recognition that disabled people were being prevented from fully participating in their communities because, effectively, their dogs were being prevented from participating in things like housing, transport, and other essential public services.

Deaf Action talks about the broader discrimination that people have faced. They cite another example of Anne Wyrill, who was close to the point of being homeless with two young children because landlords would not view her hearing dog as an assistance dog; they viewed the dog as a pet. It was only by sheer hard work by an agent that she found a home.

This was a theme that we saw throughout the submissions, where people reminded us that disability assist dogs are not pets. They do critical work that enables disabled people to participate in the community. On top of supporting the intent of the bill to stop discrimination, they also talked about the need to raise awareness of this issue. A lot of the submitters were really clear that perhaps one may want to consider a communication campaign to explain the rights of disabled people with disability assist dogs.

We’ve had several other submitters with lived experience, including members of our own Inclusive Greens network. I want to pay tribute to Joe Boon who spoke to our committee and talked about the challenges that he faced, but more importantly about why this legislation was really important. I want to mihi the many Green members of the Inclusive Greens who put together a collective submission.

We also had people like Raewyn Chaplow who herself spoke of her experience of being left embarrassed and frustrated when asked to leave premises because she had a service dog. She also spoke about being a puppy-raiser. She said, “I can only imagine how much worse it must be for people who rely on that precious, fully-trained dog for independence, confidence, and safety. These are not pets.”

There are also other people like Claudia who talked about having a mobility dog and how important it was that people realise there’s a variety of dogs that do work to help people with things like seizures and other medical conditions. Once again, she reiterated that these dogs are not just pets, but rather a work companion that enables them to participate in their community.

Victoria Beesley herself was advocating for a friend in her submissions, and I think that was a really lovely thing to see, because submissions themselves can often present a barrier for members of the community. It was really nice to see people who participate in the legislative process advocating for their family and friends in the form of allyship.

We also had organisations who themselves either are made up of members of the disabled community or who train dogs. One of the submissions I was really pleased to see was from the New Zealand Nurses Organisation who I think understood the role of people having access to premises in order for their wellbeing to be upheld, and it was nice to see that level of organisational solidarity and seeing a broader range of groups being reflected in the submission process.

One of the reflections that came through the submission process, too, was how inaccessible the process can often be for people. I was really pleased to see my select committee colleagues undertake a collective effort alongside the committee staff to make the submission process more accessible. I’m going to list out some of the interventions that were taken to make the process a little bit more accessible, and I hope that, actually, this is reflected in broader select committee processes; perhaps not just in those that are very specifically addressing the needs of disabled people, because ultimately what we want is a democracy that works for everyone.

Some of the things that were done was to give more time for people to submit, and I think particularly this is something that, as a first time MP, I’ve reflected on how those precious five minutes to speak to MPs can often become a nerve-wracking and often inaccessible process. There were also attempts to encourage people to submit by creating a video and understanding that the video format presents another method for people to engage with. All of the oral submissions were also translated into sign language, and these submissions were also captioned and transcribed live. There was also a full transcript of submissions being made available after all submissions were completed.

I reflect as I say this, and particularly as I talk about sign language interpretation, how we haven’t yet got into a place where even this space, in the second reading, is fully accessible and that there is far more work to be done. For me, the reflection that I am taking from submitters is the need not to just improve legislation so that people can fully participate in their communities but what can we make as legislators to make this whole process better for our communities.

I’d like to extend my thanks to my committee members, including from all sides of the House, who have been broadly supportive of this bill, which is great to see. I think this is the second bill since Mojo left Parliament, a few years ago, under her name that has gotten support across the House. That just shows her amazing work and legacy in creating members bills which are discrete, effective, and that reflect the desires of the community.

I also want to thank the Ministry of Justice staff, Office for Disability Issues, and the Department of Internal Affairs for providing really sensible advice. As part of that process and advice we received, one of their recommendations that is coming out of this is actually to review the statutory uses of the terms “guide dog”, “companion dog”, and “hearing ear dog” and consider whether they should be updated, because one of the things we heard throughout the process is just the broad range of definitions. We do want to make sure that there is consistency with the Dog Control Act and so making sure that these definitions are up to date is really important.

Lastly, I would like to challenge one of the few dissenting voices in our submission process, which was basically stating that their concern was that perhaps we’ll see more dogs in public. I want to say to people who may have felt that way that actually what this bill do is enable disabled people to participate and their concerns around perhaps seeing more dogs in public should not outweigh the benefits that this bill will ultimately have. Kia ora.

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

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to stand and speak on this bill, the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill. It was a mouthful, but it was a real joy to have cross-party support and to work our way through this legislation.

I too want to acknowledge our officials from the Ministry of Justice who supported us, but I also want to have a particular shout-out to the Office of the Clerk here in Parliament, and that is because—and my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March has mentioned this—they worked very, very carefully to try and ensure accessibility for our disability community. Now, they worked with the Office for Disability Issues quite closely to enable some processes.

The member Ricardo Menéndez March I must commend for having this bill pulled out of the ballot, and also for his gracious sharing and acknowledgment of Mojo Mathers’ work in this space. I think it speaks of your values, so I want to acknowledge you for that, and for enabling this space for Mojo to also come and speak to this bill and for being very respectful of the legacy that she brings. So I want to acknowledge you and also congratulate you. I’m a little bit jealous that you’ve got a bill pulled out of the ballot.

So just to very quickly go through: as the member has outlined, we did do a number of things in order to try and support the accessibility, and we call on all select committees in this House to try and put in place some of these things as well. The member has mentioned additional time. Now, additional time is important when members from the disability community are submitting, particularly in the instance where we had interpreters come with us and some members were communicating by sign language. It was appropriate that we, as a select committee, had some assistance ourselves around how we would appropriately approach and engage, perhaps the speed of how we spoke—those kinds of things as well.

The Office for Disability Issues came and helped and supported us with advice and the clerks helped us as well, and we had a couple of training sessions around how to work in an appropriate way. I think that that’s really interesting, having been a second-term member of Parliament, to actually begin to unwrap and unravel this process and ensure that, actually, we were doing things right. I encourage all members across the House to engage in that process.

So what does this bill do? This bill is a very thoughtful, very small change, but it essentially changes the effect to say that a guide dog or a disability assist dog—when we discriminate when a person has that dog in public, then we’re discriminating against the person’s right to access and to full participation. It really just very simply makes it clear that you can’t discriminate against a person because they have a disability assist dog.

Now, many of us would think that of course that’s perfectly normal—that is absolutely normal—but what we learnt from hearing from the submitters was that, actually, people didn’t understand the purpose of disability assist dogs. They didn’t understand that they were actually there to help and support a person. So we heard things like people were being denied access to cafes and to buses. They were unable to rent apartments and do all sorts of things because they had a disability assist dog, and so this bill is actually a really perfect solution for fixing that.

I think it’s really useful to talk about the way that we approached this. The bill had to be quite small. It had to be quite discrete in its process. I read back over the Hansard record of the first reading debate, and we were quite wide in our understanding and quite wide in our briefing of what we might want to possibly look at, but we actually just came to a very, very useful place. So we didn’t make any amendments to the bill, which is fair enough really—it’s quite a small bill. It’s quite small in terms of what it actually says, and that is particularly that it amends the Human Rights Act 1993—the principal Act—to include the insertion: “ ‘disability assist dog’ has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dog Control Act 1996”, which really just allows dogs to enter and access and for them to have the same rights as us.

When hearing from submitters, I thought it was quite interesting. We heard from 75 submitters and, except for the one that the member spoke to, they were pretty much 100 percent in support of this change. I will quote the submission from Graham Oliver, who sort of summed up, really, how we all as a select committee felt but also how the submitters felt. Graham Oliver said, “Disability assist dogs should be allowed everywhere without exception. It’s what I would want for myself if I had one.” Now, you can’t say anything much more plainer than that, can you? In fact, that’s the reality. I would like to think that if I needed to use a taxi and I had a disability assist dog, no one would prevent me from doing so.

Then we also had another submission which came from a person called D C Webster, and he was quoting the words from a Spinoff article from November 2021 by Hannah Gibson. I thought this was quite powerful and quite useful for us to reflect upon, and we heard many submissions like this. Hannah Gibson said, “As an extension of my arms and legs, Darcy is part of my physical body. Sometimes I call him my shadow, but really, he allows my precarious and struggling (but strong in many other ways) body to do more than I ever thought possible. He is my independence; he bolsters my confidence. I know that with him, I am safe. To deny him entry is essentially denying me. It strips me of choice. If the bill is passed as legislation, it will not magically make Wellington less hilly and inaccessible, but it would make a tangible difference to many of us with mobility assistance dogs.” She said, “The bill is welcome news.”, and I absolutely agree with that.

I think it is worthwhile for us even to think about when we were plainly and simply planning how to enable accessibility, to enable transcription, to have sign language, to organise the sign language interpreters to come to support us, and to ensure the pace of the meeting was appropriate. All of these things we had to think about very carefully, so there but for the grace of God go I that I do not have to think about those things every day. I am incredibly privileged to not have to do that, which is why I am so delighted that at this second reading, we haven’t changed the bill at all, but we, I believe, are unanimously going to support this bill in its second reading. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak in support of this bill, the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill, in this second reading. I do want to congratulate Ricardo Menéndez March on his good fortune in being able to bring this bill to the House. And also, I want to make mention of Mojo Mathers and the work that was done back in 2015.

The two previous speakers, Angie Warren-Clark and Ricardo Menéndez March, have spoken about the submitters, and I also want to acknowledge the individuals and the organisations who submitted on this bill. They talked about, particularly the individual submitters, their very personal experiences, and it absolutely brought home how important this bill is and how important the disability assist dogs are to people living with a disability. The support and the independence that these dogs give them is just something that was wonderful to be able to listen to the examples.

I guess the thing that was very sobering, listening to the individual submissions, was the level of discrimination that had been experienced by a number of people living with disabilities around access with their dogs, whether it was housing or access to public transport, to public buildings, or things like cafes or movie theatres, which we might take as granted. To be denied access because of your assist dog is not only distressing but incredibly debilitating for New Zealanders living with a disability being able to live what should be access to normal life. So we certainly are very supportive and know that we need to work diligently to remove a number of these barriers. Certainly the first part of the legislative change, replacing a “guide dog” with a “disability assist dog”, is a very simple part of the legislation.

The bit that I do want to flag that I wonder if we’ve got some more work to do on, and I’m very keen to see if we might be able to get some cross-party agreement on, is the definition of the assist dog being a dog certified by an organisation specified in the Act as being a dog trained to assist a person with a disability. There are a number of organisations that are authorised to do this training, and certainly all of those organisations we absolutely support as organisations that are appropriate to be doing that training, and we certainly support each of those. But I just want to flag that we may be able to improve the legislation by making it more enabling, because we know that demand routinely exceeds supply and there are quite extensive waiting lists with every existing recognised training agency. We also know that there are several agencies that require applicants to personally fundraise quite significant sums of money ranging from $5,000 to $20,000 before they can receive training or receive a dog. And so that further constrains just who can get access to disability assist dogs.

The other complication is that most recognised training agencies work with only one specific type of disability, i.e., visual impairment or auditory impairment, and also there are some restrictions geographically, meaning that individuals with perhaps rare or multiple types of impairment have no way in which to access a dog trained specifically to their very unique needs. And so one of the things that we want to flag is that we may want to put a Supplementary Order Paper forward that looks at altering the definition of a disability assist dog from a disability assist dog being a dog certified by an organisation specified in the Act as being a dog trained to assist a person with a disability to a disability assist dog being a dog that has been or is being individually trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability. The tasks performed by the dog must be directly related to the person’s disability. This is in no way wanting to constrain the legislation, but rather to broaden and provide greater enabling of more agencies to be able to train. So it would enable suitably qualified and experienced private trainers and disabled individuals to be able to customise that training.

That would also align the legislation with best practice disability assist dog legislation, which exists in other jurisdictions which we would often compare ourselves to, and particularly the US, Canada, Australia, and the UK. So we would welcome the opportunity—and I apologise that it is at this late stage, but it is as a result of some further consultation—to have that discussion, which might provide greater freedom of choice, a greater range of options, and also a greater supply of recognised trained assist dogs.

We are very, very supportive of the intent of this bill. We certainly want to work closely with other parties to see if we can improve the legislation, even at this late stage, and we are delighted to be supporting it. I know that there’s a range of issues that New Zealanders living with a disability have to contend with every day, and I’m reminded of that saying that you can only eat an elephant one bite at a time. I guess this is one bite, one small bite. There are many, many other issues that we need to be looking at to remove discrimination and to help improve the lives of New Zealanders living with a disability. One that comes to mind is one that is very dear to my heart and that is respite care and the ability to get access to respite care for people living with a disability and their families dealing with caring for family dependents with a disability.

This is a good piece of legislation. I compliment the member for bringing the legislation to us, but I remind members of the House that there is certainly quite a lot of work for us to continue on with to be making the lives of New Zealanders living with a disability, and their families, better and things that we can do and should do as we work diligently to improve their lives. So I commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.

Speaker’s Statements

Privilege—Freedom of Speech in the House

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, earlier this afternoon, in the debate on the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill, there was a speech by a member which expressed some strongly held views. I am aware, and it is well known, that different parties in this House do hold genuinely held views around the policies of some of the parties. Some of those may be suggested to be racist in nature. However, there is a freedom of speech—strong freedom of speech—interest in members being able to express their views in this House. But that, of course, does have to be balanced by members calling other members racist. That will lead to disorder, and it doesn’t in any way assist the order and the debate of this House. I want to call on, finally, Speaker’s ruling 37/4, where it says, “It is incumbent on all members to treat the privilege of free speech in the House with the utmost respect and to use it only in the public interest”. Members, I’m happy to take another call, but I will have to cut the member off at five past six.

Bills

Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you for letting me see us into dinner time and speak on the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill. I just want to commend my National Party colleague who just resumed her seat, Penny Simmonds. Yes, we do have a lot more work to do, and we will continue to do that work to ensure that discrimination is just done away with in all parts of our society. This is a small step in that process, and I’m grateful, as a member of the Social Services and Community Committee, to have been part of this process to ensure that our disability community are yet again more normalised. But, as I said, we have a long way to go.

In terms of this piece of legislation, I won’t go over what’s already been said, because, pretty much, the essence of the simplicity but effectiveness of this piece of legislation has been talked about. It’s around non-discrimination, but it’s, obviously, around ableism around disability assist dogs. It’s about changing some wording but, more than that, giving greater access for people in terms of their everyday lives, getting around and about.

I just want to really briefly touch on this—and Penny Simmonds did mention that, and we’re happy to keep talking in terms of what we do. At the moment, under section 2 of the Dog Control Act, there are certified organisations that look after it—for example Assistance Dogs New Zealand, Hearing Dogs for Deaf People New Zealand, K9 Medical Detection New Zealand, K9 SEARCH Medical Detection, Mobility Assistance Dogs Trust, New Zealand Epilepsy Assist Dogs Trust, Perfect Partners Assistance Dogs Trust, and, of course, the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Incorporated, which is Blind Low Vision New Zealand.

Again, in terms of my learning in this process, it seemed really simplistic to me what a disability assist dog does. But, as I listened to the submissions—as I listened to submissions from some of these organisations and from individuals—it was everything from support for people with autism, cerebral palsy, or diabetes through to the detection of cancer and other diseases as well as performing tasks such as picking up and retrieving items, alerting the owner to an upcoming medical episode, finding help, opening doors, and interrupting behaviour—and the list goes on. It’s incredible to know that our canine friends are so intelligent and that we can, hopefully, join them in that intelligence, because dogs just love people and we need to ensure that we love people and we need to ensure that people aren’t discriminated against.

This piece of legislation does all of that. I want to thank Ricardo Menéndez March for making sure it was in the ballot and again thank Mojo Mathers. Sadly, she wasn’t able to draw it when she was in this House, but at least her legacy continues in this place.

Hon Member: For ever.

GLEN BENNETT: For ever, exactly.

In closing, I just want to thank all those—for example, the Ministry of Justice, the clerks of the committee, the Office for Disability Issues, our submitters, and our select committee. But I also want to thank those who go out of their way to train disability assist dogs. There are many volunteers that have these dogs in their homes to prepare them for their life of work and service. I want to thank them. Finally, I want to thank the disability community for yet again being patient with us, coming along with us, and ensuring that we can continue to build a more inclusive society. I commend this bill to the House.

Sitting suspended from 6.02 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you so much. Look, it’s a pleasure to be able to support this bill. I’d just like to reiterate some of the comments of my colleague Penny Simmonds, our disability spokesperson, who’s talked about putting in a Supplementary Order Paper in the committee of the whole House stage on the basis that there’s some issues around who can actually train these dogs. I’m happy to support this because actually disability issues are human rights issues. Many of us either have disability issues or have family with disability issues. I say that not to say, “Gosh, there are some people here with disability issues.”, but it’s because we’re just like representatives of New Zealanders and this is a normal part of people’s lives—that they have to sometimes deal with disabilities and you just never know when it’s going to strike.

One of the things I really liked about this is the acknowledgment of the fact that this is a mainstream issue, because this is something that everybody has to either deal with sometime in their lives or else a family member or a friend of theirs will. I was very pleased to see the work that Corrections did when I was first their Minister around training of disability dogs and I saw this happening in the women’s prison at Wiri in Auckland—just how good it was to be able to see the first of those dogs come out from that training programme. I was very pleased to be the Minister there. I know where some of those dogs went and I know that they really contributed vastly to people’s enjoyment of life, their quality of life, and actually also the friendship that a dog can bring.

I want to also acknowledge Mojo Mathers, who was an MP and was the person who actually first brought this issue to the House, citing some issues—anecdotally, but still issues—where people had found that they were discriminated against because their dogs were not able to get access to be with them at various times. I’d also like to acknowledge Ricardo Menéndez March, who has picked up this bill from Mojo Mathers and has been able to continue with it.

These dogs, those of us who have seen them working, being part of someone’s family, helping people who can’t in many cases do things like open their front door, can’t pick up their phone—the dogs will go and pick up the phone, bring it to them. They probably don’t answer them that well, but at least they pick it up. Those dogs make a huge difference to people’s lives, and they don’t have to be particularly special dogs. They just have to be dogs that are big enough to do those tasks and are properly trained. When we look at the training, the trainers who actually do this, they work with people in, for instance, Corrections to be able to have prisoners and others train these dogs. It not only worked in the women’s prison but the second time I was Minister of Corrections, at that stage it had actually moved to Spring Hill prison as well, where male prisoners were taking these dogs in from almost zero training and actually training them so that they would contribute to the wellbeing and happiness of those who were less able.

This is a really good thing to do and it is a terrible thing to think that there are people who would not understand just how important these disability dogs are. They make the difference for people whether or not they can get a phone call, whether or not they can open their front door, whether or not they can put their washing machine on. These dogs are so well trained, and this is something that we believe is a very important human right—that people should be able to, no matter what their disability status or what their status is, be able to access this most basic of human rights. So happy to support this bill.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora, te Māngai o te Whare. It’s a joy to be able to stand and take a call on this bill, and I mean that quite literally. It is a joy to be able to stand and take a call on this bill, because I take this call on this small but perfectly formed bill in the peculiar situation of actually experiencing temporary disability. And so I am ever more aware of, as my chair on the Social Services and Community Committee, Angie Warren-Clark, said earlier, “There but for the grace of God.” Because it is one in four New Zealanders who identify themselves as having a permanent impairment that cannot be easily overcome. I note that for adults, accidents and injuries are a leading cause of permanent disability, and I note that that is particularly the case for men. But I’m glad, or not so glad, to be blazing a trail for the women in this case, as my own temporary experience of disability came as the result of a particularly unedifying accident involving shoelaces and Mount Taranaki. It is humbling to experience the reality of impairment.

In this House—I actually had a look to see how many of our members have walked around this place with physical impairment, and I noted that the first one appears to be a Clutha Mackenzie, who was blinded in World War I. But then there is the remarkable, if somewhat divisive, early Labour member John A. Lee, who lost his right arm, also in World War I. We then have a series of other MPs who came here as veterans having lost arms and legs; and then we went on to Margaret Wilson, who, of course, walked these corridors as an amputee; and then the great Mojo Mathers, to whom we are all indebted tonight and whose legacy in this House Ricardo Menéndez March has so ably picked up.

As I have walked around this House, it has really struck me how small things are difficult, since I had this accident and broke my leg. It is incredible how difficult it is to do the tiniest things, whether it is achieving my personal goal for the last two months, which was to be able to walk on one crutch and a moon boot so that I could carry a cup of tea. It’s something so simple, and yet, without assistance, I have been incapable of attaining sufficient quantities of my favourite beverage, which, as my colleagues and my family will attest, has not been good for harmony in the household.

So when I look at this bill, this small but perfectly formed bill that my colleague brought to us in the Social Services and Community Committee, I think what’s really important about it is it addresses the ableist concept that disability dogs might only include the guide dog and the blind assistance dog, of whom we are all aware. But as my colleagues have said, disability assist dogs and the capacity of our canine companions to alleviate and enable and facilitate our full lives as people with impairments—they go so much further. So I note that one of the leading causes of disability amongst children is actually psychological or psychiatric impairment or learning disability. And in that respect, it is really interesting to consider that we have dogs out there who are able to anticipate when an epilepsy attack is coming on, when a heart attack is coming on, when a narcolepsy attack might be coming on, or even diabetes, or respond to anaphylaxis. As the mother of a child with a serious anaphylactic reaction who has had periods where we’ve had to travel with several EpiPens upon us, that prospect, and the life-affirming and enabling prospect of having a canine companion who could actually ring the alarm when there is such an incident, is a remarkable thing.

But at the same time, amongst the 75 submitters who were community minded enough to participate in this process, we heard of the range of impacts that the denial of the full range of canine assistance—we heard about the impact that’s had. Whether it is the inability to get a rental property without quite elaborate ways of explaining to the landlord how important that might be, whether it is getting into a shop to have a coffee, whether it is getting on a bus—these are all normal aspects of life, but without making this change, which will, hopefully, bring about the wider awareness of the importance of disability assist dogs, people have been forced to limit themselves and limit their lives. And that is the agenda of this party on this side of the House when it comes to disability: we want to pursue policies that are about enabling people living with disabilities to live good lives and productive lives. That is why we have set up the Ministry for Disabled People, that is why we are pursuing a range of Budget initiatives to fund programmes which will assist people with disabilities, and that is why we are so very pleased to be able to support this particular bill.

One of the things I did want to just be able to talk about, because I think it’s an aspect of what we do—in my life prior to breaking the leg and coming to this wonderful House, I worked quite a bit in trying to make the court a more friendly place for people with vulnerabilities, both physical and intellectual and also speech, which, I noticed, is one of the other major disabilities for children. And one of the ways in which we attempted to get the court to open up and be more accommodating of disability was to introduce court support dogs. There was, unfortunately—Whangārei was leading the charge, we did have a support dog ready to go into court, a delightful labradoodle, but we were pipped at the post. We were pipped at the post by Tauranga.

Angie Warren-Clark: Aha!

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: Yes, those Taurangians were very quick to see what good things Whangārei was introducing, and they had a wonderful dog called Louie—Louie the Labrador—who actually met, in his early role, I believe it was Minister Amy Adams, when she was justice Minister. The impact of Louie on the ability of traumatised and emotionally distressed children to come to court and to give their evidence with clarity and assurance was really remarkable, and that is the experience that’s been found when those same emotional support dogs are used in other courts around the world. There is quite extensive literature. Now, unfortunately, in getting ready to give this speech, I discovered that Louie passed away quite recently. I hope that out there somewhere there is Louis number two. Maybe we will get up to Louie XVI. Who knows? I see a blond Labrador Sun King.

But in whatever we do, the point is that disability needs to be recognised in the full gamut, and we, as a society, as a Parliament, and as a Government need to be putting in place the full range of measures that would allow people living with disabilities to live good, productive lives and live up to their potential. And with that, and with some gratitude, I now take my seat and the pressure off the moon boot. I commend this bill to the House.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill. When I was thinking about the conversations I’ve had around disabilities over the years and the connection that it has to me with my family, as I have family members that have relied on guide dogs and other things, and also family members that suffer from learning disabilities and other issues—and a lot of it is confidence and feeling like you belong and not being afraid to go out and do the things you really want to do. By changing the definition to a disability assist dog, I think it just gives people confidence to go out and know that businesses now know they are obligated to not discriminate against service dogs, really, because these aren’t dogs; these are working dogs that are doing a job and assisting these people to be the best that they can be.

I have stood up on many occasions here and said sometimes it’s the littlest things that make the biggest difference. It’s about, as I just said before, making sure that we put things in place in this Parliament to help people be the best that they can be, and I feel that this bill does achieve that. So I’d just also like to give a little plug to how animals can help us in many ways. Seeing as it’s St John’s Heart of Gold Annual Appeal Week, I’d just like to mention their therapy pet programme that they have. They go along with pets and visit people, and it’s been found that animals can help people with their wellbeing and with their mental health. So there are many ways that animals help us in this life, and I feel that the more we acknowledge it, the further we’ll get when it comes to disabilities, and we will find animals that will do even more than what they’re already doing.

So when it comes to my family members that I know that have used disability assist dogs, they’re also like family. So when you discriminate against a dog that you’re taking out with you to live your normal everyday life, you’re not just discriminating against the person, you’re also discriminating against an animal that is just doing its job. So we need to stop looking at these animals as pets and start looking at them as an extension of the person that they’re beside, and treat them with the respect that they deserve.

Out of the 75 submissions we heard, pretty much all of them were in favour and expressed that the bill would bring a positive outcome to the disabled community. But what I really would like to mention is this opened up new avenues of the way we do things within our select committees. So not only did it bring the attention to the disability assist dogs, it brought attention to the fact that there are many barriers for the disabled community.

I’m really proud of the fact that our select committee, the Social Services and Community Committee, is taking on a role of leading the charge in making Parliament more accessible to the disabled community. We’ve had a lot of different ways of promoting how the disabled community can submit to us in ways that fit with how they are capable of submitting. We’ve had interpreters within our select committee—even on our Zoom meetings we’ve managed to get interpreters in—and we’ve also had the captions added to the bottom of our submissions for the disabled community that’s watching and trying to follow what’s going on. So I’m really proud of that and I feel we’re learning a lot and we’re also opening up our eyes to the barriers that we take for granted every day. Some people, just as I’ve said, just want to be the best that they can be. And if we can help just a little bit with that, then that makes me proud to be part of the select committee I’m on. Thank you very much to everyone on our select committee that has made that possible.

So I hope that this small change makes a big difference in the lives of people when they go out and they don’t have the fear of being turned away and discriminated against the next time they walk into a shop just to live their lives. With that, I support this bill.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. As always, it’s an honour and a privilege to stand up as the member of Parliament for the Ōtaki electorate but also as a member of the Social Services and Community Committee who heard the 75 submissions, all in favour of this bill. It makes sense. It’s a common-sense bill, so no surprise there that everyone supported it. It is a real privilege to stand in support of this bill, the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill—really long, quite a small change, but really effective.

Can I, first, congratulate the member who’s championing this bill through, Mr Ricardo Menéndez March. First of all, congratulations for pulling the bill out of the biscuit tin—that’s amazing—but also for making sure that this is the bill that you chose to champion and bring this kaupapa to the Chamber. It’s so important and I know your passion around people with disabilities and being able to support that community. So, really proud of that. Thank you very much for that.

Also, I wanted to pick up—and I know other people have talked about this already—currently, we know that the Human Rights Act had guide dogs in there, who have got protection and who have got rights to be able to accompany their companion or their person with a sight impairment or who may be blind, guide them through buildings, on buses, and in taxis, with no issues—and as it should be; there shouldn’t be any issues around that. But, as we also know, people who are sight impaired and blind aren’t the only ones that need assistance from disability assist dogs. So while the guide dogs have those protections and those rights, currently we know that the disability assist dogs don’t, which means, like my colleague across the way from our Social Services and Community Committee mentioned, that the person with a disability also is discriminated against when people don’t allow that person to bring their dog in.

Also, I would mimic that these are not pets. These dogs have a job to do. Their job is to keep that person safe. We know, again, that there are many reasons that someone might need a disability assist dog and that isn’t, again, just sight impaired, but it could also be for your ears, for alerts, and for many other varieties of issues. So, for that, we need to also make sure that when people do go into buildings, into taxis, or into buses that they don’t end up having to justify why they need to bring the disability assist dog that will keep them safe from harm with them on those travels or in that building.

This, again, is just a small change, but it’s mighty, right? So changing it to a “disability assist dog” rather than “guide dog” in the Human Rights Act is going to mean that, like I said, all of our working dogs in terms of disabilities are recognised. But also it changes and modernises the out-of-date language that’s currently in the Human Rights Act.

I would also say that we heard from many of the 75 submitters and some of those that had real-life, lived experience in terms of disabilities. I myself have 12 years’ experience both here and overseas in working with people with disabilities and mental health, both in the Ōtaki electorate—so working at Kimberley Centre; can’t get much more dual diagnosis, disability and mental health, than that—and also in Wellington as well with supported employment.

I can say that I have worked with someone who had severe anxiety due to other things that had happened in her past, and it was a real issue to even get past her driveway and out. So when this person did have to venture out to doctor’s appointments and what not, they were able to take their disability assist dog with them, and, even though she may still have a panic attack, that disability assist dog, having been with her for some time, knew when that was coming on, was able to bring her down by his body language and the way they communicated, bring her breathing down, get her to calm back down and be able to calmly make her way back home. That’s just one of the many.

I had another young man that I worked with who had severe epilepsy, grade-A seizures, and we actually helped to support him into work, into a butchery. With him, his disability assist guide dog knew when that grade-A seizure was coming on. What that meant was that dog was able to alert him, if he didn’t already feel it himself, but also alert people around him so that they would give him space, and, hopefully, when he could, he could get himself into a position or into a space where there would be less harm to him when his episode did come on and that, hopefully, physically he would be OK once he came out of that. That’s what that disability assist dog was able to do. That was that dog’s job: to be able to keep that person as safe as they could and warn them, like I said, as well as warning other people around them. There are so many more examples.

This bill makes sure that if we are truly going to say that we’re supporting people with disabilities, if we’re truly saying that we’re going to give true accessibility, if we are truly saying that we want people with disabilities to be able to be independent, live their best lives, and be part of our society, then this is, if you like, a tool, in terms of being a disability assist dog, that they need to be able to do all those things.

That is why, again, while it’s a small change, it’s mighty. We know—and, again, working in that space and listening to the submitters—the difference that’s going to make for many of our people in our disabilities community. I think, too, having this where it’s legal, a change in the Human Rights Act, they have something to fall back on when they are challenged in terms of entering a shop or they are challenged in terms of bringing their dog on the bus. It’s not a pet. It’s not there just for company or to look good or in someone’s handbag; it’s actually there to do a job, to make sure that they’re keeping that person safe, to be maybe that person’s eyes, maybe that person’s ears, maybe that person’s alertness so they—like one of my colleagues sad earlier—you know, prevent a heart attack. That is the significance of one change—well, a name change, I guess. But within that name change, so much good will come, especially for our disability community.

So, again, I just want to say that I’m really proud to stand with this bill and support this bill. It absolutely makes sense. It absolutely gets rid of that discrimination and makes sure that everybody in New Zealand gets to live their best lives. So, for that, I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): In the words of Winston McCarthy, this time I call Nicola Grigg—five minutes.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): I’ll try not to disappoint, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Five minutes.

NICOLA GRIGG: Much has been made of the benefits and merits of this bill, so we on this side of the House are going to keep it short and succinct this evening. The purpose of this bill is that it will ensure that all people who need assistance from a dog are protected from discrimination on the basis of having a disability. I think it’s probably fair to say that people who live with a disability, no matter what kind, probably find life difficult enough as it is. The last thing they need is further discrimination thrown at them.

It’s a very simple change, but it will make a big difference. That change is made by replacing the words “guide dog” with “disability assist dog” in the Human Rights Act. This change would mean that anywhere that a service is denied to a person with a disability because of the fact they are in the company of a dog or have a dog with them would be seen as a discrimination under the Human Rights Act.

It’s been widely canvassed this evening that disability assist dogs are a valuable service to many, many New Zealanders who enhance their life experience and also give them that essential companionship. As it stands, the Human Rights Act only protects against discrimination of those with guide dogs. It doesn’t protect against discrimination of the likes of hearing dogs, mobility dogs, epilepsy dogs, and so on and so forth.

Also, it does account for the training for the assistance of these dogs with specific tasks. I do hope the Government endorses the Supplementary Order Paper mentioned by my colleague Penny Simmonds. That would expand and enhance those trainers with those specific skills to give them the necessary accreditation as well.

This change will give these dogs—and, importantly, their owners—the same protections given to guide dogs that they have enjoyed for 30 years. I also commend this bill to the House.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand up just to talk briefly about the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill. I think we need to place this bill in what’s really a tapestry of legislation which is increasingly not just recognising but doing much more than that—kind of legitimising and putting on equal footing those members of the disability community. This is just one small part of that. I mean, we wouldn’t for a moment dream of telling people that they couldn’t enter somewhere because they had a wheelchair or a walking stick or a moon boot, indeed. But the suggestion here is that people who come in with dogs, which are just as essential to them being able to access as much as possible the amenity that ordinary able people can, are in some ways discriminated against. So congratulations to Mr Menéndez March for identifying this as an issue and recognising that this, you know, slim bill is an important step towards that.

I guess, it’s really a signal—and I want to recognise, having had it reported back from the select committee, the fact that the select committee went out of its way to make sure that its own process was accessible. I think that’s something that all select committees would do well to take note of, just to make sure that those barriers which able people perhaps don’t see—that we turn our minds specifically to them and ask the question: “Well, you know, how is this going to be approachable for someone with low or no vision, or low or no hearing, or limited mobility, or any other number—or neurodiverse?” My own Youth MP is neurodiverse and I must say she is teaching me a lot about the challenges that face people whose disabilities may not be immediately apparent. So when we do see someone—and I notice that it’s identified in this bill—perhaps with a companion dog, a dog that is an assistance dog, that we don’t leap to conclusions about the need or otherwise for that assistance, that we don’t leap to some sort of judgment but we accept in good faith that that animal is there for a reason because as soon as we make an assumption, we run the risk of, essentially, being discriminatory.

I think we have made leaps and bounds in years in some areas. But I do think that in respect of disabilities, and especially in respect of disabilities which aren’t immediately apparent to us—that aren’t mobility disabilities or the like—we can sometimes brush them aside as trivial. I guess I’m challenging us here in the House, in our select committees, to just pause and engage—engage with the disability community and ask. Don’t tell what the right thing to do is but ask: “What can we do to come to you?”; not, “How can we make it easier for you to come to us?” but really for us to cross the bridge to them rather than the other way round.

So, again, congratulations to the member for this bill. Obviously, the Human Rights Act—and I think it’s important to recognise, you know, this piece of what is constitutional legislation is not static, and it will never be static, because our society evolves and we increasingly recognise and extend and expand our human rights horizon. I’m very glad to see that we’re doing this in respect of, you know, companion and assistance animals that make the lives of these people in the disabled community that much better. So, very happy on this side of the House to commend it.

It looks like a small piece of—you know, a change of a definition and an inclusion in the Human Rights Act but I can see that for some people, this will actually be transformative. This will make them be able to go places they couldn’t go before with a sense of pride and a sense of not having to apologise for the fact that they’re bringing this companion animal with them. So, once again, to Mr Menéndez March, well done. Congratulations on identifying this and moving just one step further on the journey of making sure that all New Zealanders can fully participate in our community. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. It’s a privilege to stand and speak on the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill. First and foremost, it’s important to acknowledge the genesis of this bill which came from Mojo Mathers, who had many previous bills that have furthered the rights of the disability community in New Zealand—and this is yet another one. I’d like to also acknowledge Ricardo Menéndez for taking on this bill. I think it’s really important that we continue to have these debates and continue to talk about how we can improve accessibility in New Zealand; no matter how small those steps are, they’re important ones.

This bill amends the Human Rights Act 1993 to enhance the protection from discrimination for people who rely on disability assist dogs. And it, quite rightly, identifies a very clear issue: that, currently, Section 21 of the Human Rights Act only references “guide dogs” in its definition of disability. This bill takes a step to fix that issue by changing the wording to the broader term of “disability assist dog”, as defined out of the Dog Control Act in 1996, ensuring that those who rely on the kinds of disability assist dogs are afforded the protections that currently exist for people with guide dogs.

The example that springs to mind is the person who wants to step on a bus with a guide dog and is denied entry, and that is not right. It’s hard enough, in itself, with disability, to find yourself on public transport and get where you’re going without having a bus driver telling you that your dog can’t come on the bus. So if we can do anything within this House to provide more fluid, easier transitions for people who, on a daily and hourly basis, have to grapple with the obstacles that a disability presents, then that’s a good thing to get done.

This bill will help ensure more Kiwis are protected from discrimination under the Act and, hopefully, enhance their rights under the Act as well. Labour supports this as a positive change, one that will modernise out-of-date language in the Human Rights Act and also protect the basic rights of those New Zealanders who are living with a disability.

We would like to acknowledge all those that have done this, and I’ve already mentioned Mojo Mathers, but there’s a couple of other people who I would personally like to mention, and they are the people that have shaped my further understanding of disability issues in New Zealand. Number one would be Ruth Dyson. Ruth Dyson was a fearsome champion for disability rights, within the Labour Party and within Government, who took on that role and really owned it, who fought strongly, and was always available to provide advice and information in relation to issues—and I learnt a lot as a new MP with her wisdom.

The second person who I’ve learnt a lot about is someone who’s now passed away, and his name was Mike Grigg. He was a strong advocate, a person with autism who was fearsome in his advocateship for accessibility. As soon as I became a member of Parliament in Hutt South, I was told, in no uncertain terms, that I would have to seek a meeting or Mike would seek me out. And, no doubt, he did that with every single elected official, whether they be from local, regional, or central government, and he, in his fight for increased accessibility for himself and his son, taught me a lot. So I would like to mention Mike and all he has done for the disability community in New Zealand and in the Hutt.

We support this bill because it aligns with our values and it is important that we protect the basic right of disabled New Zealanders to live free from discrimination. It makes a simple but effective change to our human rights law to help ensure that it covers the wide range of support dogs that assist disabled New Zealanders today.

Section 21 of the Human Rights Act, which lays out the prohibited grounds for discrimination, is enshrined in the heart of our human rights framework. And it specifically identifies guide dogs under the clauses that relate to discrimination against disabled people.

At that point, I would like refer to some of the submissions that were received at the Social Services and Community Committee. I’d like to acknowledge those members—Angie Warren-Clark and those members of the Social Services and Community Committee that went through this bill, added to it, and heard those submissions. The Human Rights Commission gave a very strong submission in terms of what this does and I’d like to quickly refer to what they’ve pointed out, because I think it nails it pretty well. It says, in their submission, that “This Bill represents another small step to enable disabled New Zealanders, using disability assist dogs, … to live fulfilling lives and [to] participate in an equitable and accessible society.”; and I think that is so important. They reference that this bill aligns with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, particularly Article 9, relating to accessibility.

The New Zealand Government stands by the fact that it has an obligation to take appropriate methods to ensure that disabled people have rights and have access on an equal basis with others. And we need to be able to identify where that discrimination is occurring, and this bill takes a step in that direction.

I think it’s also important to talk about the types of things that guide dogs do, because, typically, we think that they just help somebody get from A to B, but they do a whole lot more than that. They help to alert deaf people if there is a fire alarm in their home, if the doorbell is ringing. They help people who have epilepsy to manage seizures. They also help retrieve objects for people who are in wheelchairs. They might even help a handler with limited mobility with everyday activities such as opening a door or getting something. They also provide support for those people with autism, those who are neurodiverse; they provide that support and ability. And, as a society, as we get more perceptive about identifying and understanding the neurodiverse spectrum, it’s really important we also identify ways that help people get on with their day-to-day lives, and if having a dog nearby makes that better, then so be it—in terms of my point of view.

In some cases, dogs even save lives. It’s important to note that, for those they assist, these dogs are much more than just a tool, they are a loved and trusted companion, and they are a doorway into enjoying a more fulsome life. We need to make sure that we not only support by giving kindly when we see collections at the supermarket or at our street, to make sure we have more guide dogs and more encouragement for supporting those organisations, but that we recognise that dutiful role that guide dogs play to people and that they are such a critical part of their lives.

I think it’s also important to note that, when discussing this bill, the definition sets a high standard. The previous bill set a very high standard for what is included under the Human Rights Act. They must be certified as one of the eight organisations, they must meet very specific criteria in order to be certified. So it’s not the case that any person will be able to claim that an animal is a disability assist dog and try and claim that protection under the Act.

So for some of the examples that I’ve just provided, it does not seem right or fair that you would deny someone the ability to have that support just for the fact that it doesn’t meet the criteria stipulated in legislation—that seems antiquated and this bill seeks to rectify it, which is a good thing.

Our wider support for disabled New Zealanders—this is part of what we support in going forward. And it is really important that we pay reference to the New Zealand Disability Strategy that spans for a decade, 2016 to 2026. The strategy and the Disability Action Plan are key mechanisms for continuing the work that we do today, to continue to progress New Zealand’s realisation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The Disability Action Plan is the primary vehicle, in New Zealand, that we seek to continue to make these gains. It is comprised of 29 comprehensive work programmes and aligned with outcomes that deliver, each day, in different ways, to try and make these barriers, that we see, fewer.

While we are seeing promising progress across Government, there is always much more work to be done. It is critical that actions and work programmes, agreed in the Disability Action Plan, are progressed. And these happen from central government right down to day-to-day work we see in our local and regional councils.

I’d like to quickly mention that, in conclusion, there have been other great bills passed, improving access of individuals with disability to participate as candidates in general elections—Chlöe Swarbrick passed that bill in the last Parliament. There’s some great members’ bills that continue to advocate and promote rights for the disability community. I’d like to finish by congratulating the member for bringing a great bill to the House and I look forward to more bills, just like this, coming forward. I commend it to the House.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I too take pleasure in standing to speak to this Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill in its second reading tonight.

Just very briefly, I would like to touch on what the bill actually does, and it’s very simple: it, simply, amends the Human Rights Act 1993 and it replaces the reference to “guide dogs” to “disability assist dogs”—and in the interests of brevity, I’ll call them “DADs”. So we are putting reference to these DADs into the Human Rights Act, and that Act has been borrowed from the Dog Control Act and I’ll touch on that a little bit later.

The reason that this bill was deemed necessary—and I take the opportunity to acknowledge Ricardo Menéndez March for shepherding it through the House, but I also would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge Mojo Mathers who brought this bill initially to the Parliament. She was a very active proponent of disability issues while she was in Parliament. But the reason that this came up was because there was clear evidence that there was discrimination against people who were using their DADs—their disability assist dogs. But we also know that they were absolutely essential in making them able to participate in society.

This has two changes that are coming through in this bill. Section 2 in the Human Rights Act and section 21, replacing the “guide dogs”. I’d like to echo the submission made this afternoon by my colleague Penny Simmonds in the Human Rights Act and the Dog Control Act, and by bringing the Dog Control Act descriptor into this bill, it actually brings with it that the requirement that the list of organisations that are able to be recognised as approved training providers or entities for the disability assist dogs is quite prescriptive, and I think there is a really good opportunity to improve this bill even further by perhaps using the competencies that organisations must have and the standards that they must reach, rather than naming entities, because, as we know, when we come into this House, legislation can age quite quickly, and by naming organisations, we run the risk of those organisations changing in some way—they can merge, they can close down, or they can simply change their name, and that therefore would make the legislation out of date. So I think there is merit in exploring that and I understand Penny Simmons will be presenting a Supplementary Order Paper to that effect in the committee of the whole House.

So we look forward to improving this little piece of legislation even further, and I commend it to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora mai rā tātou ngā mema o te Whare. Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. It’s a privilege to speak tonight on the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill. May I start by acknowledging all of those who live and work with dogs in service, whether they are disability assist dogs or those who serve in the line of active duty, whether it’s in the police or the armed services or in customs and biosecurity. Every one of those dogs has an important role, and the training and their welfare is of utmost importance. I want to acknowledge how important those dogs are to your lives.

This bill would ensure that people who rely on disability assist dogs are afforded the same rights as those who use guide dogs, and those might be people with epilepsy, with Alzheimer’s, with post-traumatic stress disorder, or with neuromuscular disease, and that disability assist dog can have the freedom to go to all of the places that they can, including shops and public transport. It’s important that everyone, regardless of their ability to get around, of their mobility, can access transport.

It’s at this juncture that I want to acknowledge the work of Barney Koneferenisi from South Auckland. He’s a tireless advocate for mobility of all people in our area. He’s a Paralympian. He has fund-raised for a ride-sharing service to make it easier for people not just to get around on public transport—which he also advocates for, and he’s a big voice for using the trains in Auckland and the buses in Māngere—but also to link up those services with a ride-share service which acknowledges people of different levels of mobility and people who find it difficult to use ride-share services, like women and young people after certain hours. His work is important in ensuring that people can get around and can get to the places they need to go, and this bill helps in doing that too, in that people will be able to bring the dogs that they need with them.

How does this bill do that? Well, it amends the Human Rights Act 1993 to enhance protections for discrimination for people who rely on disability assist dogs. It’s important that it happens at that level of our constitutional framework, in the Human Rights Act, which is a foundational piece of legislation and gives rights in a number of other pieces of legislation, which are empowered by it. Making it at that level is an important part of this bill, and I want to acknowledge the member Ricardo Menéndez March, and also Mojo Mathers for her work in this space, which is all about human rights. People’s access to services, shops, and public spaces, like libraries, is absolutely about someone’s fundamental rights to participate in the community in which they belong, and it’s right that it’s acknowledged in that piece of legislation.

Now, let me talk a little bit more about why this is so important, as what looks like a small change. On the question of whether it’s the only thing for people who rely on disability assist dogs: well, the answer is no. Disabled New Zealanders have the right to live free from discrimination, and this bill realises that for some, but it’s a change happening on the backdrop of further Government progress in this area. A commitment that this Government takes seriously is around building a more inclusive and accessible society and ensuring disabled people have the same rights and opportunities as other New Zealanders. I want to add there that it’s not just about these people who this bill helps; it’s also about their families and their community who would miss out on having them participate in their lives were we not making active strides in making it more possible for them to participate.

I think of people like my own father, who has limited mobility and will at some point need a great deal of assistance to get around. The amount that his community and my own family would lose if he was not able to go to tangihanga, if he was not able to go to the meetings that he loves to go to, would be huge. So the cost of this has to be weighed against the contribution of those people who we really care about and who offer so much.

Progress on disability issues continues to be realised through the disability-focused funding across many Government portfolios. Those are things like ACC, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Social Development, and the Ministry of Education. Within that, the aim is to progress the rights and opportunities for disabled people through the New Zealand Disability Strategy 2016-2026. It’s that action plan that has key mechanisms for progressing New Zealand’s realisation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. When we talk about how important it is in New Zealand’s constitutional framework to make changes to the Human Rights Act, because it is foundational, it is also important that we give effect to the UN convention and be seen on the world stage as a part of a global community that is doing more for people with disabilities and to empower everyone around them to help them lead the best lives that they can. I believe it’s critical that actions and work programmes agreed in the Disability Action Plan are progressed, and this will improve the lives of people in New Zealand who rely on disability assist dogs and everyone around them.

The importance of this bill has been well traversed, and I want to thank the committee that very carefully considered the submissions of this sector. It is important to take time to listen to what those advocates are saying to us in this space. It is important to get this sort of legislation and all of the legislative architecture around it right so that in future we’re able take progressive steps forward to deliver more and more of what people with different mobility needs in our community are saying to us.

It’s also special for me to be standing here to support my Green colleague’s bill, because it is something that aligns with my deeply held Labour values. Those are the protections of the basic rights of disabled New Zealanders to live free from discrimination, and this being a pretty simple but effective change to human rights law to help ensure that it covers a wide range of support dogs that assist disabled New Zealanders today.

Sorry, Mr Speaker; you’ll forgive me if I sound a little breathless. It’s not because I’m excited about this legislation, although it is a great bill; it’s because I recovered three weeks ago from COVID.

Section 21 of the Human Rights Act, which lays out the prohibited grounds of discrimination, is enshrined at the heart of our human rights framework and specifically identifies guide dogs, but it doesn’t include all of the dogs who perform these roles that we’ve heard about tonight. That change might seem like something we could gloss over, like something that the organisations who are accredited to provide the accreditation for these dogs—the eight that have been mentioned in this House—might be able to ignore, but that’s not really the point. The point is that this legislation needs to empower those organisations, to empower the people who train and work with the dogs, and to empower the people who the dogs serve—and to empower the dogs themselves. This is also about recognising that they are an important part of someone’s life, that they are an extension of someone’s body, and that they are far more than just a pet or a very well-loved part of the family; that they have a job to do as well. It’s too narrow, and this change is important in widening that.

I hear the calls around the House about possibly extending the nature of those organisations. I think this bill is empowering for those organisations by naming them as well. It’s important that we recognise the good work that’s going on in this sector for many years by organisations who are staffed—many of them by volunteers; some paid—by a huge number of people who have dedicated their lives and a huge amount of care and love to this sector. I want to acknowledge those organisations tonight. Those are Assistance Dogs New Zealand, Hearing Dogs for Deaf People New Zealand, K9 Medical Detection New Zealand, K9 SEARCH Medical Detection, Mobility Assistance Dogs Trust, New Zealand Epilepsy Assist Dogs Trust, Perfect Partners Assist Dogs Trust, and the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Incorporated. All of those organisations should be acknowledged tonight because of the work that they do and the important role they have in serving the community.

I want to finish by saying that I support this bill and my Green colleague who is taking it through. All of the work of the committee and of him should be celebrated, because it is a step forward where we can all, as parliamentarians, agree on a small change which we can make and that we can all agree to. It’s an example of great cross-partisan work and consensus building. So, well done to him. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity, and I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): I move, That the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Mr Speaker, this bill has re-emerged after six months in select committee, and I want to thank you as the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, and colleagues as well for their diligence in examining this bill. Sir, I have to say that I was fortunate, as you know, to be able to join with you and colleagues as part of the bulk of the committee’s considerations of the bill and was able to witness the ongoing collegiality that I certainly experienced as a former member of that committee early in my current parliamentary term. I’m delighted that the select committee received this bill with the unanimous agreement of the House, and it has now re-emerged with some suggested amendments, with some sense of a unanimous nature as well—and I’ll come to those amendments shortly.

Firstly, I want to acknowledge the submitters—the individuals, the organisations, the unitary and territory authorities; 23 in total—that submitted on the bill. They raised excellent points; their submissions were well considered and were well received by the select committee. I also want to acknowledge the registrar who deals with the parliamentary register here. Sir Maarten Wevers took up the invitation from the select committee, as you know, sir, to speak with the committee—someone who has spent eight years in that particular role—and was able to provide some good advice. As you know, the intention of the committee was to try and seek some natural alignment with, perhaps, the parliamentary approach that’s taken as well.

I want to also acknowledge the staff and the officials that were involved—particularly for their diligence but also for their strong and considered advice. In particular, can I thank them for understanding the issues that I was able to raise and for the fulsome and timely response and advice that they were able to provide to the select committee as a result of that and other questions and points that were raised by members as well.

This bill, as I say, has emerged from select committee—in my assessment, actually—in a better shape than when it went into the select committee. And that’s what we hope, right? We hope, with legislation, when it goes through a public submissions process, that the select committee considers the feedback and submissions from the public in the broader and wider sense, and that, as a result, when it comes back here, it’s in a better shape than when they received it. So that’s the first point that I wish to make.

The suggested amendments—I have to say I agree with all of them—provide clarity. They provide specificity; they provide more accuracy around what will be expected of those who are successfully elected to public office within the context of local government. This is because the purpose of the bill is around transparency and integrity in local decision-making. It is not about putting people off standing for public office in communities, but it is about ensuring there is consistency around New Zealand when it comes to declaring interests for those who make decisions—decisions that affect all of us.

Naturally, with a proposed list of what would be required to be disclosed, there is a degree of an individual’s privacy being curtailed to some extent. However, the Attorney-General’s advice for the select committee actually concluded that the desire to strengthen that trust and confidence for the public is “sufficiently important” to justify the curtailment. And, on the topic of privacy, I want to also acknowledge the Privacy Commissioner for the suggestion of an additional component about what the purpose of the register is, and that will appear in the bill—it’s being renumbered as section 54B of the Act. Further, the information contained in the register will be retained for a period of five years—that’s the suggestion of the select committee—and I note that that is consistent with existing provisions for how information is retained by those that file electoral-candidacy returns and how those are managed as well.

Mr Speaker, in my first reading contribution, there were some matters that I did hope the select committee would consider. And I’m delighted that you and your team did, because you’ve suggested amendments as a result, and I just want to touch on some of them briefly—other members making contributions may do the same this evening.

The first is around who this bill will actually apply to, and that’s actually outlined in the new section 54A(1). As originally drafted, the bill would only relate to members of local authorities—so mayors, deputy mayors, district and city councillors, regional chairs, regional deputy chairs, and regional councillors. The new section extends coverage to include members of community boards and also members of local boards. I guess, when I look at that, it’s in line with the transparency focus, and, in the Auckland context, it’s important because many local boards have decision-making capabilities and capacities that are equal to—or, in some instances, I’d suggest greater than—some other councils around the country. So this is a sensible inclusion. A point of discussion, however, was whether this should also cover appointed members—people who are appointed by councils to committees and the like—and the select committee received advice, and they’re not suggesting that change, because they believe that that’s already covered by existing arrangements; in particular, the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968, which we referred to as “LAMIA”.

The select committee has also recommended that, while the registrar would need to maintain a register of interests, it’s actually more appropriate that an accurate summary of that register be made publicly available rather than every single, itemised item. I certainly accept that: that that’s a pragmatic way to balance privacy with the public accountability and transparency lens as well without members being required to have all and sundry within the public domain.

A new section 54D will also ensure that the onus is on the member to ensure that the information that is submitted is accurate and that there is now going to be, in line with the committee’s recommendations, a process for correcting any information that might be an error or an omission as soon as that is known.

Section 54E outlines some new requirements for what is to be included in a member’s return. One change is the control threshold in a company from 5 percent to 10 percent holdings—that’s consistent with other local government legislation. Another is that the details of a member’s property can be a general location description rather than a specific one. And there is no requirement to disclose companies or business interests for which the member is an investor by way of a managed investment scheme—very similar to the parliamentary approach there.

There is a new section 54F that’s been renumbered. The gifts threshold does remain at $500, but the select committee is suggesting that there is a change to ensure that that covers a cumulative amount; so, if there is one donor who gives a constant stream of gifts to a member, as soon as it hits $500, then it’s eligible to be, or required to be, declared. It will, however, exclude any gifts that are received from family members, and a helpful change from the select committee is to define who a family member is, which is consistent with the parliamentary approach as well. That also extends to travel and accommodation disclosure requirements from family members in that section. So I think that all of those changes do provide clarity for the purpose of the exposure.

Mr Speaker, as you will know, on page 8 of the select committee’s report, the committee does flag a suggested further amendment. Unfortunately, the committee didn’t have time, because this was something that arose, as you know, late in its deliberations, but they didn’t want to draft a change on the fly without any consideration to any unintended consequences. And it relates to the interactions and the perception of obligations for a member to disclose under this bill but also under LAMIA. And, to avoid any doubt, the committee, in its report, has suggested that there perhaps should be an amendment to make very clear that any interest declared under this bill is actually not automatically captured as a pecuniary interest under LAMIA, and vice versa. So, after discussions within select committee, it was suggested that the best way forward would be for myself to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to address that, and so I signal to the House this evening that that is my intention to do that as part of the committee stage and also to give effect to the Governance and Administration Committee’s discussions on that particular point.

So thank you, Mr Speaker, for leading that committee and for ensuring that those issues were adequately addressed. And I note that they were addressed by the unanimous consent of the select committee—so, good to see all parties on that particular page. This is a bill about transparency and accountability, and I’m delighted to commend it to the House.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I acknowledge the member who has just resumed his seat, Tangi Utikere, for bringing this member’s bill to the House. I also acknowledge the very excellent—very excellent, it’s probably not the best thing but the—highly prestigious select committee that, Mr Speaker, I know obviously, you chair, which is probably the only time I can bring you into this. But I think we acknowledged the members of that committee for their contribution [Phone ringing in the Chamber] and the phone call that was just taken.

I want to say that National will be supporting this bill. Look, in a basic sense, we’re supporting the fact around more transparency. We think that’s a sensible idea. Members of local government are key contributors in terms of our local communities, and having a degree of openness and transparency around their backgrounds, and particularly conflicts of interest, is sensible. It’s common practice in private sector. It is common practice in other aspects of our lives, and I think it is an appropriate check and balance in regards to that.

I think, also, particularly in regards to local councils and community boards—it was referenced by the speaker before—these are often within smaller communities and rural parts of New Zealand and, therefore, the reality is, is that those individuals will wear multiple hats in terms of the roles they undertake; i.e., being an elected member of the local council but also, no doubt, business owners and other voluntary contributions. So I think that transparency is important.

The one aspect I would want to note in the select committee report back was around the extension of this bill to appointed members on council committees. I do note that it says, the committee noted that “councils would still be able to require certain information to be disclosed by appointed members of council committees.” I think that is probably something we could explore a little bit more in the committee of the whole House stage.

That’s pretty much all I want to say. National support this bill. Sensible approach. We support the openness and transparency that this will bring, and I commend this bill to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call tonight on the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill. I just want to congratulate my colleague Tangi Utikere on his bill making its way through the House, and also my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, as chair of the Governance and Administration Committee. As deputy chair, I guess I get to make the first call tonight on behalf of the select committee. But I will note that the select committee went through a very robust and detailed process over this bill. We have made a very large number of changes that we believe will make the bill much more workable but also align it better with the requirements and responsibilities put on us as members of Parliament in declaring our interests.

The comment I want to make at the beginning, I guess, is that we grappled a lot throughout our deliberations about the balance that is needed between transparency and ensuring that the public are aware of the interests of members who are making decisions at a local government level; the balance between those interests but also the need to ensure people aren’t put off from standing for local government in the first place.

One of the particular issues that occurs in local government—and I’ll come to this a bit later when I talk about the change we made around employment—is that for many people who work and operate within local government roles, as elected members, it is actually not something they’re able to do full time. In many of our smaller councils, we have a number of people who may be working even full time in a role and having to undertake other employment while they are an elected councillor. One of the challenges we face with that is that by the very nature of that arrangement it means that people will often be involved in a lot of other activities, which brings about with it a number of potential conflicts that occur. So we had a lot of conversations about that.

I think I’ll talk through some of the changes before I end up running out of time tonight. I think, when you look at a lot of those changes, you’ll see that we’ve made some pragmatic decisions and we’ve struck the right balance in a number of those areas. So I’d encourage members to read through the select committee report. It does go into a lot of these changes in detail.

As the previous speaker, Mr Watts, noted, we made a change to include local and community board members. Given that people in those elected roles do make decisions around how money is going to be spent within a community, the committee felt it was important that those members are covered.

In terms of people who are appointed to roles, the place where we landed on that is that it has become more common in local government for people to be appointed into roles. One of the councils in my electorate—Nelson City Council—has appointed people with significant financial responsibilities into roles, particularly around the audit and risk area. We made a decision as a committee not to include them in the bill; however, a council, of its own decision making, could still choose to require those people in appointed roles declare their interests. So that option is sitting there for councils to make that decision themselves.

The next change that we made was around ensuring that there’s reference in the bill to the purpose of the register. So we included a new section 54B, inserted by clause 4, to clearly state the purpose of the register.

We also made some decisions around including a summary of information as opposed to going right down into the detail. One of the discussions we had around that particular issue is, for example, someone who is working as a lawyer or as an accountant in a role in the community, who’s also a city councillor, that person may have a large number of clients and, actually, it would be of concern to those people if they had to list, potentially, all of the clients they had. Whereas, where we landed, I think, which is a pragmatic place to end up, is very much around that summary. That’s also consistent with the requirements of members of Parliament as well.

We had a long discussion around time frames and some discussions around whether someone needed to declare their interests annually or just once in a term or on a particular date. Where we landed was similar to the requirements for members of Parliament, which is for members to declare their interests 120 days after an election and, therefore, annually after that. So we did as much as we could to ensure some consistency with requirements for members of Parliament.

We also inserted a new section around the reporting of errors, so that if a member has a requirement to do their best to ensure accuracy in what they declare, but that if they have made an error that there is an obligation on them, to raise that and have that error corrected.

As my colleague Tangi Utikere pointed out, we lifted the percentage required for voting rights in a company from 5 percent up to 10 percent, again to be consistent with members of Parliament’s obligations.

One of the changes we made was just around the disclosing of information around real property. This issue came up in regards to privacy of local members. I guess this is actually a topical issue at the moment, in the sense that for many people in elected roles or public figures, there have been times recently where we’re seeing people being threatened in those roles, potentially being unsafe in those roles. The committee was very clear that disclosing the actual address of an elected member would be extremely inappropriate. It would cause particular concern around safety for that individual. So we made the decision, which is, again, comparable with members of Parliament’s interest, to disclose the general location—so, for example, the city or the town or the suburb.

So I want to make a particular note here around noting a member’s remuneration. This is a particular issue where, as the bill was originally drafted, it may have been read to require someone to disclose their actual earnings from employment. The committee was quite clear that that level of detail is just not required. If someone works in a role, whether it be a supermarket worker or a consultant, they shouldn’t be required in their interest to actually disclose what their salary is. Absolutely, they’ll be required to disclose that they have that employment—but not, for example, the level of detail that would actually just go a little bit too far in disclosing that member’s individual and private information.

We made some changes around interests of members who are involved in other organisations. This is quite common in local government: that you’ll have people involved in a community organisation, sitting on the board of that organisation, and that organisation may be seeking applying for funds from a council, and that’s extremely common. Rather than requiring a member to list the full list of organisations that they sit on the board of, we made a determination that only those that received funding from a council or that have applied for funding from that council would be required to actually be listed on the register.

As other members have noted, we’ve changed some of the details around gifts and travel costs so that it’s a cumulative amount. Again, you’ve probably heard me say this quite a few times tonight, we made some changes to be consistent with requirements for members of Parliament.

I’ll just finish by noting the possible amendment to consider as listed in the select committee report. Mr Speaker, as you’ll be aware, in your role as chair, we as a committee ended up considering a matter in terms of how the bill interacts with the LAMIA—so the Local Authority (Members’ Interests) Act—how those two bills interact. We had that conversation very, very late in our discussion. We had to make a decision as a committee, which we made unanimously, which was something we felt was important, and we all agreed this was an important amendment but we weren’t within the time frame to include it within the report back to the House. So the committee all unanimously agreed that this was an important amendment to make, but, for a whole lot of timing reasons, we weren’t able to do it in time for the House. So my hope and encouragement is for the House to support Mr Utikere’s Supplementary Order Paper when he introduces it.

So, look, I managed to get to 10 minutes, and I think I got through the whole thing. So thank you, Mr Speaker, and I didn’t run out of time, which was great. So I commend this bill to the House and look forward to further contributions.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I must applaud the member for Nelson on her diligent use of the 10 minutes that she had available to her. The whips were nodding enthusiastically. But I have to say, to her credit, some of it was even interesting and actually—[Interruption] Ha, ha! She spilled her water. It did actually summarise, I think, very well the deliberations of what I think is an effective Governance and Administration Committee so ably chaired by the member for Rangitīkei. And I want to just put on record my congratulations, actually, to a new member, Mr Utikere—not that new now, but I think this is his first member’s bill. It’s always good to bring a bill to the House and have it passed into law. I’m confident we’re going to get there.

I don’t intend to re-traverse the very good summary that Ms Boyack gave, except to say that I want to congratulate both Mr Utikere and the chair, who are both former local councillors, because that actually, I think, added some real insight into what we were doing here. It’s one thing to bring the bill in one form, but then to make sure it’s fit for purpose when it comes back out of the select committee is also important, and I think we’ve done that as a committee very well. Can I thank the officials who supported us and the many submitters from around the country, many of whom were councillors or councils themselves, who made the suggestions for improvement that Rachel Boyack summarised.

It’s a thankless task. In fact, I’ve always said that being an MP is actually not as hard as being a local councillor. We have the benefit of collective caucus responsibility and we generally comply with it. I describe councillors as being like islands in an archipelago. They are out there all with their own franchise, keen to be re-elected it that’s their wish, and it’s a bit like herding cats if one is the mayor or even the chief executive officer, as is the case down my way, and it is also thankless. When we get to select committee and we have people submitting, particularly for the first time, I always think they look a little bit wide-eyed, a bit overwhelmed by the fact that they’re in this great place and they’re submitting to MPs; the same respect isn’t given to local councillors, in my experience. When I go to planning meetings or resource consent hearings, actually, it’s pretty disrespectful, I have to say, what I’ve seen, and I think anybody who puts themselves up for a local office, even as a community board member or as a local councillor or a regional councillor, has my admiration.

What worries me is that they’re not well remunerated, as the submissions and the report says. I use this at a macro level, because I don’t want to highlight any individuals, but what we risk doing is having a lot of people for whom the meeting fees and the stipend looks pretty attractive, and a lot of people for whom they’ve got so much independent income or wealth that it doesn’t matter, and, actually, we’re losing a really solid rump in the middle who might make excellent councillors but who are too busy in their day-to-day lives to actually put themselves up for office.

When I was a kid, all of our councillors were truly part-time, even in the fourth-largest city in the country; that’s not the case anymore. So for those people, and it is mentioned in the report, who are thinking about putting their hands up, I hope that the examination of their pecuniary interests and other aspects of their lives isn’t a barrier to them doing what is such important work. We’ve discussed that as a committee. I think we’ve landed it in the right place, and certainly the changes are improvements in that regard, but I would hate to think that somebody felt that there was such scrutiny that they weren’t prepared to put themselves through that. If somebody is of significant means and they have a potential conflict, LGOIA—the local government official information Act—

Chris Bishop: LGOIMA.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: LGOIMA—the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, thank you, Mr Bishop—does actually cover that. They can declare it. They can recuse themselves from decisions so that there is no conflict or even an appearance of conflict, and I hope that that doesn’t make matters worse. We need good people to stand for local government.

The last thing I just want to touch on is in respect of the issue of including local and community board members. The select committee report says that “We want to be clear that we don’t recommend extending the bill to representatives appointed to council committees.” I agree with that, but just not as stridently as the committee ended up. I am a bit worried that we’re coming to an area in our local government where, regardless of the reasons, we are doing more appointments relative to elections, and appointees to committees or councils where there is a financial decision-making process actually could be the subject of the potential for disclosure. I and my National colleague, singular, weren’t so stern on this that we that we thought that we should put in a minority view, mainly because the existing declarations would suffice, but I will be interested in whether or not that becomes a problem in the future.

I look forward to the committee of the whole House, because there is a bit of work to do, as Ms Boyack said. But in the meantime, thanks to submitters, thanks to officials, and well done to the sponsor.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking on this bill, the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill. Can I just acknowledge the words of the previous speaker, the Hon Michael Woodhouse. I was just reflecting on what that member said about standing for the Mayor of Dunedin city. I think he said something like, “I’d rather put a hot needle in my eye.”, or something like that, which I thought was rather hilarious. But I guess that sort of sums up local government in many ways sometimes.

But on a more positive note, can I just acknowledge Tangi Utikere for the same reasons others have talked about—he has come from local government, as have myself, and, of course, the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee; I acknowledge you, Mr Speaker—and for bringing this around, improving the transparency and strengthening the public trust and confidence in the decision making of local authorities. I want to also just say to the member, yeah, it’s great, having a member’s bill drawn from the ballot and being able to have something to say that’s featured for a big part of his life in terms of being on Palmerston North City Council—and I note they’re looking for a chief executive—but also to reflect with some skill and experience why this is important to have for local government.

I want to just acknowledge this Government’s work—and if I can just point to the work of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta in terms of what Labour’s doing here for the future of local government, that review. They have already started engaging with the sector. We’ve seen other aspects in terms of Māori wards, other types of structures that are coming through in terms of saying what will the direction of this review look like. That draft report for consultation will happen next year, with a report due at some point in 2023 also; so, well done. This is the first reading, and so I’m looking forward to how this progresses through the select committee.

Look, I just wanted to point out a few things, and some of the things have already been said. I did note, interestingly, that one of the conversations has been around the comparison to central government, and that’s been mentioned by members in terms of saying, look, one example is the very full-time nature of this role versus local government, where, I know, in many of the smaller districts, it’s very much a part-time role. There’s also been the point made around those people, in particular, having many other jobs, or another job or role, and they can be various within the local community that they represent. So not only are they an elected member but they may own a construction company or be on several boards, and so the conflicts may be many. Then, of course, some of those organisations or entities that they sit on, they could be in another governance role or even have a management role, but some may even apply to the local authority for funding.

So these conflicts are many. I know one of the conversations that we had between the member and his former mayor there in Palmerston North was around the practice of declaring conflicts and pecuniary interests up front at the start of meetings or in some other way where it was sort of self-managing. I know that that can be seen as—look, I know even for the local authority here in the capital city, too often are there conflicts which need secondary legal opinions to determine whether they are, to determine what the consequences are, and then the behaviour of the individual will dictate how they participate in the conversation or in the deliberations of that particular paper or that topic. So I think one thing I conclude from the member’s desire here is to clean that up and to make sure that that’s not the sort of practice that is going to continue. So I applaud him for that.

I also note, too, that in terms of other local authorities, such as Auckland—and that has been mentioned—you have local boards, and so community boards and local boards. I know that community boards can be a lot smaller, but in this case of Auckland, the local boards can be as big as some of our district councils, and in control of much larger decision-making, or a part of that process for decision making, and so their interests, as such, will be much more transparent, which is the purpose of this bill, in terms of saying, “Well, if you are on those two types of committees, which are part of the local government structure currently, then you too will be subject to this bill.”

I did note with interest—I don’t sit on the Governance and Administration Committee; I did in the previous term—the conversation about those who are appointed to council committees. Now, I was interested in this because there is always some conflict, not with all members, but what you’ll find is they can come to these committees with several conflicts. So it was interesting to see that the committee has said that they would still be subject to disclosing the more limited information under the 1968 law on members’ interests.

So, look, I do wish the committee well as they go through this. I’m assured that it will be in time for the local body elections coming up on 8 October, and it will only be those who come in this year who will be subject to these. So, well done to this committee. Well done to the member for his work. I did want to finish off with one more comment, which I think I may have covered, so, look, I think I’ll finish there and say well done to the member and all the very best for this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, thank you. I’m very pleased to take a short call on the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill, because there is a very comprehensive nine-page report from the Governance and Administration Committee highlighting the changes that the committee has made in response to submissions. I also acknowledge the very comprehensive outline of the recommended changes to the bill that the bill’s sponsor, Tangi Utikere, and also Rachel Boyack made. I think they have been very clear, for anyone listening and for the Hansard, exactly what happened in select committee and what the changes are proposed to be.

So the Green Party does support this bill and its intent around improving transparency, public trust, and confidence in decision making by local authorities, because, of course, local councils manage infrastructure and other assets with a value of more than $135 billion. They’re responsible for significant planning and regulatory decisions, whether it’s resource consenting or urban planning, and those decisions can shape a community for decades, so the public needs to be confident that decision makers act transparently and in the public interest.

This bill is particularly useful because the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968, LAMIA, while that certainly prevents elected members from discussing and voting on issues where they’ve got a pecuniary interest which isn’t in common in the public and it prevents someone from being an elected member where they or a company they control have got contracts worth more than $25,000 annually, it doesn’t require members to make an upfront declaration of their interests which might be relevant to any decisions the council makes.

While Local Government New Zealand has, for a long time, recommended that councils adopt a register of interests, as well as having a code of conduct, compliance is voluntary and the standards required around the country aren’t consistent. So the major value of this bill is introducing a regime which will be consistent across the country. It will require councils to actually hold and publish the register of pecuniary and other specified matters, whether it’s directorships, business interests, employment, or property.

As both Tangi Utikere and Rachel Boyack have noted, there’s been a lot of very good work in the select committee to ensure that the publication is of a summary, it’s of a level of generality that is similar to the register of interests that members of Parliament contribute to, so it’s not intruding on privacy but it is providing a level of transparency to the public.

There are quite a number of specific changes, but one change that I suggested in the first reading and hasn’t been picked up by the select committee, is this concept of having—and I noticed the Law Society raised it in its submission—a single external registrar for all local authorities, rather than just the chief executive of each council designating someone within the council to maintain the register.

I think Sir Maarten Wevers, in his role for the Parliament, has certainly shown the value of having that external person—also particularly when you’ve got a new Parliament, new MPs—in providing advice to members on what sort of information they need to provide in those declarations. So I still think that that concept deserves merit and it would bring the expertise into one place, rather than having it scattered across councils.

Rachel Boyack noted some comments around the select committee not having the time to deal with some of the issues around LAMIA and that there may be a Supplementary Order Paper around that, but as some of the submitters noted, and I think Taituarā – Local Government Professionals Aotearoa said, “LAMIA is complex, outdated, and difficult to interpret and apply. It predates accrual accounting, modern financial management provisions,” and all sorts of other things. So I sincerely hope that the local government Minister has LAMIA in her sights; with it being more than 50 years old, it does need to change. Tangi Utikere is bringing the pecuniary interests register into the 21st century, but this wider issue of pecuniary interests needs work as well.

The Green Party is very pleased to support the bill. We congratulate Tangi Utikere for all of his work and members of the Governance and Administration Committee for their comprehensive analysis of submissions and very detailed technical changes to the bill which will significantly improve it. Kia ora.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. I rise for the first time in—

Simeon Brown: This’ll be a good speech.

SARAH PALLETT: Did you say this will be good? I do hope so. I rise for the first time in quite a while physically in the House, which is really a complete delight. It’s actually really quite challenging to speak in the House via Zoom, and I commend my colleague Mr Eagle for doing so earlier. It’s quite challenging too when one’s being heckled because you can’t actually hear what’s being said, which means it’s actually quite hard to respond and I think sometimes the fun of being physically in the House is being able to respond to the wonderful input from the other side.

But I stand here tonight to talk to the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill, which has been brought to the House by my colleague Mr Utikere, who, as we’ve heard, actually had a history in local government as he was, in fact, Deputy Mayor of the Palmerston North council. I can say with hand on heart that the speakers before me are absolutely in possession of a far greater deal of knowledge on this particular bill than I am, because I’m not part of the Governance Administration Committee, but I would like to thank them for their work because I can see from the extremely detailed reports that a great deal of thought and work has gone into them.

The reason why we’re here—it really does make sense for us to be sitting here in consideration of this bill because people really do want to know that their elected representatives may or may not have any possible interests in the issues that come forward to them, and I think it’s completely reasonable that they do that. I did note that the select committee had discussions on who to include in this particular piece of legislation and did land on the inclusion of local and community board members, which I think is completely appropriate. As we’ve heard, some of them really have a great deal of financial responsibilities and I think it’s completely fair; as the Privacy Commissioner said in their report, local authority members do have access to information that isn’t available to the wider public. I think it’s reasonable that we can assess for ourselves, and maybe engage in further questioning to assess, whether or not there is a conflict of interest whether real or perceived or whether there may be personal gain.

I found this really quite interesting coming to this bill for the first time from outside the committee, because one of the things I was particularly interested in was the discussions that were had around the balancing of transparency on privacy—versus privacy, I should say. I think this is a conversation that we’re probably going to be having a great deal more in the House as time goes on, because my take on the subject is that previously through history, when registers were made available or there was a request for a register to be made available, what that meant was that somebody had to rock up in person to a physical office and actually ask to go through a book. And if one wanted to gather—I mean, there’s nothing wrong with that. You know, I come from a time when, you know, my university study in my 20s was done pre-internet, so I’m fully familiar with actually gaining information. But what I do know from my experience is—

Hon Member: From books. That’s lucky isn’t it.

SARAH PALLETT: Lots of experience of books. What I do know from my experience is it’s far, far harder to gather information on individuals from these sorts of registers if you have to go from place to place to place physically rather than just click online. I think what we’ve seen over the past—actually really quite recently; definitely over the past year—is that some of our local councillors and local elected representatives have genuine reason to be concerned that their home addresses are not readily available to the general public. I think we’ve certainly seen that in Christchurch, and I would like to emphasise the importance of ensuring the safety and privacy of our elected members whilst balancing that need for transparency. As I said, I think we are going to be having some further conversations about that in the past. In the past? We’re going to have conversations about that in the past? That would be clever of us; it’s obviously getting late for me.

So what does that look like and how does it compare with Parliament? I kind of wanted to take a moment to really congratulate Christchurch City Council because, as the Hon Eugenie Sage said, one of the issues here is around consistency nationally. Some of our city councils already have taken these steps and they’ve made these registers available publicly and, in Christchurch City Council, online. When I go through what the bill in its introduction version is going to look like, and I compare it to what Christchurch City Council already has available, I’m actually really heartened to see that they don’t just meet the needs of this bill but they’ve added on some extra pieces of information that make it a little bit more consistent with what we have to do as parliamentarians.

Of course, we don’t want to make it so onerous that we do discourage people from seeking positions in local government and community boards, clearly, especially as we’ve heard when sometimes they aren’t met with the same degree of respect. They are frequently not met with remuneration that’s concomitant with the effort involved. I have to say that, speaking as the chair of wāhine caucus, one of my particular areas of interest has been encouraging women into positions of leadership and into positions on community boards and in their local councils, and I do want to be able to reassure them that they’re going to be safe to do so. I do want to be able to reassure them that the legislation that we have, which I am certain it does, does actually provide that security. I can say that, speaking from my own personal experience of recently filling in my own pecuniary interest form, it’s not onerous even at the level of parliamentary representative. It doesn’t take a huge amount of time but it is really important that we do see exactly where our interests lie.

So I do commend this bill. I do congratulate Mr Utikere for the good fortune of drawing this bill from the biscuit tin. As I think Dr Duncan Webb said in his first speech, it’s slightly odd sometimes to be congratulating somebody on the luck of the draw, but I am absolutely delighted for my colleague in the class of 2020 that he has done so. It’s such a worthy bill. It really is worth our attention. It’s clearly been worth all of the effort that the select committee has put into it and I really look forward to seeing it progress through the House and I heartily commend it. Thank you.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, the ACT Party supports this bill. It’s wonderful to bring more transparency to the operations of local government. If only this Government, the Labour Government, were so intent on delivering the transparency that they promised.

But, look, let’s have a look at the problem. What is the problem definition? Well, a top law firm’s been looking at this bill. They’re asking what’s it for, and here’s what they tell their clients: “The purpose of the register is explicitly stated to record a member’s interests so as to provide transparency and strengthen public trust and confidence”—public trust and confidence—“in local government decision-making processes.” Well, this bill goes some way towards doing that, but we actually have to ask ourselves why ratepayers and voters have lost confidence in local government. It’s not just because elected members might own a business or have shares in something that ratepayers would be interested in; actually, it’s because voters and ratepayers have lost their confidence that the people they elect are actually accountable to the communities for delivering basic services. They’ve lost confidence that local councils, their elected members, are using public money wisely and making decisions on behalf of the whole community so that businesses, that employers, that the needs of families are taken into account. They’ve lost confidence because they often hear about grants being made to organisations that they feel really don’t deliver for the community.

What the ratepayers really want is for local government to deliver basic services, on time, on budget. That’s collecting the rubbish. That is making sure that there is water coming out of the tap and it’s safe to drink, and that waste water and sewage are not spilling from overflowing manholes into waterways like Te Wai o Pareira, the Henderson Creek, where I live, where local council and council-controlled organisations have presided over multiple waste-water overflows right outside the waka ama club and the water sports club, where kids come from Rutherford College to swim and play after school. That is primarily why people have lost confidence in local government. It’s not because they don’t know if elected members might own shares in something. But, of course, ACT supports this bill, because it does in fact provide transparency.

So I want to give you some examples as to why people might have lost confidence in local government, because the purpose of this bill is to strengthen public trust and confidence in local government processes and decision making. Well, I’ll give you an example. Auckland Council and its council-controlled organisation Auckland Transport decided to take out all the parking in the Henderson town centre as part of a Liveable Streets trial sponsored by the New Zealand Transport Agency / Waka Kotahi. They took out all the public parking in streets like Railside Ave and Great North Road, Henderson. They painted the streets blue. They put sheep and tacky planter boxes where cars and buses used to roll and where people used to park, and the downturn in local business, the foot traffic—people couldn’t even work out how to drive there. That is why people are losing confidence in local government, because local councils, local boards, and council-controlled organisations believe that dealing with climate change is more important than actually delivering basic services to their communities and supporting local business.

It could be because councils like Wellington have voted for incredibly expensive upgrades to their town hall at a cost of tens, then twenties, then seventies, then hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, who knows how much this seismic strengthening for failed buildings will cost Wellington City Council? But what we do know is that the infrastructure in Wellington below the ground is broken. That’s why you’ve got waste-water pipes breaking, drinking-water pressure pipes bursting and sending geysers of drinking water into the air. That’s why the flat that I had up until a few months ago, up the road here, just north of Parliament here, there was drinking water running down the road for the entire six months that I lived there. And I know it’s drinking water because when I bent down and I put my hand in the water that was running down the gutter and I lifted it to my nose, I could smell chlorine. So at least we know it’s treated. But there were millions of litres running, out of broken pipes, into the sea. That’s why people have lost trust and confidence in local government. But we appreciate the member’s efforts to bring this bill to the House, the pecuniary interest register, to at least try to restore it somewhat.

And I want to give you another example about why people have lost trust and confidence in local government. The Nelson City Council, this week, had to accept that even though they had spent hours and hours debating a motion about whether to install a pride-themed, rainbow-coloured pedestrian crossing in Nelson—how much consultant’s time they’d spent getting reports done, getting special drawings done, having public hearings—it turned out they’d forgotten the very people of Nelson who absolutely depend on being able to cross the road safely, and that is people who are blind or have low vision and find that a pride crossing is one of the most confusing things you can ever put on the road, because they don’t know what on earth this thing means when they’re trying to cross the road. So Nelson council, bless their cotton socks, backed down. They decided that it would be OK just to put some pride stickers on the bike racks, rather than let blind and low-vision people wander out into the road and, potentially, get run over because they’d spent all this time worrying about how to deliver a pride crossing rather than actually deliver basic services for the people in their communities.

So I commend the member for bringing this bill to the House, the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill, so that at least voters know that elected members who have interests in business or shareholdings or property—that that’s understood, so that decisions they might make in their role as elected members, where there’s a conflict of interest, that that conflict of interest can be reduced as far as practical. But there are a couple of opportunities that I’d like the member to consider, particularly when we get to the committee of the whole House—some amendments, in fact, that could actually make this bill far more effective. We need to consider whether, in fact, it would be helpful to the functioning of local government—to actually restoring trust and confidence in local government decision-making and processes—to include the pecuniary interests of those individuals appointed to chair and as board members on council-controlled organisations where they have the ability to sign off on procurements worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

And, in fact, in many cases, it’s not clear that those people appointed to the council-controlled organisations—and I’m thinking Wellington Water; I’m thinking Auckland Transport; and, as an Aucklander, I’m thinking about the Auckland Council - controlled organisation that controls the stadiums, which competes with local business that holds events. That actually means that private companies that want to hold events find that they’re either undercut by the council-controlled organisation or priced out of the market, because the council-controlled organisation won’t let those function centres and event centres to the private sector to carry out their business. And when the local government entity is the biggest kid on the block, you know they have market power well beyond what should be acceptable if they really are focused on good governance, good decision-making for the benefit of their communities.

So ACT would be open to considering actually widening the scope of this bill to address some of the concerns particularly people in Auckland have, having seen incidents of very poor procurement decisions—in fact, decisions the Serious Fraud Office investigated, involving council-controlled organisations and decision makers in local government around transportation and other types of procurement. So the ACT Party would support widening the scope of the bill to actually look at whether it would be worthwhile including elected members and their ability to appoint people to trusts and other council-controlled organisations.

So on that note, the ACT Party supports the bill in its current form, would be open to amending it, to making it better in increasing the scope of transparency. But, more importantly, we want local government to stick to its knitting and deliver basic services for communities. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

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

Dr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West): Tēna koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. It’s a pleasure to be back in the House, after a few weeks of virtual sessions, to speak on the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill in the name of my colleague Tangi Utikere. This bill amends the Local Government Act 2002 to provide for the establishment of a register of pecuniary interests and other specified interests of members of local authorities such as directorships, business interests, employment, and property.

Before I go any further, I want to acknowledge the member Tangi Utikere, who has a good understanding of the issue, having been a councillor and then Deputy Mayor of Palmerston North, and now a much-liked MP from the area. While Mr Utikere has moved from local government to central government, there are a lot of similarities between his old job and new job. One of these similarities is that both the roles are democratically elected and people expect transparency from decision makers at these levels.

I also want to acknowledge Ian McKelvie, who has chaired the select committee which this bill has come through, and, again, his experience of being the Mayor of Manawatu District for, I think, about nine years—which is significant experience—and his leadership in the amendments that came through when the bill came through the select committee. In addition to that, we’ve just heard from Paul Eagle, the former Deputy Mayor of Wellington City and a member of Parliament, again, having had great experience both in central government and local government.

It is important for ratepayers to understand any possible influences on these people who are elected to represent them, and the purpose of this bill is to improve transparency and strengthen public trust and confidence in the decision making of local authorities. The bill will better align transparency requirements of members of local authorities with those of members of Parliament and the Executive Council.

This bill will provide greater transparency of interests of members of local authorities, improve public trust and confidence, and contribute to robust decision-making by local authorities. Currently, the information collected and published on members’ interests for the purpose of managing conflicts of interest is inconsistent across local authorities. While some authorities have registers which collect information required by this bill and make them available to members of the public, the vast majority of local authorities do not. When councils are making decisions about funding opportunities for community groups, often it is very, very unclear as to what the nature of the relationship is with someone who is sitting around the decision-making table and the group that’s seeking funding.

I know some of the local politicians have publicly spoken against the bill. I know that the Mayor of Palmerston North, Grant Smith, and the Mayor of Tararua District, Tracey Collins, have both argued that central government politicians are full-time politicians and, therefore, are much better remunerated than local body politicians, so the same level of scrutiny should not apply to local body politicians.

Now, I just want to give an example. In Hamilton West a few months ago, I had somebody get in touch with me because they were worried about a decision that the council had taken in regards to their dealing with a private vendor, and the claim was that somehow there was some sort of underhand technique going on because the council member’s house was on the same street as the person who was the private vendor. This was a significant claim and it came to me as the member of Parliament to get some guidance on this, and, obviously, the whole discussion went through the council and, obviously, they had the time to express their concerns.

But I think that situations like this prove that there are times when the public can be concerned about what’s happening at a local level, and I think more so at a local level, because that’s where you know the community very well. At the grassroots level, if you’ve got those community connections, people can ask, “Is there is a conflict of interest there?”

In many ways, I think this bill also protects the elected representatives themselves, who may find that the bill puts more trust in them through people, because now they know that there is a pecuniary interest that’s been published, and it’s hard for people to say that there is some backroom dealing going on, especially because it’s all out in the public. So I think, if anything, it helps those local members as they move forward, especially in an election year. I know there are council elections coming through. If anything, I think it will help people make a better decision about what’s going on.

Chris Bishop: Are you running?

Dr GAURAV SHARMA: I am still a member of Parliament. I’m not running for council.

One of the newspapers mentioned that no local government entities in the central North Island have pecuniary interests registers available to the public, but there are councils that do publish a register of pecuniary interests. Often it is done so late that it is almost redundant. So if you’re looking at the Christchurch and Tauranga city councils, their last published returns were in January 2020.

On the other hand, you’ve got councils who have very strict criteria, and they expect their members to report in. So, for example, at Auckland Council, the code of conduct requires that if they get gifts of over $300, they do need to be declared. So there is a wide inconsistency between councils, especially in the North Island, where there are very few councils that require any sort of interest register, which makes it difficult to have that transparency at the council level.

The purpose of this bill and the original bill was to standardise this so that the local representatives from all local authorities are subjected to the same scrutiny, but I have to say that Parliament’s Governance and Administration Committee has gone one step further in flagging that this would exclude those elected to local or community boards. This is, again, important because these local or community boards do make significant decisions at that grassroots level. So it is important that they have the same scrutiny as members of Parliament and the other local authorities, councillors, and mayors.

I think the bill in its original format was really good, but then, obviously, there were concerns that in small communities, what happens if you release the pecuniary interests register and it causes any harm to somebody who is on the council? So my understanding is that there were some changes made. For example, initially, the bill said that if you had 5 percent of the voting rights of a company, you should put that on a pecuniary interest return. After the bill has gone through the committee, the advice is to change it to 10 percent.

Similarly, the original bill said that members should not disclose where the property is that they own, which is fine—obviously, you don’t want the members to be targeted in any way if somebody knows where they live—but, then again, there are properties which are owned under a trust. So the recommendation is now that if you do own a property under a trust, you do need to disclose where the location of the property is.

Thirdly, there was the question was around what happens if you are making some money from a different organisation. You do not have to actually disclose how much money you get, but you do have to disclose that you are getting funded from a different source altogether.

So in some ways it’s a balance between greater disclosure and the privacy rights of individuals, particularly some elected members who work in quite small communities and, obviously, have a lot of connections and relationship in those communities. But, as I said, I have been approached many times within Hamilton where people have shown concerns regarding elected members. None of them have been held up—I just wanted to say that clearly—but they have been investigated, and it just is another step in making sure that the public has full trust and faith in elected members and, similarly, that the elected members have faith that they can continue to do their job without somebody pointing the finger at them.

Similarly, somebody from the ACT Party just talked about whether it should be extended to other agencies or other people at the high level. Again, that’s something that maybe should be looked at, because there are other decision makers as well who are responsible for these contracts, including local body contracts and Government contracts, and adding more transparency wouldn’t hurt.

My view is that if you are running for this sort of position, you should have nothing to hide. There should be no reason for you to worry about hiding something, and we do understand that people at a local level have multiple jobs—you know, they might have another part-time job—but it would be good for people to make that connection and see if there is a conflict of interest in a very open and public way.

I just want to congratulate the member for bringing in this bill, because it will have a huge impact, especially as we move into the council elections and the local body elections in the next few months. So I would like to commend the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill in the name of Mr Tangi Utikere to the House. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is split call. I call Maureen Pugh—five minutes.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand in support of the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill tonight in its second reading. Although I haven’t been part of the Governance and Administration Committee, so I haven’t had the privilege of hearing the submissions, I have read several of them. But mainly the provisions of this bill seek to insert new sections into the Local Government Act that look to provide openness and transparency in the local government sector, and in particular to the councillors that are elected to those councils.

Best practice would tell you that councils who are open and transparent will always have their interest register advertised and part of their regular monthly meeting agendas. It’s common practice for boards, for District Health Boards, to also include that information at their regular meetings. This is best practice. This Government is now legislating to make this lawful, and that there is now a legal requirement for these entities to be open and transparent. And I think the irony of this legislation is that it is being brought to this House by a Government member of a Government that has, arguably, been the least open and transparent in New Zealand’s history. I submit this bill to the House.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. I rise to take a call—as the Māori Party aren’t in the House tonight, I do want to take this opportunity to just take a brief call on it. Firstly, can I acknowledge the member, who is a former local body councillor—deputy mayor, I understand. As somebody—

Chris Bishop: Deputy mayor.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Yeah; that’s right. As somebody else who started out in local government, this is actually quite interesting for me.

I was first elected to the Far North District Council in 2013, and then a second time in 2016. So before coming into Parliament, I spent one and a bit terms in local government. When I was looking at this bill, I was trying to remember whether our council did have a process of declaring your interests. I went back online, and I had a look at the minutes of meetings from 2016. It was my recollection that we did have a process whereby we declared our interests. It also made me think, well, what about the rest of the councils in my electorate, in Northland. It turns out that so too do the Kaipara District Council, the Whangarei District Council, and the Northland Regional Council.

Under the Local Government Act, all councils are required to adopt a code of conduct, but it is not a requirement that there be, within that code of conduct, the inclusion of a pecuniary interest register. That’s the problem: there is an inconsistency in this across the country. And we’ve heard that from other speakers this evening who have made those contributions and have highlighted areas where they do have it and other areas where they don’t have it. I commend the member on finding this gap in the legislation and proposing, through a member’s bill, a way to address this issue.

The purpose of the bill is that we want to ensure that the public can have trust and confidence in our councils and in local bodies. They make really important decisions that affect the community. Large amounts of money are often subject to those decisions. I think it is important to ensure that our communities can have the most trust and respect and that we have an open and transparent process around the declaration of their interests. What we see here in the bill is a lot of similar things that we are required to do as members of Parliament. I know, listening to the contribution from one of the members of the Governance and Administration Committee—the member for Nelson, Rachel Boyack—that she traversed all of those and said that sometimes in the original proposal it wasn’t quite what we do here in Parliament, and so there were recommendations to align it to that. But in other cases—and I think it was particularly around private property, for example—they don’t actually go as far as to revealing the exact location of those. I support all of those points in there.

One thing I did want to cover off—because it hasn’t been raised by any of the other contributions this evening—is the committee looked at Māori land. As you and I will know, many people—many whānau—have interests in Māori land, but those interests can be from a tiny interest and shareholding in a small parcel of land that does not derive any economic benefit, and there is not going to be any dwelling on there, necessarily. The committee were very clear about that: that in terms of Māori land that is captured within the scope of this legislation, it would be where the member had an actual pecuniary interest in a Māori land trust. We do have many of those—and very successful ones—around the country, and so that would be the type of interest that would be required to be declared under this proposed legislation.

With that, I just want to conclude my speech by thanking the Governance and Administration Committee for the work that they did, the 23 submitters that wrote written submissions, the seven oral submitters, and, of course, the member who introduced the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to support this bill on behalf of the National Party. And I’d congratulate Tangi Utikere, who came in, in 2020, one of the new members, as I did. Well done on bringing a bill before the House and getting cross-party support for it—well done.

This is a bill that aims to record members’ interests so as to provide transparency and to strengthen public trust and confidence in local government processes and decision making. That’s a laudable aim and one that the National Party supports. The bill requires that councils maintain and publish each year a register of elected members’ pecuniary and other specified interests such as directorships, business interests, employment, and property, and disclose gifts and payments received by elected members above a certain amount.

Councils across the country and the wider local government sector are currently facing the biggest period of change in some 30 years. Labour’s Future for Local Government Review and the reforms they are driving through in resource management and three waters and the review of local government all raise questions about the future of our councils, and it’s a discussion that we’re actively watching.

Councils are very important. They provide the local public services and local infrastructure needed to survive and prosper in our communities around New Zealand. Their total assets are some $124 billion in total. They account for 11 percent of public spending. So decisions made by local elected members are very important. It’s not always well understood, though, as the average voter turnout in local body elections is only about 41 percent. So we support a bill that, in the face of some significant change and reform in the current time, implements a small but significant change to strengthen public trust and confidence in our local representatives.

I certainly know from going around my electorate, the electorate of Southland, which I would say is bigger than Belgium in its total land area—

Nicola Grigg: Your favourite stat.

JOSEPH MOONEY: It’s my favourite statistic, as Nicola Grigg has said. And I should say it has five district councils in it and two regional councils covering various parts of my electorate. So I have the Queenstown Lakes District Council, the Central Otago District Council, the Southland District Council, the Clutha District Council, the Gore District Council, and then in the regional council space I have Environment Southland and the Otago Regional Council. I know that all of the elected members and all of the staff in those councils are very focused on what is best for their communities and all work really, really hard. But this is a small step in this bill just to improve the public confidence in those members who, I know, are all working very hard for their communities.

With that, I’ll say I commend this bill to the House.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand and speak to this bill and just to congratulate my colleague Tangi Utikere for bringing this bill to the House. It’s fitting that somebody with such significant local body experience should be the one that brings this bill forward.

Basically, I didn’t sit on the Governance and Administration Committee that heard the submissions on the bill, but, for me, I think it’s really great to see that we’re going to be getting some more consistency in terms of the way that those elected to local bodies declare their pecuniary interests, and also meaning that members of the public will be able to see much more quickly what the declared interests are of elected members that are making decisions on their and their communities’ behalf.

When I was preparing to talk tonight, what I did was a quick search of the websites of the local councils down in the southern area where I live. It was quite interesting just looking—first, I put in “Invercargill City Council” and I put in “pecuniary interest register”, and immediately their interest register popped up. It not only has the interests of the elected council members, it also has the Bluff Community Board members, and it has the interests of the council’s mana whenua representatives and also executive staff. So, very, very comprehensive. Actually, looking through some of those interests there, all the things that you would expect were actually there and being declared—so company directorships, trusts, employment, and organisational memberships.

But also looking on the website, going into the meeting agendas, you also found that the conflict of interest was up there right at the front. So, for example, the Bluff Community Board agenda, item number two, “Declaration of Interest … Members are reminded of the need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.” It was interesting, then, going on, what they said in the second point of that was: “Elected members are reminded to update their register of interests as soon as practicable, including amending the register at this meeting if necessary.” So, very, very clear, up there at the beginning of the agenda.

Looking across to our regional council, Environment Southland. Again, very quickly, just a couple of clicks and I came to a downloadable document which summarised all the declared interests of the elected council members—not anything broader but at least the council members’ interests were there and very easy to find.

Going across to the Southland District Council, I couldn’t find anything. That doesn’t mean that a register doesn’t exist; it just means I couldn’t find it searching on their website. However, if you go back into some of the agendas, very similar to the Bluff Community Board, with reminders very up front—item number three—about making sure that members are vigilant about standing aside from decision making when a conflict arises. Also, noting in the minutes of the previous meeting, again, item number three, “Conflict of Interest”, that no conflicts are declared.

So, I think, as introduced, what this bill will do will make it much more consistent across councils and other local authorities about what the interests are of their elected members. I think, by requiring that register to be publicly available and updated regularly, it will make it much, much easier for members of the public to go in and see about the interests of those making decisions on their behalf.

But, I think, also, as my colleague Tangi Utikere said, there were a number of submissions that were received that the select committee heard—and, I think, from the report, there were 19 submissions; eight from individuals, seven from organisations, and four from local authorities. They had a range of things to say about how the bill might be improved. I think the select committee took a number of those on board. I think that one of the themes arising from a number of submitters was to make sure that all elected decision makers were included.

So, just going into the Local Government New Zealand submission, what they noted was that the bill only dealt with members of governing boards—so what they’re referring to there are mayors and council members—but it didn’t actually mention local or community members or appointed members to council committees, even though those members also could make significant decisions about the allocation of resource. So, I think, in Local Government New Zealand’s view, it was important to enhance a transparency across all of the different types of member that may be making those decisions.

We’ve also heard a lot about the size of the Auckland Council, and the fact that some of the local boards within the Auckland Council may be as large as some different councils further afield. So, similarly, in the Auckland Council, they were advocating very similarly about broader inclusion. They were talking about how their council was organised, and a governing body followed underneath, which sat 21 local boards. So the governing body has the mayor and 20 councillors, but then the local boards have between five and 12 members.

Then, in their submission, they went on to talk about the accountabilities and decision-making processes of each of those different groups. What they were saying, though, is decision making across both governing body and local boards is highly scrutinised by the public. If elected members participate in decisions where they have a conflict of interest or a closed mind, they say the public confidence in those decisions will be diminished. Then they talk about the implications in terms of the decisions themselves that may be exposed to challenge, which could be quite significant, in terms of the work streams, in terms of that decision making. For them, they saw that a maintenance of a register of interest is a key tool to ensure transparency, integrity of decisions, and to ensure the public can have trust and confidence in decision making.

I think the committee members, in recommending changes to the bill, took that on board. What they basically said was that they recommended that people that were members of local boards or community boards should also come in under this legislation. I think that’s quite an important change.

There were a couple of other changes that the committee was recommending. Another one was around making it much more clear about the requirements for elected members to disclose payments related to their employment. I think here it’s been raised already in the House tonight that for us as MPs, because it’s pretty much a full-time job, very few people then take on other employment opportunities. However, for those involved in local bodies, basically a lot of their connection with the community—they may be a business employer, they may be working for local community organisations, and part of that is their connection with the community. So many elected members of local councils also want to maintain employment as part of their role, and so it’s then thinking about how you declare that.

In the bill as introduced, there was some lack of clarity which meant that there may be a potential expectation for members to have to declare their salaries or wages from employment, and there was a sense there that that may discourage people that were well connected within the community from standing, not wanting to be doing that. Because already in the bill, local authority members were required to disclose the names of each employer they were working for and a description of the main business activities. What the committee felt was that was sufficient to be able to give people a sense of if there was any potential conflicts of interest there without having to go down into the detail of every single payment which potentially could have be required. So what they recommended was adding clarification that payments of interests already disclosed under section 54E, which includes employment—but also directorships and trusts—don’t have to be included in the register any further. So I think that was an important change as well.

One of the final ones was just about correcting mistakes and the accuracy of the register. I think everyone wants to make sure that their information is accurately portrayed in the register, but often you may have the situation, particularly if you’ve got a lot of information that you’ve got to upload, where you make a genuine mistake. What happens if that genuine mistake, you then identify it once that’s actually been publicly disclosed and published? The issue was, I think, that the bill was silent on whether members could correct mistakes. I think, as part of that integrity, that if we’ve got errors in that register, then members of the public may not think that that is an accurate reflection of the interests, and so again from a transparency perspective that’s a problem.

So what the committee felt was that it was important to specify that members could actually include information and get that corrected with the register. I think that’s an important change that needs to come through. This is an important bill and we’ve made some very significant changes, and I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Public Finance (Prohibition on Providing Public Funds to Gangs) Amendment Bill

First Reading

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I move, That the Public Finance (Prohibition on Providing Public Funds to Gangs) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill.

This bill is a bill which is unfortunately needed in New Zealand. It should be a clear principle that taxpayers’ funds are not to be provided to gangs who perpetrate violence and misery in our community. But unfortunately, under this Government, we have seen millions of dollars been taken from the proceeds of crime funds, and given to an organisation run by life member of the Mongrel Mob Harry Tam, who is then using their money in a dodgy meth rehab programme—millions of dollars going, effectively, to the Mongrel Mob.

So this piece of legislation is unfortunately needed. The reality is we have a gang problem here in New Zealand. We’ve had a 40 percent increase in gang membership under this Government’s watch—a 40 percent increase in gang membership under this Government’s watch. And we see it every single day on the streets, we see the violence that they perpetrate, we see the misery that they create, the meth that they peddle, and we see the harm that they are causing.

But it’s not just that which is a problem; we’re also seeing how this increase in gang membership is flowing through to this Government taking a closer interest in the gangs. We’ve had Ministers meeting with gang leaders in the Beehive. Willie Jackson meeting with members of the Black Power. We’ve had Marama Davidson meeting with members of the Mongrel Mob. We’ve had the Chief Human Rights Commissioner, Paul Hunt, going along to a Mongrel Mob gang pad, and giving not only a kōrero, but giving a donation—a taxpayer-funded donation. He didn’t even take the money out of his own pocket—the $200 donation, he could have taken it out of his own pocket, but he took it out of the pocket of hard-working taxpayers and said, “Thank you for letting me come and speak at your gang pad.” But the icing on the cake of this problem was what came out in the middle of last year, which was that this Government took $2.75 million—$2.75 million from the proceeds of crime fund and gave it back to the Mongrel Mob. The reality is, as the Police Association said, this looks like one of the most successful money-laundering schemes in the history of mankind.

The police in Hawke’s Bay are hard-working men and women. They work incredibly hard, as do our police up and down New Zealand—incredibly hard. And they recently busted the Mongrel Mob and took about $2 million off them—the Mongrel Mob who peddle meth and misery through the Hawke’s Bay had $2 million taken off them under the proceeds of crime legislation. And then what happened? They had $2.75 million given back. As the Police Association said, it’s not only a money-laundering, “money-go-round”, but they got the money back with interest. They got it back with interest.

Nicola Grigg: Inflation!

SIMEON BROWN: And with inflation, the cost of living going up, the inflation rate—they got it back with not only the interest but the inflation. And then it was given to Harry Tam and his organisation to be able to do their dodgy meth rehab programme, which they are apparently running at a cost of about $275,000 per participant—$275,000 per participant. Well I tell you what, the good people, the volunteers in Victim Support, they receive about $400 per person that they assist in New Zealand—$400 per person. Yet the Mongrel Mob gets $275,000 for every person they put through their dodgy scheme. And Harry Tam, lovely man, went on TV and said, “PM seems to trust me, why don’t you?”—“The PM seems to trust me, why don’t you?” And those sleazy words, as they came out his mouth, made New Zealanders have some creepy feeling go around their spine as they realised, again, how much these gangs are causing the misery in our community.

But it’s not only the Police Association, and it’s not only the general public who were up in arms about this, but also Justice Collins who noted, when he was sentencing a number of people in the court in Hawke’s Bay, how Sonny Smith, who is one of the leaders of this programme, is also one of the people who is at the centre of peddling meth and misery in Hawke’s Bay. So money’s going back to the very people who are peddling the misery in the first place. And these people are meant to help to solve that problem.

And so that’s why this piece of legislation is needed, because of a principle which this Government has broken—that public, taxpayer funds should not be going to gangs. That is why I’m putting this piece of legislation to the House. I’m calling on all parties in this Parliament to stand up for taxpayers and stand up against gangs in New Zealand and to support this piece of legislation to select committee and, ultimately, into law.

So what this piece of legislation does is it, effectively, amends the Public Finance Act to make it so that public entities and agencies are prohibited from funding gangs in New Zealand, whether indirectly or directly, and that they must do due process when assessing funds—where they’re going to. It also makes it an offence under section 76 to do just that. As I said at the start, it is unfortunate that this has come to this; we should not be in the position where Parliament needs to be passing legislation to point out what, quite frankly, should be obvious—and is obvious—to New Zealanders up and down the country. As the Police Association said, “It looks like money laundering.” Well, it is money laundering—taking with one hand, giving back with the other.

So my challenge to the Government members tonight—my challenge to the Government members tonight—is will they stand with New Zealanders, who are sick and tired of the increased gang presence that they’re seeing in New Zealand, the 40-percent increase in gang membership under this Government, over 8,000 gang members in New Zealand. Will they stand with New Zealanders and send a message that they will be, actually, taking some action to try and address this issue, or will they stand with Harry Tam? Will they stand with Harry Tam when he said, “Jacinda Ardern seems to trust me, so why don’t you?” Well, the Prime Minister, I think, was reportedly saying, “It doesn’t matter what I do because I’ve had that label”—sorry, Jacinda Ardern responded to that, basically trying to brush it off, by not really wanting to draw on whether she trusted Harry. But the real test is actually tonight with the Labour Party’s vote as to whether she also trusts Harry. Does the Prime Minister, does the Labour Party—do they trust the Mongrel Mob with taxpayers’ money or will they actually vote tonight to send a very clear message that this is unacceptable, that it should be stopped, and that this should never happen again?

So my challenge to them is put this to a select committee; let the public have their say; send a clear message and make sure that the law is tidied up once and for all. But I have a funny feeling that they’re not going to, but I hope not. I hope that they will stand with New Zealanders—

Chris Bishop: Greg O’Connor wants to vote for it.

SIMEON BROWN: —do the right thing. I know—Greg O’Connor, former president of the Police Association. Chris Cahill, the current president of the Police Association, came out slamming this $2.75 million. He put out a press release against a funding decision the Government made. It’s not often the Police Association put out press releases like that. The Police Association are incredibly reasonable, and they make very considered statements, and they objected fully to this. So I ask the Government and I ask all members of the Parliament to vote for this bill, send it to select committee, and send a very clear message that no taxpayer money should be funding gangs here in New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you. What a nasty little bill. What a vile, small-minded, smug, insincere little bill. A bill that appeals to the basest instinct, a bill that drums up fear, a bill that, frankly, stands in the way of helping people. And you know what the word Simeon Brown used most often in that speech was? “They”. Not “us”; “they”. “Those people over there that don’t belong, that aren’t one of us, that I want to vilify.” Well, I won’t vilify anyone. Everyone in New Zealand belongs to—this House of Representatives should represent them. And, you know what? Who are these peddlers of meth? You know, you can vilify them like that, but they are brothers, fathers, sons. They are people. And, look, who is a gang associate? Now, it might be some nasty person, or it might be some frightened 18-year-old who is doing the bidding of someone much nastier than him. Do you say we shouldn’t help that person? Well, I don’t. And if there’s a way to get into that person’s organisation, to reach out, to stop being arrogant and be a little more humble—so much for your serve in leadership. How about a bit of humility and saying, “I want to reach out.”?

This is a nasty little bill that others an entire section of our community and absolutely prevents agencies that want to help from doing what is best. It is the broken National Party approach of yesteryear, and if we want to try to do things better, we will continue to try and we will make progress—because for 100 years we haven’t—and we will try new things. This is a bill that dog whistles to people that want to build a wall. This is a party that’s afraid of calling a holiday Matariki, because it’s “a bit too Māori.” I don’t want any part of that kind of approach. This is a bill that would—[Interruption]—thank you—this is a bill that would address the woeful inequities in our health system by abolishing our Māori Health Authority. This is the party that would address the fact that 13 of 18 Ngāi Tahi marae don’t have reticulated water by preventing water reform. This party would address Māori overrepresentation in prison by building a bigger prison. And this is exactly the kind of thing we’ve come to expect from that broken National Party. It’s an ill-thought-out, knee-jerk reaction. Frankly, it’s childish.

We won’t sit on our hands and take the same failed approach as the National Party of demonising people with addiction issues and taking an alarmist and utterly wrong approach to the meth issue. What we’ll do is we’ll take advice. We will build on knowledge. And the programme that gave rise to this alarmism, it was advised by the Ministry of Justice, Corrections, Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry of Education, Police, Treasury, Oranga Tamariki, and the Chief Science Adviser. That is a list of a lot of thoughtful people who said, “Do it. It’ll work.” And you know what? Here’s the thing, Mr Brown. It did work. It’s recognised that it had a very high success rate. News flash: people who have had addiction problems can help people with addiction problems. People like you and me, Mr Brown, cannot enter into these communities. We can’t communicate. We can’t connect. We need people in those communities who have been there, who can connect. And that’s not you and me. Sure, we need to be tough on crime, but what we really need to be is tough on the drivers of crime. If we’re just throwing people into prison for their broken addictions, we will perpetrate it. We know for a fact that as soon as we send someone to prison, the likelihood of them going there again escalates dramatically. But that’s the answer of Mr Brown: don’t try anything new. Just take a broken system and perpetrate it again.

This bill is far too broad. Even if it had a germ of an idea in it, it says that the public funds can’t fund any agency directly or indirectly. So who’s that going to capture? Well, that’s going to capture all kinds of things. It’s going to capture a food bank that provides food parcels into gang families. There you go, we’re supporting a gang community. Are you going to stop feeding tamariki because it’s financial assistance to a gang?

What’s more, this is not the National Party of yesteryear. We know for a fact that the ministry of Māori affairs, under the National Government, liaised with gangs. That was something that went on frequently. John Key himself had a tackling methamphetamine action plan, half of which was aimed at rehabilitation. And here we have someone saying: “No, no; no rehabilitation. What we don’t want is to get communities to help communities.” This is an absolutely retrograde step. It’s smug, insincere, and supercilious. It’s grandstanding. The idea over there is stuck in the Mosaic law: an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It’s 3,000 years out of date. This bill will do nothing other than further alienate and demonise communities. The idea that we can’t use funds in a way that best addresses the problem to draw people in, to connect communities, to build bridges, to recognise that we have to have a conversation—that those who are in the communities are best equipped to reach further in, to lift people up not push them down.

Mr Brown, if you want to talk meaningfully about how to address gangs and the drug problem, come over here; I’ll talk any time. But the first thing we need to do is stop using the word “they” and start using the words “us” and “our”—our communities, our people, they are suffering, they are broken. Some people commit crimes and they need to be addressed through the justice system. But first and foremost, we need to address the drivers of crime: poverty, addiction, health, and intergenerational trauma. Those are the things which you don’t seem to understand. We shouldn’t be coming to this House with a high-handed arrogance that “others” everyone else, that says, “I’m better and here’s what we’re going to do to them.”

We need to come here and say, “How can I serve your community—a community I don’t know well, but a community I need to know more about. How can I become connected? Who in your community can reach out to me and help me do that?” And if that happens to be a gang member, to do that effectively, to lift people out of the place that they’re in, we need to spend Crown money. It’s money well spent. And, what’s more, it’s money spent that will assist that community and it will assist the wider community. A community that is more equal and equitable is a safer and better community for everyone.

So, Mr Brown, this bill is a short bill, but it’s amazing how much venom you can fit into two pages—a nasty little bill. We will not be supporting this bill.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are times when speaking one’s mind ceases to become a moral duty and it becomes a pleasure. Chris Bishop got up a couple of years ago during a members’ evening and talked about how there are two types of bills—earnest bills that have no hope of getting any kind of passage in the House but are sort of grand designs trying to solve a large problem; but also very narrowly focused bills that actually might have a chance of making it through the House that are going to actually fix a problem as well—and they generally fall into those two types. This is a third category of bill, which is the bill that’s designed to generate social media content for the person who’s promoting it and, other than that, for no other purpose whatsoever. It’s entirely political, it will last no longer than its first reading, and it’ll be a great pleasure to bury it along with others of its ilk.

It is my pleasure to get up and speak on the “Public Finance (Don’t Give Any Money from the Pockets of Hard-working (White) Mum and Dad Kiwi Mum and Dad Investors (White) Mum and Dad Kiwi Taxpayers to (Brown) Gang Meth Pedlars) Amendment Bill” in the name of “younger Sméagol” over there. I have to say that it is a great pleasure to bury this bill and to ensure that this House wastes no more time on it.

“Younger Gollum” over there, in his speech, when he started off—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Order! No, no, no.

Hon JAMES SHAW: I withdraw and—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Sit down. I haven’t ruled yet. You don’t know what I’m going to rule. The member well knows other members are to be referred to by their correct name. Don’t do it again.

Hon JAMES SHAW: He started his speech over there by saying that the Government had met with gang members in the Beehive! Well, how about that? There’s actually photographic evidence of the John Key - led National Government, led by John Key, of the Prime Minister—who was John Key at the time—meeting with gang members in his office, which was owned by John Key at the time! There are also photographs of Rob Muldoon—who was not John Key but was also a National Party Prime Minister—also meeting with gang members in his office on the ninth floor of the Beehive at the time. It turns out that these two former National Party Prime Ministers met with gang members in the Beehive! And you know why? It’s because they had the wisdom and the experience to know that if you wanted to solve a social problem you actually needed to engage with people who are involved in that problem. That’s why they invited them into the Beehive, and that has been a tradition that has crossed across this Parliament, no matter who has been the Prime Minister, no matter which party has been in Government. People have had the wisdom and the experience—unlike that member—to know that if you wanted to solve the problem, you needed to engage with the people who are involved in that problem.

I hope, I pray, but I don’t hold out much of a candle, that eventually that will sink into that member’s experience and he’ll know that, actually, if you want to solve that problem, you need to get involved with the people who are involved in it, because that’s where the solutions are: it’s involved with the communities and the people who are suffering from the experience that they are suffering from.

It is a great pleasure to stand up and speak on behalf of the Green Party, and many others in this Parliament and this country, and to say that this bill is merely social media content so that that member can try and appeal to a narrow and nasty portion of the community and build his voter base. We will have nothing to do with it, and we’re not going to vote for this bill.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think it was really difficult for me to sit in the House and to listen to the first speaker, the member who’s sponsoring this bill, because as Dr Duncan Webb referred to, he keeps saying “they”—the reference that he had in his first speech to “they”. Well, I have news for that member: the “they” are members of my family. Am I an associate because they are a member of my family? Am I an associate because some of my very close neighbours are gang members where I actually live? This bill is so fundamentally flawed, fundamentally flawed, it doesn’t even provide a definition of what an associate is.

There is no way I can stand here and support this bill that takes food from the mouths of children of gang members. There is no way I can stand here in this House and support a bill that takes away education from children of gang families. There is no way I can stand here and support a bill that takes away vaccinations from both gang members, from family members, from children.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: You’re not.

BARBARA EDMONDS: And one of the members on the other side of the House says it doesn’t. But actually have you read the bill that you have tabled because it said “indirectly and directly funding programmes that have association”. Whānau Ora providers may have associations. Schools may have associations. So again, taking the example of myself, who may be considered an associate because I have very close family members who are in gangs—again, not all of us are brought up in privilege or silver spoons or with money in our parents’ bank accounts. But I stood on a board of a school. So me, an associate of an organisation that receives direct funding from the Crown, which is through Budgets, Vote Education—

Simeon Brown: School’s not a gang.

BARBARA EDMONDS: It is in your bill. Read the bill. An associate of a gang who runs a programme—I’m a board member of the board of trustees. That is a school. So therefore a Whānau Ora provider, one of our food providers—and again, if the member actually read the bill and got some research into his actual bill, he’ll realise he’s actually amending the wrong Act.

So the whole reference to the example you used was around the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act. Now the member, if he had done some research, would have seen that the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act—it was Cabinet in 2009 who decided they would allocate funding outside of the normal Budget process. Therefore, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act is actually the Act that you need to change if you want to stop criminal proceeds of crime funding, which the member used in his speech in relation to a programme in the Hawke’s Bay. If that is the one that he wants—beg your pardon. If the member wants to use that programme as the example for the driving of this bill, then the member should have paid some time to have a look at what funded that programme: the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, which the Cabinet decided in 2009 to allocate funding outside of the normal Budget process.

So I will say again, I’m not going to stand here and support a flawed bill. I’m not going to stand here and support a bill that will actually take money away from children who need to be fed, money away from education providers who need to educate children and families of gangs. These children and some of these families have no choice. Not all of us are brought up with a silver spoon. The “they” as referenced in the first member’s speech—many people within this House, we will be considered associates by neighbourhoods, by families, and by other measures. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Pō mārie.

The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.