Wednesday, 13 April 2022

WEDNESDAY, 13 APRIL 2022

WEDNESDAY, 13 APRIL 2022

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

Hon JENNY SALESA (Assistant Speaker): Ke tau lotu. ‘E ‘Otua Mafimafi, kuo mau taa’i mālie ‘i ho’o ‘ofá mo e ngaahi tāpuaki hono kotoa. ‘Oku tuku homau lotó ka mau hū atu ke malu’i ange mu’a ‘a e Kuiní, mo tataki ‘emau fua fatongia ‘i he Fale Aleá ‘aki ‘a e poto Faka-’Otua, ‘ofa pea mo e ‘ulungaanga malū, ko e ‘uhí ko e mo’ui mo e melino ‘a e fonuá. ‘Oku mau kole atu ‘a e ngaahi me’á ni hono kotoa ‘i he huafa ho ‘alo ka ko homau fakamo’uí, ‘Emeni.

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

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

SPEAKER: No petitions or papers have been presented. Select committee reports have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK: Reports of the Regulations Review Committee on:

the examination of COVID-19 orders presented between 1 and 7 March 2022, and

the examination of COVID-19 orders presented between 16 and 29 March 2022.

SPEAKER: Those reports are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK: Fisheries Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.

Motions

Poppy Day—Centenary

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister for Veterans): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to mark the centenary of Poppy Day.

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

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: I move, That the House note the RSA’s Poppy Appeal on Friday, 22 April, 100 years after the first Poppy Day was held in New Zealand, thank the teams of volunteers who will line the streets in towns and cities across New Zealand collecting donations, and support this year’s focus on raising awareness of New Zealand’s 30,000 younger veterans.

Motion agreed to.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Foreign Affairs

1. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Has she taken advice to Cabinet regarding an international moratorium on seabed mining; if so, what did the advice say?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I’ve not taken advice to Cabinet regarding the specific issue of an international moratorium on deep-sea mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction. However, protecting and preserving the marine environment is a key objective for Aotearoa New Zealand, and I’ve engaged closely on this issue with ministerial colleagues including the Ministers of oceans and fisheries, conservation, and the environment. Our current focus is engaging activity, and in good faith, in the International Seabed Authority (ISA) process, to ensure the effective protection of the marine environment. To that end, we’ve been vocal in our calls for no deep-sea mining to proceed without robust environmental protections. At the most recent ISA negotiations in March 2022, New Zealand worked with Chile and Costa Rica to advance a significant proposal to improve environmental decision-making and environmental standards in the ISA regulations.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Has the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade reviewed New Zealand’s international position on seabed mining since Nauru triggered the two-year rule to fast track development of seabed mining and exploitation regulations; if not, why not?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Thank you for the question. Yes, a full review of New Zealand’s approach was last conducted in 2021, following Nauru’s triggering of the two-year rule. New Zealand has stepped up its approach to the International Seabed Authority mining code as negotiations have entered this critical phase. We’ve been more proactive in advocating for high standards and communicating our bottom lines. This position includes being explicit that New Zealand will vote against any mining code that does not provide the sufficiently high environmental standards as required by article 145 of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea. If the ISA adopts a provisional mining code that does not meet such standards, or fails to adopt the code before the deadline, we’ll be advocating for no seabed mining applications to be approved by the ISA until a final code is approved by the assembly.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister agree with recent research published in Marine Policy showing that there are extensive gaps in scientific knowledge about deep-sea life which may take decades to adequately address; if so, will New Zealand support a precautionary moratorium in line with the Minister’s commitment to high standards of environmental protection?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Thank you for the question. New Zealand accepts that there are gaps in scientific knowledge relating to deep seabed mining and the impacts of it. At this moment, we’re proactively supporting work in the Pacific to improve our scientific understanding of the impacts of deep-sea mining, with a particular focus on marine ecosystems, habitats, and their species. It is clear that deep-sea mining has the potential to cause significant harm to the deep seabed, but our limited knowledge of the deep seabed means it’s hard to quantify that harm. That’s why New Zealand is advocating for a precautionary approach in the negotiations taking place at ISA, with a view to ensuring the highest standards of environmental protection. If those high standards mean that deep-sea mining cannot currently take place, then so be it.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer (remote): Why did the Government abstain from voting in support of the deep seabed mining moratorium at the International Union for Conservation of Nature World Conservation Congress last year, if you don’t know that it’s good for the nation?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: To clarify the points that I’ve made: there is a lack of scientific information to properly evidence the impacts of deep seabed mining on the seafloor. That is the position New Zealand is taking. We are advocating for high environmental standards through the ISA, and we’ll continue to do that.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: The courts of this country have ruled against this activity for the mere fact that there isn’t enough knowledge; if that’s the case, then why not have a full moratorium until you have more knowledge? Surely precautionary—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s got about three questions in there; it’s probably out of order, but I don’t think it’s worth going back. There’s enough there for the Minister to answer.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Without conflating a domestic jurisdiction with an international jurisdiction, can I say that the Government has been entirely consistent in its advocacy for pushing for higher environmental standards at the ISA to enable New Zealand to advocate for the protection and preservation of the marine environment. This standard would need to be respected by all States and will influence decisions in those marine areas beyond national jurisdiction.

Teanau Tuiono (remote): What is her response to the declaration by the Pacific Parliamentarians’ Alliance on Deep Sea Mining launched today at the Our Ocean conference in Palau with its call for a moratorium on deep-sea mining?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: We’ve made clear our views on deep-sea mining and the risks it poses to the Pacific. We’re supporting scientific work in the Pacific as well. At the moment, our focus is working so that deep-sea mining does not take place unless we can ensure the protection of our ocean. Ultimately, we respect the right of each nation to determine its own position and kaitiakitanga responsibilities. I understand that there are a range of views on deep-sea mining in the Pacific and I welcome the opportunity to engage with our Pacific neighbours on this issue. The Government is actively considering how it can better engage with Pacific countries on deep-sea mining—including through a potential focus on deep-sea science so that we can all better understand how to protect our Pacific Ocean.

Teanau Tuiono: Does she agree with the former Governor-General of Tuvalu Sir Iakoba Italeli that “Our ocean assets are critical and can generate national revenue, but the legacy of our oceans and their health is more important. Deep sea mining must be held to a higher standard to protect our Commonwealth.”, and, if not, why not?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I certainly agree with the views that state that deep-sea mining has an impact on our ocean floor and that participating in the initiatives that show a science-evidence base to support higher environmental standards is the approach that the New Zealand Government is taking in relation to its engagement with the ISA in setting a code.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will she join with tangata whenua and Pasifika leaders who are asking and strongly campaigning to ban seabed mining; if not, why not?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: There are a range of views that have been reflected across the Pacific, and as I’ve already stated, we will certainly work in the Pacific to ensure that there is that science-based information that can help the Pacific to protect its marine environment, that we will continue to advocate for high environmental standards at the ISA, and that we will continue to advocate for the protection and preservation of our marine environment.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Is it still New Zealand’s position that “Restoration or rehabilitation of the seafloor and associated fauna is unlikely to be feasible in many instances” as New Zealand told the International Seabed Authority in 2015; if not, why not?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes, this is still New Zealand’s position on the current state of scientific understanding that recovery rates of the seafloor and associated fauna are likely to be very long and the solution sits across a number of Governments for years to come.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Is she concerned that the ISA’s fast-tracked process to finalise regulations to allow seabed mining by July next year could result in an assessment process that does not protect the marine environment; if so, will the Minister advise Cabinet to support an international moratorium on seabed mining on the high seas?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Our current focus is engaging actively and in good faith in the ISA processes to ensure the effective protection of the marine environment. We are pleased that the ISA —as advocated for by New Zealand—has adopted a hybrid-meeting approach; this does help with further engagement and has enabled more participation in this very serious issue. As negotiations at the ISA proceed, New Zealand’s approach to deep-sea mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction remains under active review. There is a plan to conduct a full review engaging all relevant Ministers, following the next ISA negotiating session in July, and this will inform our position moving forward.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The ANZ World Commodity Price Index rose a further 3.9 percent in March to a record high, with broad-based gains once again led by dairy and aluminium. Dairy surged 7.6 percent compared with February, as buyers snapped up limited supplies. Forestry rose 3.3 percent due to demand from China, amidst supply restrictions there, while horticulture was flat amid bad weather and shortages of labour. Meat and fibre eased as beef prices also eased—though they are still close to historic highs—while lamb prices edged up. All of this points to the fact that the primary sector is continuing to play an important role in supporting our economic recovery and rebuild.

SPEAKER: Before I call a supplementary, I just want an assurance from the Hon Mr Simpson that he didn’t just breach photography rules in the House.

Hon Scott Simpson: No, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Thank you. The member didn’t take a photo. OK, thank you.

Hon Scott Simpson: Fiddling on my phone, though.

SPEAKER: Sorry?

Hon Scott Simpson: I was fiddling on my phone, though.

SPEAKER: Right. Admiring the person on his right, as well.

Anna Lorck: What constraints has he seen on the primary sector supporting the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The global economic environment remains volatile, with shipping costs continuing to remain elevated due to delays, particularly at Chinese ports. The ANZ Commodity Price Index report said that the Baltic Dry Index—an important measure of shipping costs—lifted 15.5 percent during March, while the Harper Petersen world container index hit record levels. New Zealand continues to face ongoing supply constraints due to the pandemic, exacerbated by these cost increases. We will be continuing to support our primary sector and exporters through the uncertain times that we’re in, by making sure that goods can get in and out of New Zealand—in particular, through our airfreight subsidy scheme. The support through that scheme has so far enabled more than 13,200 flights, carrying over 250,000 tonnes of airfreight worth more than $20 billion.

Anna Lorck: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Statistics New Zealand today released the food price index for March. It does show prices rose 0.7 percent in March compared with the previous month, and after removing regular seasonal impacts, food prices rose 0.4 percent. For the year, prices rose 7.6 percent, the largest increase since July 2011, when prices rose 7.9 percent. Rising food prices are a global phenomenon—for example, the United States reported overnight that food prices rose 1 percent in March 2022, compared with the previous month, and 8.8 percent for the year. The environment continues to remain volatile with the ongoing COVID-19 disruptions and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine pushing up prices. We acknowledge that the rising cost of living is a crisis for some New Zealanders, and that’s why we have supported low and middle income earners through reductions in their fuel bills and income increases. These are measures that can make a difference to households rather than unfocused tax cuts favoured by the Opposition that would benefit those earning over $180,000 the most.

Nicola Willis: Does the Minister seriously expect New Zealanders to believe that domestic policy settings have not contributed to the soaring cost of Kiwi-grown fruit and vegetables, up 18 percent in the past year alone?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m not sure if the member is aware, but in order for goods to get from where they are grown to the places where they are sold, it requires them to go on something called transport, and that, unfortunately, has seen significant cost increases, particularly due to the price of fuel.

Nicola Willis: Would the Minister care to mansplain further—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! End of question. I should have ruled the first question out. The member knows that. I’ve been pretty lenient with her, over time, but I think now she’s in a senior position she must stay within Standing Orders. The Minister does not have responsibility for the first part of that question.

Hon Michael Wood: Does the Minister believe that domestic and international airlines would have been able to stand on their own two feet without the Maintaining International Air Connectivity scheme?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, I believe that all airlines have benefited significantly from the international air connectivity scheme. In terms of New Zealand, obviously, the Government has stepped in to support Air New Zealand. It’s certainly true that subsidies are important sometimes to keep transport going. I’m not sure if that applies to the supply of black Mercedes to drive across the road, but I’ll find that out.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that “We’ve been a Government focused on doing what we can to ensure that Kiwis’ wages are increasing, including relative to the cost of living”; if so, does she accept that inflation is rising faster than wages, so real incomes are falling?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I stand by my statement. We’ve been focused on tackling the cost of living since we came into office. This includes, of course, average ordinary-time wages rising by 14.5 percent; increases to income support, Working for Families, childcare assistance, and the accommodation supplement; the introduction of the winter energy payment; and Best Start. We’ve raised the minimum wage by over a third, from $15.75 in 2017 to $21.20, and overseen the increase of wages for nurses, police officers, and teachers, to name a few. We’ve introduced the Ka Ora, Ka Ako free and healthy school lunch programmes to over 200,000 students, reduced education costs for parents by removing school donations for deciles 1 to 7, and expanded free and low-cost doctors visits to children under 14. Volatile global energy prices and, yes, supply chain disruption mean that inflation will exceed wage growth in the 2022 financial year. This is why we also removed 25c of fuel excise duty and instituted half-price public transport fares. This contrasts with the Leader of the Opposition, who plans to double the cost of public transport, remove free public transport for superannuitants, increase petrol prices, cancel public holidays, and provide tax cuts for those earning $180,000.

Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that higher levels of Government spending in a constrained economy means interest rates will need to go higher than otherwise to contain inflation; if not, why not?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, firstly, I would like to draw out that the spending of this Government relative to the last has broadly been in line, if you compare as a percentage of GDP. We spent less than 2020 and 2021 as a percentage of GDP than National did in 2009 and 2010. We’ve also taken on similar amounts of debt if you compare this period to the period of the global financial crisis. I would also reflect the Secretary to the Treasury, who has pointed out that, in terms of inflationary impact from Government spending, it all depends, of course, on what that Government spending is on.

Christopher Luxon: Is it her view that Government policies have no impact on inflation or interest rates at all; if so, why?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said, it all depends on what that spending is going towards. And, as I’ve already pointed out, whether you look as a percentage of GDP, the spending that this Government has invested in our economy, which has been to support, in a targeted way, New Zealanders through this crisis, we have been very cautious in the way that we have done that. It is a bit rich to be lectured by the other side of the House, who want to spend a billion dollars cutting tax at the top income bracket of $180,000 or more and also giving back tax breaks as well to investors. Untargeted tax cuts would have the impact of being inflationary.

David Seymour: If it’s the case that her Government’s spending has not stoked inflation in New Zealand, can she explain to the public why meat, poultry, and eggs are reported by Statistics New Zealand today to have inflated in price faster than the average increase in prices across the country, when those things are produced almost entirely within New Zealand and not influenced by offshore effects?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, in terms of offshore demand and offshore prices, they will be, because of what’s happening in the export market. Again, I would point to the fact that, yes, we have, overall, seen an increase in food prices. There are two factors at play: external factors, which all countries are being hit by at present, but the New Zealand market also has some factors that are unique to us. We do not have enough competition in the New Zealand grocery market. That is something that we as a Government and as a country need to address, and we’ve already set out our plans on how we intend to do so.

Christopher Luxon: Does she agree with CoreLogic economist Kelvin Davidson that “anyone with a mortgage is paying more and there could be another at least one percent onto most mortgage rates over the next three to six months”, and, if so, what will another 1 percent mean for the typical Kiwi mortgage holder?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, what we have seen in our interest rates in New Zealand is that we have had historic lows, and that even with the official cash rate (OCR) adjustment that we have seen the Reserve Bank announce today, that would bring us back to a point that’s less than what we were even seeing in 2017 and at the point of the election. It has been historically low. We do, however, have concerns over whether or not we might have families who are overleveraged in the market because they may have purchased at a time during historically low interest rates. That is something that we’ve been very mindful of, and making sure that we look at what’s happening in our housing market to ensure that those families have all of the support and best advice possible when making those significant purchasing decisions, so that they can weather changes in interest rates.

Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that rising interest rates, which mean a family with an $800,000 mortgage are now paying over $12,000 a year more in interest than 12 months ago, will make the cost of living crisis much worse for thousands of Kiwi families already struggling with record inflation and falling real incomes?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I would point to the member that the OCR was 1.75 at the time when National last left office and we are talking about a historically low period when it comes to interest rates in this country. I’d be interested in hearing what the member is possibly proposing in this space. Obviously, the Reserve Bank are using the tools available to them, as has been tradition in New Zealand for a long time.

Christopher Luxon: Have the policies that she promised over a year ago would “tilt the market in favour of first-home buyers” worked, and, if so, why has the share of houses being sold to first-time home buyers just hit a 4½-year low?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I can tell you what won’t tip the market towards first-home buyers, and that’s stripping out all of the changes that we have made when it comes to deductibility for investors. That member proposes giving back a billion dollars towards those who are speculators in our market and those on incomes over $180,000. I can tell you that certainly won’t help first-home buyers.

Christopher Luxon: What role does she believe the Government has, if any, to avoid policies that push interest rates higher than they otherwise need to go?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course we have a role to play in making sure that all of the economic indicators that are important to our economic wellbeing as a nation are heading in the right direction. In terms of growth, we are back to pre-COVID levels. We have low unemployment. We have low debt relative to other countries. All of that matters for our economic wellbeing as a nation. But, of course, the cost of living matters too, which is why, if you have an eye to inflation, what you don’t do is have untargeted tax cuts, which will have an inflationary impact. There are other ways to help New Zealanders. That’s why our 1 April changes target the majority of families through the family tax credit, superannuitants through increases in superannuation, and those on Government support. That is how you support New Zealanders through these tough times.

Question No. 4—Police

4. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by all her statements and policies?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Yes, in the context that they were made and undertaken.

Chris Baillie: Does she stand by her statement from earlier this month that, “We have put 1,400 extra cops on the beat.”, and how does that square with the Prime Minister’s statement from last month that 1,800 new police officers were “promised and delivered.”?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Yes.

Chris Baillie: So is the Prime Minister wrong when she said 1,800 new police officers had been recruited?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Eighteen hundred new police officers, in terms of the lift and then 1,800 growth, which means we have lifted the number of police—we will, when we reach the target in June 2023—by 1,800, taking account of attrition.

Chris Baillie: How does her statement that, “We have 1,400 extra cops on the beat.” square with the Police Association’s statement that, “Just 1,273 new police officers had been recruited.”?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Well, it would depend on when the Police Association did their count. I know from the latest figures the police have given me, it is 1,400.

Chris Baillie: Does the Minister think policing success should be measured by how much the Government spends, or by whether the crime rate goes down?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Whatever happens in terms of the crime rate, if you don’t have sufficient resource to deal with it, you cannot deal with it. This Government has spent the last four-and-a-bit years rebuilding the police after the National Government froze budgets and dropped the numbers. They are the facts.

Question No. 5—COVID-19 Response

5. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What recent announcements have been made about the COVID-19 Protection Framework setting?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Today, I announced that from 11.59 p.m. tonight, New Zealand will move to orange, and Kiwis will be able to enjoy the long weekend with greater freedoms. Over the last six weeks, we’ve seen Omicron cases peak in most of the country. With cases and hospitalisations now dropping, we’re confident that a move to orange will lock in those gains and keep communities safe, while helping us get back to a greater sense of normalcy. By following the rules and each of us continuing to make some sacrifices, we’ve continued to save lives, protect whānau and loved ones, and we’ve demonstrated what it means to be a Kiwi—that we look out for one another.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What will the changes to orange mean for New Zealanders?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: At orange, there are now no indoor or outdoor capacity limits, but there is guidance on holding safe events, and face masks continue to be required in many indoor settings. Bars and restaurants are no longer required to enforce the seated and separated rules, although they can choose to keep them if they wish to. The move to orange allows us to balance more freedoms for New Zealanders, while keeping some of the tools we know are effective—reducing the spread of Omicron.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What precautions can people take in light of these changes, particularly over the coming long weekend?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It’s important to note that Omicron is still in the community, so there is still risk. I urge everyone to continue to be cautious and to think about the health of others who they may come into contact with, but especially those who are immunocompromised or who are at higher risk of long-term health impacts from infection. I would encourage people to use rapid antigen tests where that’s appropriate; continue to wear their masks where that’s appropriate or required; and of course to get vaccinated if they’re not already vaccinated, and to get a vaccination booster if they haven’t taken up the opportunity to do that. As New Zealanders get ready for a well-deserved long weekend, it’s important, too, that they have a plan for what they would do in case they—or someone in their family—gets COVID-19 whilst they are away from home on holiday.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What will the changes to orange mean for schools, in particular for the use of face masks?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The orange setting allows for schools to respond to the level of risk present in their school communities, and to make appropriate decisions to put additional measures in place, like the continued wearing of face masks. The Ministry of Education will be encouraging schools to retain their current settings at school for tomorrow, so that they have time to plan for any changes they might wish to make when students return after the school holidays. The decision to move to orange has been made based on public health advice, and it reflects the fact that New Zealanders are showing clear signs that Omicron has now peaked, and we’re on the way down the other side.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he share concerns about New Zealand’s economic outlook expressed by BNZ that “business confidence is shattered, uncertainty is very high and leading indicators of growth are weak”; if so, how does he think these factors will affect New Zealand households over the next 12 months?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I do have concerns about the impacts of COVID-related global supply chain disruptions, the effects of the war in Ukraine on global supply chain and services, and resulting price increases. This is shared by the BNZ, who said in their commentary on the Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion that “The pressures faced by business are all supply side.” In answer to the second part of the question, we certainly do acknowledge that many Kiwi households are facing a tough time, and, if we are realistic, this is likely to continue through the second part of the first half of this year. That’s why, however, it is positive that the BNZ has said that wages would also head higher, which will support Kiwi households. The Government is doing what we can to give households certainty that what we will do to support them will continue—for example, we’ve said that we have cut public transport fares in half instead of increasing them to the tune of $630 million, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, and it’s also why we’re targeting income support to low and middle income families instead of giving thousands of dollars of tax cuts for those on the top rate.

Nicola Willis: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank’s monetary policy committee, who today stated: “Consumer confidence has been declining as domestic price pressures are outpacing nominal household income growth.”, and will he now admit that the cost of living is growing faster than New Zealanders’ incomes?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Reserve Bank is reflecting what all New Zealanders know: that at this particular time in 2022, it is tough for many households, in terms of rising prices. I would note that, in respect of the second part of the member’s question, the half-yearly update forecast from the Treasury indicates that 2022 is the only year in the forecast period in which inflation will outstrip wages.

Nicola Willis: What will he do to restore economic confidence of middle-income New Zealand households squeezed by soaring costs and now facing rising mortgage rates with the biggest increase to the official cash rate in 22 years?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What this Government will do is continue the balanced approach that we’ve had of making sure that we keep debt low compared to other countries around the world; that we invest heavily in the things that those New Zealanders rely on, such as a strong public health system, good quality schools, and making sure we have good quality transport networks right around New Zealand. And what we won’t do is claim that we’re going to be able to reduce debt at the same time as promising massive increases. I’m struggling to keep up at the moment with the member’s party’s promises but, as far as I can tell, it means more spending in areas like mental health, in defence, in transport, but, at the same time, promising to cut taxes and lower debt—it’s the Bermuda Triangle that National is still trapped in.

Nicola Willis: Does he agree with the statement by the Reserve Bank’s monetary policy committee that in discussing the underlying influences on higher domestic inflation, “both international and domestic factors were important”, or is the finance Minister the one person in New Zealand who doesn’t think his policy decisions have an impact on inflation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As was traversed in the question by the member’s leader, different policies implemented by different Governments will have an impact. If a Government were to adopt untargeted tax cuts that favour the most wealthy in New Zealand, that will have a significant impact. On this side of the House, we believe that we do have to continue to invest in our health system, in our education system, while making sure we keep a balance. The Reserve Bank has its job to do; the Government will keep doing its job.

Question No. 7—Health

7. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister of Health: What recent support has been made available for New Zealand’s health system to learn from our response to COVID-19?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): This Government has taken seriously its responsibility to keep New Zealanders safe from avoidable harm, and, on this basis, tens of thousands of lives have been saved because of the way we responded to COVID-19. However, it’s important that we also capture what we’ve learnt from the response so far, and, for this reason, I’ve announced, today, the establishment of a $9 million research fund to look at our response and ways that will contribute to future health system planning. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to have far-reaching impacts on our communities, and while research, so far, about New Zealand’s COVID-19 response and conduct of the National Immunisation Programme has already provided valuable insight and enabled the rapid application of national and international evidence, today’s funding will allow a deeper look into how we responded. A request for proposals for research opens on 19 April, and I look forward to seeing how many successful proposals we get to use this important opportunity.

Sarah Pallett: What will the priorities of this research fund be?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: With this fund, we’re looking at a whole range of things, such as how different sectors of society, including Māori, Pacific, and disabled communities, have been affected by COVID, and what we’ve learnt about working with these communities. This will help us understand what still needs to be done and to prepare for future pandemics. There are also a lot of valuable lessons to be learnt from the COVID-19 vaccination programme, including how we manage disruption to other vaccination programmes and how we improve other vaccination programmes as well. During our response, we have vaccinated 4 million people against COVID-19. That’s the largest vaccination programme we’ve ever seen in this country, and we need to see how we can apply what we’ve learnt in that programme to other programmes.

Sarah Pallett: What benefits does he expect from this research?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The key benefit we are focusing on for this research is how lessons from the response to the COVID-19 pandemic can be brought to bear on future responses and mass vaccine roll-outs. We’d also expect that equity should be a key element of any proposal. It’s become clear that systemic inequities in access to healthcare existed in the system and played out during the course of our response to COVID. This is why one of the criterion for assessments of research proposals will be how rapidly the evidence can be translated into practice or interventions in New Zealand and for our underserved communities, particularly Māori.

Question No. 8—Health

8. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: What is the total list value of non-COVID vaccines that have expired in the past five years, and how many 15 to 30 year olds to date have received a vaccine as part of the measles catch-up campaign launched in July 2020?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Quantities of 22 different vaccines expired before they were used in the last five years. The list value of these vaccines, before applying rebates and credits, was $21.7 million, and after applying rebates and credits, the net cost was $11.5 million. When the decision to procure a particular vaccine is made, it is done on the best information at the time and with a reasonable expectation of what can be administered in the period ahead. But the nature of pharmaceutical purchasing is that once you place an order, that’s it; you own the stock. Generally speaking, they don’t do sale and return. In response to the second part of the member’s question: 24,319 15- to 30-year-olds have been vaccinated as part of the measles catch-up campaign since July 2020.

Dr Shane Reti: How many months in advance is he given notice of the likelihood of millions of dollars of vaccines expiring?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, as I tried to explain to the member in my answer to his primary question, it is that pharmaceutical procurement requires a lead time and it’s done on the basis of the best information at the time and with a forecast for what can be administered, but then things come along, such as a worldwide pandemic, that disrupts the roll-out of particular campaigns. When pharmaceuticals are procured, they are procured on the basis of what is needed at a particular time, but also a buffer for subsequent years, and that buffer can be anything from four to nine months of supply for that particular vaccine.

Dr Shane Reti: Why did he not call the Meningitis Foundation, who say they would have been able to distribute the 17,000 meningitis vaccines before they were allowed to expire?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Pharmaceutical purchasing is the responsibility of Pharmac, and management of campaigns is the responsibility of clinical leaders within the Ministry of Health and DHBs, and they put together the plan of both procurement and roll-out of the campaign.

Dr Shane Reti: How many flu vaccines does he expect will expire this year, and will it be more or less than the $3.8 million of flu vaccines that, according to written questions, he allowed to expire last year?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The flu vaccination campaign for 2022 is going gangbusters. We now have roughly 230,000 flu immunisation jabs that have been administered, and no one is expecting the flu campaign this year to be anything other than a success.

Dr Shane Reti: Will he give any soon-to-expire flu vaccines away for free this year for those who would otherwise have to pay for them or would he rather have them expire?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: This Government has increased the number of flu vaccines available to New Zealanders—roughly 2 million. We have seen a very good start to the campaign—it started on 1 April—roughly 230,000 jabs now having been administered, and we’ll continue to do that. I anticipate that New Zealanders will understand the importance of getting a flu jab this year, because of the ongoing risks of COVID and because they want to have a safe and secure winter.

Question No. 9—Transport

9. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of Transport: How is the Government supporting the provision of public transport services across Aotearoa New Zealand?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): As a Government, we have a strong sense of the public good through the provision of goods and services to New Zealanders, and in transport, one of the ways we do that is through the subsidisation of the operation of public transport networks and services to improve the level of service and encourage the uptake of public transport. This helps reduce congestion, makes our cities work better, and reduces emissions. We’ve thought long and hard about the role that the Government has to play, and we’re putting that thought into action through support for public transport services as well as important investments in rapid transit in Auckland and Wellington, the Eastern Busway, and into regional rail, among many other projects—just like many other countries are—as we face down the climate challenge.

Shanan Halbert: What are some examples of how the Government subsidises public transport?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The main support that the Government provides for public transport services—[Interruption]—and it’s important for all members to be aware—is through farebox assistance, where the Crown subsidises approximately 30 percent of the cost of a fare, with local transport authorities covering approximately an additional 30 percent. If public transport had to stand on its own two feet, these subsidies would be removed, seeing users pay the full cost of public transport, which would generally be over double the current cost of fares. The SuperGold card is also an important public transport subsidy, which, if removed, would result in seniors and veterans having to pay for off-peak and weekend travel.

Shanan Halbert: How do public transport subsidies encourage mode shifts?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: When the Government provides support for public transport services, commuters can have confidence in the frequency and reliability of public transport giving them more options for getting from A to B. The Government backs cities and towns around New Zealand to have better-quality public transport, more in line with what we see in other countries, and, in doing so, provide more opportunities for mode shift by giving people real transport choices. This helps to reduce our transport emissions. I’m encouraged to hear that members around the House want to see our emissions reduce, and supporting public transport is a very important part of that.

Simon Court: Does the Minister think that the taxpayer is getting value for money for the $282 subsidy for each Te Huia train passenger, when InterCity buses run 11 services a day, with Wi-Fi, between Hamilton and Auckland for only $20 per passenger, and is that value for money?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Firstly, I would question some of the figures that the member uses. He might have got them from Paul Goldsmith’s spreadsheet, I think. Secondly, I would note that, actually, some of those inter-regional bus services that Mr Court refers to have, in fact, received Government support through the Essential Transport Connectivity scheme over the past three years. Thirdly, I would note that it is exactly the wrong time for members opposite to propose that we get rid of public transport services as we face down a climate emergency. I know it is deeply ingrained in the politics of the right wing of New Zealand to be vehemently opposed to any investment in rail, walking, and cycling, but as we try and reduce emissions in our country, we have to start walking the walk. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Mr Bishop inter alia, please turn your volumes down. Finish your answer, please.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: In finishing my comment, what I would say is that across most parties in this House, we voted for the zero carbon Act the other year in this Parliament. At some point, we have to have policies and investments that follow through on that and reduce emissions in our transport sector. You can’t vote for that and then oppose everything we do in transport to reduce emissions.

Shanan Halbert: How does public transport fit within the developments of our plan to accelerate the transition to net zero?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Next month will see the release of the Government’s Emissions Reduction Plan, which will outline how we intend to meet the emissions reduction budgets set out in the zero carbon Act, which had broad support across the House. Public transport services are critical for enabling the levels of mode shift and will play a key role in helping us meet those targets. That was a key recommendation from the independent Climate Change Commission. I look forward to the support of all members who supported that process in delivering better services to reduce transport emissions.

Question No. 10—Social Development and Employment

10. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How many people, if any, were on jobseeker support for two years or more in the December 2017 quarter, and how does this compare to the equivalent figures in the December 2021 quarter?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Jobseeker support is there for New Zealanders who need it and qualify. As at the end of December 2017, there were a total of 48,582 receiving jobseeker support for longer than two years. Of those, 29,031 received a health and disability exemption, and 19,551 were considered work-ready. As at December 2021, there were 77,928 receiving a jobseeker benefit for two years or more. Of those, 45,165 received the health and disability exemption, and 32,763 were considered work-ready—a difference of 13,212 work-ready clients on jobseeker. We have come through COVID-19 in much better shape than we did the global financial crisis (GFC), due to the Government’s quick actions. We’re now seeing more people move off benefit and into employment than any time since electronic records began. This trend has continued in the first quarter of the year, and I’m looking forward to the Ministry of Social Development publishing the March quarter results later this month.

Hon Louise Upston: Why, when businesses are crying out for staff, did fewer people who had been receiving a benefit for longer than three years move into employment in 2021 compared to 2017?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The exits off benefit into employment have been the highest that we’ve seen since electronic records were kept. Last year, 119,700 people moved off benefit into work; in 2017, that was 79,737 people. Currently, we have about 11.1 percent of our working-age population on benefit; that compares to, I think, 13.2 percent of the working-age population that were on benefit two years after the GFC.

Hon Louise Upston: What was the unemployment rate after the GFC, compared to now?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think it was certainly higher than 3.2 percent, which we have been able to achieve. If we look at the actual numbers of the general population that are on benefit, or are jobseeker support work-ready, it’s about 3.2 percent, as well, but that’s, of course, not the working-age population.

Hon Louise Upston: How can the Government claim that its employment initiatives have been anything but a complete failure, when fewer long-term benefit recipients have been supported into work every single year under Labour, compared to 2017?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I have been clear about the numbers of people who have been supported into work. The evidence is there to show that we have supported more people off benefit into work than what has been seen since electronic records have been kept. We as a Government have been focused on making sure that when we do support people off benefit, it actually is into employment. The outcome or the success is not just about getting the person off benefit with no consideration for where they’ve gone. I think that there will be good news when the quarterly results come out, because, already looking at it, what we’re seeing at the end of March is probably about 20,000 fewer people on benefit, compared to December 2021. Given what we’ve gone through, I think that’s something for us as a Government to be proud of.

Question No. 11—Veterans

11. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister for Veterans: What recent changes have been made in support of New Zealand Vietnam veterans affected by chemicals like Agent Orange during the Vietnam War?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister for Veterans): I’m very pleased to announce to the House that the ex gratia payments totalling $29.6 million has been made to 740 Vietnam veterans between December 2021 and March 2022 as part of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed in 2006 between the Crown, Vietnam veterans, and the RSA. The MOU accepted that exposure of service personnel to herbicides and defoliants was a major contributor to the ongoing suffering of our veterans and their families. I realise the money cannot fully compensate our Vietnam veterans for the hardships and inevitable distress they have experienced, but I hope this small gesture does go some way towards recognising their suffering and that of their family. I thank all current and ex-servicemen—and women—on behalf of all New Zealand for their service and for the sacrifices they have made for this country.

Ibrahim Omer: What new illnesses appear on the United States National Academy of Sciences’ list of conditions associated with chemicals of interest—in this case, Agent Orange?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: When the MOU was signed, there were five conditions on the United States National Academy of Sciences’ list. The MOU recognised that other conditions might be added in the future. Two new conditions have been added, including monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and hypertension. This means that under the terms of the MOU, Vietnam veterans in New Zealand who have been diagnosed with these new conditions are now entitled to an ex gratia payment of $40,000. If they have died of the condition before receiving an ex gratia payment, their spouse or partner may be entitled to $25,000. As I’ve noted, a total of $29.6 million has been paid to 740 Vietnam veterans who have met one of these new conditions. Further payments will be made as applications from veterans, spouses, and families are received. In some cases, the ex gratia payment of $40,000 can be life changing. This support from the Government shows the commitment we have for our veterans.

Ibrahim Omer: What steps were taken to recognise and recompense Vietnam veterans?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: In 2005, a report of the Joint Working Group on Concerns of Viet Nam Veterans to the Government comprised three main major themes: acknowledging the past, putting things right, and improving services to Vietnam veterans. These themes form the basis of the measures and support agreed to in the memorandum of understanding. The Government does take seriously its commitment to the veterans who served in Vietnam. The MOU was signed in 2006, after the Helen Clark Government accepted that the exposure of service personnel to dioxide-contaminated herbicides and other chemicals was a major contributor to the ongoing suffering of veterans and their families. The MOU defines these conditions as those that appear on United States National Academy of Sciences’ list of conditions where there is “sufficient evidence of association between the chemicals of interest, in this case, Agent Orange, and health outcomes.” This list is based on an overview of international research and databases dealing with the association between herbicides, such as Agent Orange, and particular health conditions.

Question No. 12—Police

12. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: How many more gang members are there on the National Gang List today compared to October 2017, and how many shootings related to gang activity have police recorded, if any, over that same period?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): In October ’17, the National Gang List had 5,343 gang members on it, and has since increased by 2,348. The National Gang List is an intelligence tool used by police. While the number of gang members on the list has dropped by around 500 since August last year, it remains an unreliable tool for measuring gang membership. I’m advised that police do not record shootings specifically related to gang activity; however, they do report violent offences which involve those on the National Gang List. These offences can include the use of firearms. In 2017, there were 2,138 violent offences committed by gang members; in 2021, this number was 1,704. The number of violent offences committed by gang members peaked in 2010, at 2,362.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does she agree with Police Association president Chris Cahill, who said, “Without a doubt, gang crime is up”?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I agree with much of what Chris Cahill says. My view around gang numbers and gang activity and operations is that when you know there’s a problem, you have to do something about it. That’s why you invest in your police, that’s why you build up the numbers, and that’s why you give them the legislative tools to do the job.

Hon Mark Mitchell: What is the split of firearms seized from Operation Tauwhiro as against general duties operations?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Operation Tauwhiro, as I’ve quoted often in this House, has taken around 1,500 firearms off the streets. Operation Tauwhiro has only operated for a year; over the last three years, there have been 10,000 firearms taken out of the hands of gangs.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I specifically asked how many had been taken by Operation Tauwhiro, and how many had been taken from general duty operations, and she hasn’t answered that. She’s answered only Tauwhiro.

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll make two points. First of all, the constant reference to “she” in this House—I think the member should be polite and say “the Minister”. The second point that I’d make is that the member asked for two figures, and he got them.

Hon Mark Mitchell: If Operation Tauwhiro is responsible for all firearms recovered—1,531—how many have the general duties operations recovered?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I gave him a figure for over the last three years, which is 10,000. If the member would like me to give him the Gun Safe figures, I’d be happy to do that. I don’t have them with me—if he would care to put that in writing, I will supply them to him.

STATEMENT ON THE LONG-TERM FISCAL POSITION 2021

Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Statement on the Long-term Fiscal Position 2021.

It’s a real pleasure to stand here as the chair of the Finance and Expenditure to speak on our report on the Treasury’s report on New Zealand’s long-term fiscal position, He Tirohanga Mokopuna. This document is an important document. It provides insight into the long-term challenges that New Zealand will face, not just in the short term but the next 40 years. It’s a useful document to ensure that we do not ignore those challenges but, rather, put policies in place now to prepare for them.

The long-term fiscal statement has an important message in terms of the long-term pressures on Government spending. At the same time, it’s not a financial forecast. It can’t be said to be any kind of accurate prediction of the future but a series of illustrative scenarios, extrapolating out some assumptions over a long period of time, and there are plenty of tables and graphs in that document. The fact is that the compounding effects of fiscal and policy decisions now will have significant impacts in the future, now and through to 2060.

Past long-term fiscal statements have shown similar scenarios and assumptions and historical trends that are extrapolated out over 40 years. In fact, in 2016, the same document showed net core Crown debt reaching a higher level by 2060 compared with this report. It was 206 percent of GDP. This report projects or suggests 169 percent. I’d like to say that the Minister of Finance here, in front of me, reduced debt by 40 percent but that might be a bit of a stretch. But one of the major challenges that will face us, which I would like to identify, is that of climate change, and the report has a significant section on climate change. [Interruption] Don’t deny it, Mr Bennet; not again. It really identifies not only the fiscal impact but also the wellbeing impact on New Zealanders across New Zealand, across our coastal communities, across our rural communities, and, importantly, in Māori communities and the Māori economy.

So I think it’s really important that we identify that and we identify that in terms of our long-term challenge, this Government is working, has been working, and will continue to work on these challenges so that we don’t come down the track in 40 years’ time having done nothing, which is what happened in the past nine years. In fact, this Government’s having to play catch-up on nine years of inactivity on climate change.

The fact is—and the report makes it clear—that climate change will lead to extreme weather events, and as we stand here today, Mr Bennett, whilst you’re harping on over there, pretending that things aren’t happening, we have Cyclone Fili bearing down on the East Coast only weeks after another extreme event. The inaction of that Government has contributed to the problems that we are now facing in the fact that this Government is having to work at double speed to catch up. We’re playing catch-up on the inaction of the previous Government and we’ve done that from day one—from 2017.

Early on we stopped issuing exploration permits for offshore oil and gas. The emissions trading scheme had been left derelict in a corner by the National Party, eviscerated by the National Party. We reinvigorated it and it’s up and running again. The zero carbon Act, admittedly was a cross-party piece of legislation, and thank goodness for that, but the Labour Government of the past term along with the Greens passed the zero carbon Act. We now have an ecosystem of legislation that is finally working. And, of course, we’ve just had the release of the greenhouse gas inventory from the Ministry for the Environment, which underlines the need for accelerated action as we haven’t reduced carbon emissions enough.

This statement on the long-term financial position makes it very clear indeed that we need to act now because the longer we wait the more radical action will be needed, and the document sets out that these radical actions are more costly and more damaging both economically in terms of what the actual fiscal cost is but also in terms of the wellbeing of New Zealand. So we’ve got to act now. The window to tackle climate change and limit global warming is vanishing but it is still there. This is a Government that is committed to seizing that opportunity with bold and lasting action. With this Government, as we heard from our excellent Minister of Transport, every policy is a climate policy.

Our transport policy, which has shifted focus away from roads to rail, cycling, and indeed shipping, and public transport is about climate, which is quite the opposite to what the National Party want to do. Matt Doocey just the other day said, “Let’s make roads great again.”, a policy from the 1970s. It is outrageous. And Christopher Luxon would remove public transport subsidies on public buses, saying that public buses should be self-sufficient. That is the most retrograde, neo-liberal, anti-progressive idea so far, and that’s saying something.

Currently, a multi-zone fare is Christchurch is $4.70. The Luxon reform would have it at $11.75. Luxon would overnight empty buses, force some into car travel and force others to stay at home. The result would be a less mobile, higher-carbon, higher-cost, and more congested city, and that’s the National vision for New Zealand. Of course, when Luxon was challenged on this, what was his response? It was, “I haven’t considered it that much.” Has anyone noticed the growth in electric and hybrid cars over the last months? Statistics show that electric cars are selling at a greater rate—

Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This is actually quite a serious debate.

SPEAKER: Order! The point of order?

Nicola Willis: Point of order—the member is far too wide of the issue that we’re meant to be discussing, which is the long-term fiscal position of New Zealand.

SPEAKER: I’ve been listening very carefully to the member. I would’ve thought that spending on public transport subsidies would have quite a lot to do with the long-term fiscal position of New Zealand, especially if people who were commenting on that in the media had any thoughts of being responsible for it.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: As I was saying, the long-term challenge—

Hon David Bennett: Where’s the independence?

SPEAKER: Order! The member will leave the Chamber—David Bennett.

Hon David Bennett withdrew from the Chamber.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: As I was saying, this is about taking steps today which will address the challenges that will be with us for the next 40 years and beyond. The fact that our subsidies on electric cars are shifting the needle on carbon around transport is of critical importance today. It is of critical importance today because if we don’t do it now, we will have to make radical change, and the Treasury say that the cost economically and socially of radical change is much, much greater. So we need to take change when we can as much as we can, and it is a balance. We do need to strike a balance. We are making real progress, whereas the other side would abolish the clean car subsidy and see us go back by years and years.

And we have done a lot more—at the Finance and Expenditure Committee we looked at the Green Investment Fund, another initiative which is saying we need to partner with the private sector to innovate around decarbonising the economy, and of course, there’s the $4.5 climate response fund, the hypothecated fund which will be invested into decarbonising New Zealand, making sure that the funds from the emissions trading scheme are recycled back into a low-carbon economy. We have to address also the coastal problem—that our communities are at risk. From Granity on the West Coast one report said that the community is slipping into the sea. So we need to assist those communities in taking real steps so that they can be prepared for what is sea-level rise that we can see happening already. The West Coast is a great example.

The glaziers are retreating, the coast is eroding, and we need to take steps. So we now have introduced a national adaptation plan. We have taken a stocktake of those risks. This is about looking out to the future. We now will be having our first ever emissions reduction plan, to be released next month. It will provide a comprehensive list of actions to drive transformative change. It will set out how we meet our first emissions Budget, and more policy strategies to reduce our emissions. This will be in sectors like energy, waste, building and construction, agriculture, and forestry. And when we hear from the other side, they’ve got nothing to say on any of those things. We’re committed to taking a long-term approach, one that recognises the long-term fiscal challenges that not taking action today will result in.

NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): I welcome this opportunity, so rare in this House, to talk about the long-term picture for New Zealand 40 years into the future, the fiscal position which we will have. We do so because of the Public Finance Act 1989, which in a very sensible move requires Governments every four years to have an appraisal of the long-term fiscal position, to consider the trends, the risks, the opportunities, the choices that we are making today, and the choices we are potentially taking away from future generations or adding for future generations. It is engaging in that big picture that we can have discussion about intergenerational equity, about demographic trends, and about the economic opportunities and threats that present themselves to New Zealand.

As we have that discussion, I am reminded of what greeted National when we took office in 2008—and that was the New Zealand Treasury forecasting a decade of deficits with net debt blowing out to 60 percent of GDP. I am reminded of the actions taken by successive Ministers to ensure that New Zealand could put itself in a much better position than that to allow us to be in a position such that when the global pandemic struck, the Government we have in front of us today was able to make choices about the way it used its fiscal position. That is why we have these discussions—because the choices that Governments make today about spending will impact the resilience and ability of future generations to cope with shocks and to have good options for the public services and amenity available to New Zealand families.

We are today in a situation where there are different ways that debt can be managed. One way—and this is the way that the current Minister of Finance has chosen—is to rely on tax revenue windfalls helped by massive inflation. That is an option that this Minister of Finance has taken and we on this side of the House are concerned about the implications that has. The balance we would like to see the Government opposite strike is a better one that says not only how can New Zealand households take some of the pain of inflation and a rising cost of living but what it is that every Minister sitting around that Cabinet table will do to ensure better value out of the expenditure that New Zealand is already doing. What is it that every Minister sitting around the Cabinet table will do to ensure that they are getting maximum bang for the taxpayer dollars they are using on New Zealanders’ behalf?

This 40-year appraisal reminds us of what it is that that money should be being spent on, because, actually, when we look at the demographic challenges we face—the rising cost of superannuation, the rising cost of healthcare, the challenges that we will face with climate change—it becomes abundantly clear that the only way New Zealand will be able to face these challenges well while taking people with us will be if we have a growing, more productive, wealthier, more prosperous economy. That is why we have a solemn obligation to ensure we are investing in the things today that will allow us to be a wealthier country in the future.

Do you know the first place we should start when we are thinking about what we should be investing in today? It is our people. And what is the major tool the State has for investing in the capability of its people? It’s our education system. So we should all be very concerned that in New Zealand today, not only relative to the countries we like to compare ourselves with but also relative to our historic performance, the achievement of New Zealand school students is slipping. It is slipping across those core measures of ability: literacy, numeracy skills—reading, writing, and maths.

So when I look ahead 40 years, it makes me gravely concerned that there are still thousands of New Zealand schoolchildren who, despite being in an education system which has had billions of dollars poured into it, are less likely today to get the skills they need to succeed than they were a decade ago. That is the sort of issue that a Minister of Finance who really cares about future generational equity will be focused on. We simply must lift the capability of New Zealand students, and that requires a different approach to education policies in our schools.

I’m reminded of what the long-term drivers of big spending are. What are the areas that we’re going to be spending a lot on as a country into the future? When we look at the bill for welfare, we look at the bill for social services and the bill for our justice system, then surely we must do more than simply say, “Oh, well, we are kind over here on the Government side. We’re going to spend a lot more money into that in the future.” Because what we say on this side of the House is: what is kind about saying that the State will continue to service the misery of those who are dependent on the State, who find themselves in prison, who have their human potential cut short? Actually, what we should be doing is taking a social investment approach, which says, “What are the targeted investments and interventions the State can make today to reduce the dependence of people into the future?”

That is the kind of thinking that a Minister of Finance who is genuinely concerned about the next 40 years of New Zealand’s fiscal position would be thinking about, because, as the Treasury point out in their report, we must consider the cumulative impact of better spending. We must consider not only what it is that we spend more on in the next Budget but what it is we are spending money on today. I would implore of members opposite that they should treat New Zealanders with more respect than saying that anyone who says they think they can get better quality spending is talking about cuts, because, actually, what we are talking about is getting better results and better value. As the Treasury point out in the statement, what that requires is a rigour, is accountability, is a set of performance measures, is an ability to drive into the detail of delivery and implementation to ensure that when more money is appropriated from New Zealanders it is actually getting results. Sadly, we are not seeing that from this Government.

I’m reminded that when National was confronted with that decade of deficits, there were choices that needed to be made. One of the choices that could have been made was to allow, as I said, these windfall tax revenue gains. And when I look at the situation New Zealand faces today, I think one of the biggest challenges we have to intergenerational equity is the cost of living crisis that is facing our young people, because not only are they now in an environment that the Minister of Finance admitted in question time today where costs are outpacing wages, they are also in an environment where house prices have exploded up 40 percent since this Government came in, when rents have increased massively, and where their choices for their futures are more diminished than generations before.

So, faced with that, the Minister of Finance has different approaches he can take to reducing our debt. He can allow higher inflation to increase the tax revenues to reduce the real value of debt and he can keep on spending into the future. What we on this side of the House say is in a time when people are facing a cost of living that is actively daily, weekly, diminishing the choices they can make for themselves and their families in the future, the Government has a solemn responsibility to do better with the spending it’s doing and to ensure that New Zealanders can have more of their own money back.

The point of this fiscal debate we are having today is to think about the choices that we make today and the impacts they will have for future generations. Here on this side of the House, we are prepared to forecast a couple of things. First of all, for New Zealand’s superannuation system to be affordable, we will have to raise the age of eligibility. We’re prepared to forecast that if we want the children of the members opposite to have the choices that they had growing up, then they’ll need a Minister of Finance that can spend money better. We are prepared to forecast that if we want this country to grow and be more economically prosperous we will have to invest a lot smarter in our education capability, in technology, and in meeting the challenges of our times. That is what a National Government will do.

SPEAKER: The Hon Grant Robertson. [Interruption]

Hon Grant Robertson: I don’t know what that was about.

SPEAKER: That was Mr Bayly—

Hon Grant Robertson: Oh, right.

SPEAKER: —but I gave the call to Mr Robertson.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Oh, very good—thank you, Mr Speaker. I think it’s instructive that in a debate about the 40 years ahead for the New Zealand economy and New Zealand society, the Opposition finance spokesperson couldn’t utter the words “climate change”—could not utter the words “climate change”—didn’t devote anything in her speech to the biggest challenge facing the New Zealand economy for 40 years ahead.

And there’s a reason for that; it’s because the National Party doesn’t have a plan around climate change. They are completely out of touch with the biggest issue that will face New Zealanders across the next 40 years. And that was really brought into sharp focus over the last 24 hours, when the Leader of the Opposition decided to tell New Zealanders that public transport needed to look after itself—it needed to be able to make sure it paid its own way, somewhat undermined by the fact that each year the Government puts aside more than $2 billion—probably more than $2.5 billion—a year to actually support public transport.

All around the world, public transport systems are supported and subsidised by Governments and local government because of the value that they provide. They provide that value for low and middle income people especially, but, nowadays, we also recognise the value that that has for addressing climate change issues. Mode shift, as the Leader of the Opposition has picked up, is an important matter. It would seem he thinks mode shift is moving from corporate cabs to black Mercedes, and then back again. On this side of the House, we know that mode shift is actually about making sure that New Zealanders have the ability to make good transport choices and that they have good public transport options in front of them. So for the long-term fiscal statement debate, it is worth putting on the record that in that report, the Treasury highlighted the importance of climate change. The Treasury highlighted the importance of different policy approaches to make sure that New Zealanders are prepared to make sure that we reach our zero carbon targets.

And the issue we have is that I heard the Leader of the Opposition this morning say, “No, no, no—totally committed; totally committed to the 2050 targets.” That commitment’s hollow. It means nothing if there is no policy prescription to back that up. And I am extremely proud of the work of this Labour Government to develop the emissions reduction plan that will mean we can reach that zero carbon goal. It means that we will make sure that our transport fleet is cleaner. It will make sure that the way we eat, our industries in New Zealand is cleaner. It will make sure that the way our homes are designed in the future means that they are more energy efficient.

I want to thank the cooperation of James Shaw and the Green Party on the work in the emissions reduction plan. And when we announce the Budget in May, we have the first steps with the Climate Emergency Response Fund, taking all of that money from the emissions trading scheme and putting it into emissions reduction initiatives, starting to take the steps that are asked for in this report to truly address one of the biggest issues that New Zealand will face over the next 40 years. But, yet, the Opposition’s finance spokesperson decided it wasn’t important enough to talk about in her speech today. That shows just how out of touch the National Party is.

There are two or three other areas—it’s as much as I can fit in in this contribution—in this report that I think are worthy of note. The first of those is around COVID-19, because the Treasury did take the time to address the impact of COVID-19 on New Zealand’s long-term fiscal position. I think it is worth noting that they said—the report of the committee tells us—that the financial implications of the Government’s response to COVID-19 are largely temporary and will not affect the Government’s financial position long term. That is a very important thing to note, because the significance of what we did day to day for New Zealanders should not be understated. We worked alongside New Zealanders to make sure that unemployment didn’t get out of control and that we have 3.2 percent unemployment, and we were able to do that on the basis of a strong fiscal position.

I acknowledge what the Opposition finance spokesperson said about that. She did actually leave out just a little bit at the end, which was that we, the Labour Government, brought net debt down to 19.5 percent of GDP. That left us in a strong position to respond. But there is no point in saving for the rainy day if when it comes along, you don’t use the savings that have been put in place. I stand by those decisions that we made that allowed New Zealanders to come through COVID-19 not only with one of the best health responses in the world but also with what has been recognised by the likes of Standard & Poor’s and the IMF and others as one of the strongest economic responses as well, all done in such a way that the long-term fiscal position of New Zealand will not be undermined.

Today, the Reserve Bank, when they put forward their monetary policy statement, made the point that the underlying fundamentals of the New Zealand economy are strong, and that is actually what this financial statement says. Yes, there are challenges. Yes, there are areas that we need to step up to and make big decisions about. But the underlying fundamentals are strong, and day in, day out in this House, I hear the Opposition telling us that there is in New Zealand a cost of living crisis. We accept that for many New Zealanders that’s true, but to then take from that that somehow the New Zealand economy is going to hell in a handbasket actually undermines the hard work of New Zealand businesses and workers who have got us to the point that we are today, and that is clear in this particular report.

It also notes the importance of the targeted support that has been provided through COVID-19 and will be provided out into the future. There is no doubt that the kind of economic shock we’ve seen in COVID-19 will affect different parts of our community differently, and that’s why we’ve continued to provide greater support, for example, to Māori and Pacific communities, to make sure that we’ve looked after those on low incomes as well. And that’s why when we did the 1 April package, our focus was there, because as we bring New Zealanders through these tough times, some sectors have benefited enormously through COVID-19. Our export sector has been strong and we’ve been able to build off that. But we also have to look after those in our society and in our economy who haven’t done so well, and targeted support is important. Untargeted support, tax cuts that are targeted at people who earn more than $180,000, is simply an out of touch policy that shows that the National Party do not understand not only today’s economy but where the economy should be in the future.

The other area I do want to talk about, and it’s highlighted in the report, is the importance of what we do with health expenditure, because a lot of the focus we often have in this debate—and the Treasury has been consistent about this when they’ve been writing these reports over the years—is around the cost of superannuation, and they do indicate that that would rise from about 5 percent of GDP, where it is now, to about 7.7 percent of GDP by the end of the period that they cover in this report. That is an increase. It is a significant increase. I want to put on the record that for the Labour Party, we continue to believe that dignity in retirement is worth it and that we will keep investing in that.

But the bit that doesn’t get talked about as much is what happens in health spending, because with an aging population, there is no doubt that health spending will need to increase. Yes, we can be more effective. Yes, we can be more efficient—new technologies come along. They help us; we must do that. But, ultimately, a Government must invest in its health system. But, over and over again, I hear from the National Party’s health spokesperson that the reforms that we’re making to make the health system more effective, to make the health system more efficient, to make it more equitable are the wrong thing to do. So, once again, there’s an out-of-touch response from the National Party, whereas the Labour Government is making sure we make the changes to our health system that mean we can meet the challenges that are outlined in this report. And that means, yes, the creation of the Māori Health Authority, because we need to acknowledge that what we have done to this point has not worked for Māori.

The health outcomes for Māori are disproportionately poor compared to the rest of the population. So the answer is not to do exactly the same thing as the National Party would propose, but rather change it—make sure that we provide more by Māori for Māori services, make sure we have a greater focus on those health outcomes and improve them. I know that those on the other side of the House don’t like to admit that, actually, sometimes things do need to change. Sometimes things do need to improve, and in the health sector that is certainly where we are focused.

So I thank the Treasury for this report. It is once again a useful contribution to New Zealand’s economic debate. It does show to us that as a country we are well-positioned but facing challenging times, that we do need to make big calls and difficult calls, that we do need to get on top of things like our infrastructure deficit, the spending that we do in the health sector, the way in which we support low and middle income families. Those things take time and they take serious investment, but they also take a plan that is in touch with the future needs of New Zealanders. When we come to do the Budget in a little over a month’s time, I am sure that New Zealanders will see that the Labour Government has its focus not just on the short term in supporting people but also on the long term, and making sure that we make the decisions and we have the policies that give New Zealanders prosperity but also show that we continue to care for one another.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, it is a pleasure to be talking on this document, which is an important perspective on where New Zealand is heading with debt. It’s interesting; the Minister of Finance just sat down and I listened carefully to his speech and, of course, he was accusing the deputy leader of not talking about climate change—I seem to recall that she did. But the one thing that I would acknowledge around climate change: it’s interesting that emissions have actually increased under this Government over the last three years so, obviously, the Government is making a lot of progress with regard to that and, of course, the Minister seemed to focus almost exclusively on climate change.

The one thing he did not talk about, which was clearly identified in the Treasury’s report, was superannuation because superannuation, for the Labour Party, is one of those issues that they want to ignore and just hope it goes away. And, of course, as the Treasury says, it is one of the huge factors that will have an impact on future debt levels and, as the Treasury has highlighted, current debt projections—under the current arrangements—will see that debt getting to unsustainable levels in New Zealand, and unless there are decisions made around superannuation—health is related to that, of course, particularly with older people and their health needs—and climate change, of course, then we will be on an unsustainable track, and we are already on an unsustainable track.

It’s interesting; the Minister loves to crow about debt and how we’re low and that means that we don’t need to basically worry about it. But it’s interesting; when you look at the actual figures in the document, debt has gone from roughly $60 billion, 24 months ago, to about $124 billion today. Under this Minister, we have doubled our debt in 24 months—almost a record. I suggest, it is a record doubling of debt. That has occurred at a time when New Zealand is the country that has spent more on COVID response than any other country apart from the US. We’ve spent more on COVID response than any other country, other than the US. Whilst we support the $24 billion that has been paid towards supporting businesses through this difficult time, and their employees—that is something we have absolutely no truck with—the bit that we find absolutely concerning is the other $36 billion that has been blown by this Labour Government on so many issues, so much wasteful spending—dumb spending—that has got us to a point where we are today.

Of course, New Zealand will not pay down debt under Grant Robertson. Under the Treasury projections, the debt will go up to $182 billion in 2022-2023, and will stay at roughly at that level—$189 billion, $175 billion. New Zealand, under Labour, will not be paying off any debt. The reason why the percentages decrease as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) is that the Government and Treasury is hoping that we will continue to grow the economy and, if you grow the economy and you still have the same quantum of debt, you get a decreased debt to GDP ratio. So one thing we should be mindful of is that in four years’ time the country will still have elevated levels of debt of about $175 billion. That is a staggeringly high figure, considering we were at $60 billion only 24 months ago.

The issue about this document is that debt is an important way of managing the economy, but it does have trade-offs. When you take on and double the debt, as Grant Robertson has over the last 24 months, it’s fundamentally a trade-off between current wellbeing and the wellbeing of future generations. It does impose a real cost; debt has a real cost. It has a real cost in terms of interest rates that the Government has to devote to paying back that debt, and the interest as well. And the principal needs to be paid back. We’ve already seen the cost of buying back the Treasury bonds that the Reserve Bank’s doing. The out of market cost at the moment is about $6 billion and rising. So it’s a cost imposition on all New Zealanders when a Government decides to take on a massive amount of debt.

The issue we have with this is that the Government has been able to go and borrow this huge amount of debt—an additional $60 billion—because, after the Canterbury earthquakes and the global financial crisis, we—through prudent management, both Labour and National—got our debt back to 19 percent of GDP. Also, the reason why we’ve been able to go out and borrow lots of money in the market, offshore, is that we have a history of responsible fiscal management and sticking to it. That is why New Zealand is in a good situation and had an ability to take on this massive amount of debt over the last 24 months, but we’re at the risk of squandering that huge advantage and reputation we’ve built up.

The long-term requirements of the fiscal responsibility Act that was set up in 1989 is that the Government must run prudent debt levels so as to provide a buffer against factors that may impact adversely on the total debt in the future, by ensuring that we’ve got prudent debt levels. Once you’ve got prudent debt levels, the Act also requires that you maintain, over a reasonable period of time, that total operating expenses do not exceed revenue—Government revenue. Guess what! When you look at what’s gone on over the last few years, and what is forecast in the Treasury projections, we will continue to run operating deficits at a Government level. We will continue to lose money at a Government level. I think, from memory, we’re going to rack up about $36 billion of operating losses by Labour since it’s come to office, and over the next two years, as a result of running high operating budgets—by basically spending too much money.

As I said before, this is the trade-off. We need to be much more careful about how we manage it and, of course, Grant Robertson loves to talk about the paradox of not being able to either spend more on good stuff or reduce debt. Actually, there are three choices in terms of managing the economy, and to reduce debt to prudent levels. The first choice is you can increase taxes and, gee, don’t we know the Labour Government’s good at that. You can increase taxes—that’s one way of dealing with debt. The second way you can deal with debt is to make sure you don’t do dumb spending and, unfortunately, the Government is great at dumb spending. I’ll give you some examples: $280-per passenger subsidy on the Te Huia Hamilton to Auckland train service; $15 million on the road to zero advertising campaign; $20 million on the unnecessary Radio New Zealand / TVNZ merger; $51 million on the bike bridge. I can just go on. I have a list, Mr Speaker, of wasteful spending projects. I don’t intend to go through that. But if the Government stopped doing dumb spending—that’s how you reduce your operating losses at a Government level.

But the third way—and this is the issue that I never hear the Minister of Finance talking about—of dealing with debt in the long term is to grow the economy, and that’s one thing that the Government, this Government, does not know how to go about doing. It is about supporting businesses to grow aggressively, to employ more people—not to sock ’em with $3.5 billion of additional costs as the Labour Government has done over the past four years. We want a Government that supports them because when business is successful, they hire lots more people, they can afford to pay people more money in wages, and provide better working conditions, to enable people to get ahead in life, to be able to buy a house, to be able to raise a family, to be able to get the best education for their children—that’s how you run an economy. You don’t tax the hell out of people, and you don’t do dumb spending. What you do is you do things in moderation and you support the economy to grow, and that’s what National will do when we get back—

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Mr Speaker, it’s a genuinely welcome opportunity to speak on this long-term fiscal report, because it’s one of the few times when the House can look a long way down the track and engage in debate seriously about the choices Government should be making. But it’s worth remembering that this particular long-term fiscal report from Treasury was prepared against the background of the greatest crisis we have faced—perhaps for a generation—in terms of the global pandemic. And it is an ongoing crisis; COVID is not over, and we need to reshape our new normal to fit this ongoing crisis of COVID. So it’s an extraordinary challenge for the Government of the day.

I wish to address in particular the issue that was raised by the previous speaker, Andrew Bayly, about the levels of debt that are prudent. Now, as it turned out, before going into the COVID crisis, through all sorts of reasons this Labour Government had reduced our debt to around about 19 percent of GDP—the lowest it had been in a very long time indeed. Along came the crisis, and at that stage the necessity was to keep the economy going, so we adopted the best health response, and we adopted the response that kept people in jobs, kept businesses going, and sustained our economy. And the way we did that—in common with countries around the world—was we adopted the strategy of borrowing to meet this crisis. So our debt has increased. But the issue is not whether or not debt has increased; the issue is whether or not debt is at a prudent level. Is it at a level that is sustainable for the New Zealand economy? Is it at a level where we can maintain our obligations and, over time, repay the debt?

I wish to direct the Opposition to page 6 of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on this long-term fiscal report. The Finance and Expenditure Committee, including members of the Opposition, have written their report, and it addresses this issue directly—of the prudence of debt. So, according to He Tirohanga, the long-term fiscal report, the Government’s current debt is projected to reach up to 48 percent of GDP. Treasury informed us—that’s informing the Finance and Expenditure Committee—that debt levels are still consistent with the framework for considering debt prudent and that the Government is currently at prudent levels of debt. It is still a prudent level of debt. Now, we know that, over the long term, this debt will reach about 48 percent of GDP, but even at that level, it is still considered to be a prudent level of debt. It is a level of debt whereby the Government can service the obligations under that debt and can repay it.

In fact, previous papers by Treasury have examined the level of debt that is prudent, and they’ve suggested that, in New Zealand, this could be between 50 and 60 percent of GDP with a buffer of around 20 percent to respond to shocks. So, even under Treasury’s own rules, we are still at, or even under, the level that Treasury said was a prudent level of debt. The issue, then, might be how many shocks might we expect in the New Zealand economy and how will those affect us. And we do experience shocks on a fairly regular basis. They’re not predictable, but we kind of know that, over time, we face shocks—such as the global financial crisis, such as the Christchurch earthquakes, such as COVID-19. They seem to come along every seven, 10, 12 years or so. So the committee asked whether we could sustain these ongoing shocks. And in fact, Treasury have modelled exactly that scenario; it’s on page 29 of their report. Even under those conditions, the level of debt we have reached is still sustainable, according to Treasury itself. In terms of Treasury’s perspective on that debt, they said, “Yes, it’s sustainable for servicing the debt; yes, it gives us greater market access to the world; yes, it addresses intergenerational welfare.” We don’t like being in debt, but debt can be good, and it is a tool for the economy—not an end in itself. It is a tool that enables us to spread the cost of long-term assets over the generations.

In fact, the Auditor-General spoke to the Finance and Expenditure Committee about this long-term fiscal position report, as well. And they suggested that perhaps there should be a broader approach to fiscal sustainability—so focusing less, perhaps, on the negative factors, such as increasing debt, and more on the positive factors, such as the higher productivity and growing GDP that debt enables. And I do want to think about what sustainability of debt means. We might have a lower level of debt, but is that sustainable when faced with crumbling hospitals? We might choose a lower level of debt, but is that sustainable when we’re faced with failing water systems? We might have a lower level of debt, but is that sustainable when we simply don’t have enough schools? Debt enables us to address all those capital challenges; it enables us to spread the cost. So, far from being a bogey, debt is a tool for us.

I also want to address one of the other issues that was raised by the previous speaker, and that is the ongoing pressure of an ageing population and the effect it will have on our expenditure. It is true that New Zealand superannuation will, in fact, over time, demand a greater share of GDP as we support our senior citizens. I take it that we all agree that supporting our senior citizens is the right and proper and good thing to do. But I am also going to point out that it was the Labour Party in Government that took the most serious steps for supporting our senior citizens. It was the Labour Party in Government that introduced KiwiSaver—that enables people to save for their retirement. It was the Labour Party in Government, under the leadership of Michael Cullen, who set up the New Zealand Superannuation Scheme, the Cullen fund. It was the Labour Party that put money into it, and it was that party—the Opposition when they were in Government—who stopped contributing to the Cullen fund. If anyone doesn’t know how to sustain New Zealand’s superannuation, it’s that side of the House. On this side of the House, we have taken a prudent and long-term view as to how to support our senior citizens—who we will all be ourselves one day—through to a dignified old age.

And, on that point, I just want to talk briefly about the cost of living, because members on the other side of the House have pointed out, as is correct, that we are facing some real issues with the cost of living at the moment—as are countries around the world. Inflation is running, not caused by anything in particular here but caused by worldwide conditions. But whether or not it is caused by worldwide conditions, it is our job as Government to address the needs of the people who are affected by it, and that is precisely what we are doing. That is why we’ve had the Working for Families increases on 1 April; that is why benefits went up on 1 April; that’s why superannuation went up on 1 April; it’s why the minimum wage went up on 1 April; it’s why we’ve increased student allowances on 1 April; and it’s why we’ve got public transport assistance in there from 1 April. On this side of the House, even though we have not caused the cost of living crisis, we are addressing it as best we can to ensure that all New Zealanders—even though they are facing real pressure, and we are facing real pressure—can manage to get through. And we will continue to do that. Why? Because we are a Labour Government, and on this side of the House, we intend to ensure that all of our citizens live with dignity. And, of course, that is part of what sustainability is about; it’s sustaining all of us.

So in terms of this long-term fiscal-position report, it’s a fascinating and interesting report; it does give us some really interesting insights into the challenges that are facing New Zealand, but also it says that we’ve got some big policy decisions to make. We’ve got issues that we need to confront, but we’re in a pretty good position to do that in the next few years and on into the future. I commend the report to the House. I commend the actions of this Government to the House. Why? Because we’re getting us there all together.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Today, we are debating the fifth long-term fiscal position statement, He Tirohanga Mokopuna, produced by the Treasury. The last one was produced in 2016. In 2016, climate-changing carbon dioxide concentrations in our atmosphere reached 403.3 parts per million. In 2022, Hawaii’s Manua Loa Observatory tells us that they are 420.66 parts per million—that is a rather frightening trajectory. And for context for those in the House: carbon dioxide levels of 280 to 350 parts per million were the atmospheric context that created and enabled humanity to feed and build the modern world.

In 2016, median house prices were $489,000. In 2021, median house prices were $830,000. The 2016 version of He Tirohanga Mokopuna very clearly laid out what was then required, and is still required, for a healthy economy—the economy being those rules we set up about how we relate to each other and our planet, and how we exchange value. That 2016 report stated, “Intergenerational well-being relies on the growth, distribution and sustainability of the four capitals—financial and physical capital; human capital (e.g. health and skills); social capital (e.g. institutions and trust); and natural capital (e.g. water and biodiversity).” I raise this today because, whilst so much of this debate has already been consumed by the politics of today, there is real value in determining whether we, as policy makers, pay any real heed to the concerns that outlive a three-year political cycle. The 2021 report makes it clear that there are choices to be made about what happens next in setting the rules of our economy, and that each of these choices have trade-offs. The level of comfort that each of us have in what those trade-offs are, and the things we will prioritise as outcomes, are a matter of our respective political values. Of course, these are our ideologies.

So let’s talk about those ideologies, about those trade-offs, and those priorities. As the Greens, we have always been clear about our four core founding charter principles, that rest on the foundation of recognition of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the founding document of this country. The first of our principles is ecological wisdom. That is recognition of the fact that resources are finite. Even those resources that do regenerate need time, and space, and, God forbid, some planning, in order to regenerate. The second of those principles is social responsibility. That is, in realising and grappling with the reality that we do have those limited resources from an already heavily-exploited planet, we must realise that those resources are to be fairly and justly shared in order to have a stable society. The third principle is that of appropriate decision-making. That is that decisions should be made with those who are directly impacted at the core of that decision making. The fourth principle is that of non-violence. As power-grabs, fights over resources, and callous wars with untold casualties unravel across our planet, we have to decide whether we want to stand for evolved conflict resolution, or to be complicit—let alone participate—in further unnecessary destruction and devastation.

He Tirohanga Mokopuna tells us, and I quote, “policy options present trade-offs for current and future wellbeing in several ways”. And, further on, “the balance of policy measures is largely a value judgement for governments”. The Greens are not willing to trade-off the wellbeing of future generations, let alone their rights to a liveable planet. Nor are we willing to let inequality—this country’s shame, I might add, before COVID-19 came along and supercharged it as a result of the policy decisions throughout the last two years. We cannot continue to let inequality fester, which robs New Zealanders today of their right to participate, to contribute, and to live their best lives.

So let’s address three of the key issues that this report reflects, and exactly those policy decisions in front of the Government, and one big opportunity to learn from the economic response to COVID-19. He Tirohanga Mokopuna tells us that we must raise more revenue if we want to continue to provide a similar level of public health infrastructure, and continue to keep superannuation at the age of 65—which of course we can see that the National Party Opposition is rallying against, it wants all of those hard-working New Zealanders to continue hard-working for many more years to come—let alone if we want an increase in providing better public services and infrastructure.

Despite all of the long-stated myths, we know for a fact that Aotearoa New Zealand does not have a broad-based, low-rate tax system. In fact, as this report explicitly states, “New Zealand’s tax system currently relies heavily on a small number of tax bases.” Therefore, there is a really massive opportunity here as always, as has confronted Governments of the past, to make a decision to broaden our tax base, to make it more resilient; to re-orient its reliance, currently, on consumption taxes and income taxes; and actually to go about addressing some of the inequality by taxing massive capital gains or wealth, as this report touches on. I reflect on the fact that the top 1 percent of New Zealanders presently own 25 percent of the wealth in this country, and the bottom half own just 2 percent. Treasury noted at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, in hearings on this report, that they supported a capital gains tax, and said in a report on the capital gains tax that it would “improve the allocative efficiency of saving and investment by ensuring more economic income is taxed neutrally, would be progressive, and would improve the integrity of the tax system.”

Despite being referenced a number of times throughout the 2016 report, this is the very first time that climate change has received its own section in this long-term projection. In the most value-neutral way possible, Treasury tells us in this report, “Adaptation efforts may involve upfront costs, but [they] also have the potential to reduce the total costs from climate change over the long term.” We are here, of course, talking about—in very emotionless language—the financial implications of living in an island nation impacted by rising sea levels; coastal erosion; less predictable seasons; more once-upon-a-time, once-in-100-year weather events; potential food insecurity; mass human migration; and a potentially far harsher quality of life. These are the things that the National Party and the ACT Party trade off when they talk about reducing our nation’s role in doing anything about the crisis before us. Even as the Treasury says in this report, “There are also costs associated with inaction. Not proceeding with a given action to reduce emissions implies that other actions—with their own costs or benefits, financial, social and broader economic—will be needed if New Zealand is to achieve its emission reduction[s] targets.” You can’t negotiate with chemistry or physics. To prevent a radically warmed and drastically-changed world, we must act now. The world is changing—the question is whether we want to make a choice in how we respond to how that is occurring, which brings me to the very recent example of having made policy decisions that did make explicit trade-offs, much like He Tirohanga Mokopuna informs us that we must do, and we must confront.

At the beginning of the pandemic, Reserve Bank of New Zealand and the Treasury warned the Minister of Finance about what the balance of fiscal and monetary policy might look like. The Government was aware that an over-reliance on unconventional monetary policy that would flood our markets with cheap debt, available disproportionately to those already with assets, would have what they called a “distributional”—to the rest of us, “unequal”—impact. And we’ve seen that in house prices increasing by 30 percent. We’ve also seen intergenerational impacts—the Financial Services Council survey of 2,000 people in January found that 18- to 39-year-olds, 60 percent of whom rent, were hardest hit financially by COVID. They were least confident about the future, they were the most concerned about house prices, and the most worried about wage stagnation. A third did not have enough cash saved to last more than a month without income. I’ve seen commentators over the past few weeks talking about, and detracting, the number of young people who are currently getting support from their parents. But so few of those commentators have been willing to engage in uncovering the network of systems that have created exactly this problem, and that need, for some, for dependence.

Quite frankly, we cannot afford to continue with the status quo. It is exhausting people and it is exhausting the planet. And things are changing, regardless of whether we do. So the question confronting all of us in this House, and the question confronting the Government, is, “What kind of country do we want to live in?” Do we want to live in one which is climate-ravaged, which exists with extreme amounts of poverty, with deep inequality, with run-down infrastructure? Because none of those things are natural phenomena. They are, as this report so frankly puts, political choices.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in a split call with our leader, David Seymour. Just to go back to what the fiscal position statement actually means: it differentiates between the Treasury’s other forward-looking reports such as economic updates and it does not forecast what is likely to happen; rather, it presents a range of policy options for choices for the Government to consider. The Treasury is the Government’s lead economic and financial adviser and we at the ACT Party certainly believe we have options and choices to be pretty clear with the New Zealand public with regard to public finance.

The Treasury points out the importance of a strong and sustainable fiscal position. We’re only positioned to respond to future shocks if we stay solvent and crises if we can maintain low debt levels, but that has blown out massively. How do you get back to a situation of low debt to GDP? By getting wasteful spending under control. Sadly, this Government has exercised no restraint, no control when it comes to spending New Zealand taxpayers’ hard-earned money, and, as you’ll see from some of the plans here, they haven’t even modelled the effects of climate change, super, or anything to do with demographic change in this country. Yet in this Budget, there will be money dished out for a green agenda. It used COVID as an excuse to expand the size of Government. It was purely ideological. Thirty percent of GDP was used, and Labour believes that politicians should be making decisions about how to spend taxpayers’ money. Grant Robertson knows much better how to manage money, but he’s going along with it as well.

Grant Robertson used the COVID fund, which was meant to support people through the impacts of COVID, to spend money on anything and everything under the sun; it didn’t have to be COVID-related. It was a slush fund, and we’re now in a position where we’re less able to withstand future shocks. Our kids or grandkids are going to have to pay that money back through higher taxes and fewer services, and it’s no wonder 50,000 people are forecast to leave this country in the next year, voting with their feet against the Labour Government. And now Treasury is looking at how it can raise extra money from taxpayers, increasing income taxes, a capital gains tax, environmental taxes which are no doubt along the way. These will be hugely damaging to the economy.

Here’s an idea: before the Government looks at increasing taxes again, it should have some control when it comes to spending. It’s a pretty simple equation. Everybody else is expected to—households, individuals, businesses are all expected to live within their means. ACT has consistently pointed out where the Government could make savings without cutting core services. There is fat in the Budget. You don’t need to look too hard. Not only does the Government need to get total spending under control, Treasury points out that the quality of spending needs to be better. Light rail, the Provincial Growth Fund, the Auckland cycle bridge—the list of wasteful projects is long. Ministers in this Government have absolutely no idea how hard it is to make a buck in the private sector, but they sure know how to blow the money on taxpayer initiatives. Future Governments will not be able to avoid hard choices over the next 40 years, and we ask the finance Minister to act prudently on debt levels and spending, starting at this Budget.

If we want to attract people, ideas, and capital to this country, we want a competitive economy. If we’re to encourage people to work, save, and invest, we need to keep taxes low. The only way we can keep taxes low is by getting spending under control, and the Government has completely and utterly failed at that. Future Governments are going to have to make hard choices, as we say. We need real change that means reducing tax, bureaucracy, and waste, and maximising opportunity for every single New Zealander and their kids. ACT will hold this Government to account on this mission, and we believe that the 40-year plan has modelling in it which is insufficient to call anything prudent at this moment.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a Labour call—or is this a split call? My apologies.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): No worries, Madam Speaker, I know you’ve just come on shift but thank you for the call. I rise in support of my colleague’s speech. These long-term fiscal statements are extremely important. I think they’re one of the most important things that our Treasury does. They’re especially important for young New Zealanders, and those not even born yet, because the long-term fiscal statement allows us to think about what sort of finances this Government will have when everyone currently in Parliament has moved on. It allows us to understand how our decisions today will affect the options that our children and grandchildren have tomorrow.

In my opinion, it doesn’t get nearly enough attention. And I have to say, when I look at the standards of this report, which used to be called the long-term fiscal outlook, the way it’s been watered down and focuses on a whole lot of different things—well, if you go back to, say, I think it was about 2009, it was very clear: it set out what the figures were, what the drivers were, and where we’d get to if we didn’t make any changes, and what some of the options might be. You read the executive summary of this report now and all you get is word salad. So I am concerned about the quality of the report. I’m concerned about the quality of Treasury, I think it’s been neglected and diverted from its true purpose—not just by this Government but, frankly, by the previous one.

Nevertheless, there are some messages that come through that are inescapable, and they are, similar to earlier long-term fiscal statements or outlooks, that if we keep doing what we’re doing we will run out of money. And the reasons are simple and they haven’t changed for as long as we’ve been debating these statements: there are more people living longer, requiring more healthcare, and staying on super for longer, and, as they do so, they have fewer children, meaning fewer taxpayers picking up the bill for more dependants.

To give you an idea, the number of people who are over 65 at the moment’s about 16 percent; in 40 years’ time it’s 26 percent—more than one in four people eligible for the pension. And by the time you take out kids that don’t pay any tax—and there always seem to be a few people on unemployment benefit, especially under Labour—then the number of people left to pay the bills is vanishingly small.

And to give the Treasury some credit, they do go into what might make it possible for those bills to get paid. Well, actually, they make a few assumptions: they think that Government will be able to borrow at 2.3 percent by 2045. So they’re predicting that interest rates are going to be stay really low—I hope they’re right. They’re predicting 1 percent per year labour productivity growth. And GDP growth is, therefore, a measure of labour productivity and how many working-age people come and stay in New Zealand. And that gets you to a few conclusions: for the next generation and the one after that, the people who are going to be working and paying taxes in this country for the next 40 years, according to this report, what matters is how many people choose to come and make their home in this country and stay, and what is their labour productivity.

And you can guess from that that a few more things are going to matter. Do we make it attractive for young people to be in New Zealand? Do we make this a place where they have good jobs that are connected to global opportunity? Or are we going to spend most of our time and our national life navel gazing about identity, obsessing over co-governance and political correctness—that most people disagree with and have never had a say on? Are we going to have an economy that ties people up in constant bureaucracy, where it takes longer to get permission to do things than actually do it?

And is it going to be the case that every time this Government worries about the cost of living its only answer is to tax off people who are productive and give it to someone else? Because if that’s going to be our philosophy—and I’m sorry but that’s a summary of this Government’s philosophy—then we are not going to attract highly productive people, we’re not going to attract them to come to New Zealand, we’re not going to retain them when they’re here, and we’re not going to get foreign investment. We’re going to be a place that will actually lose the ability to look after people. That’s the thing that the Labour Party often fails to understand; if you can’t get production, then you can’t pay for Labour’s projects. And this report is a wake-up call that this country needs to start thinking about productivity and stop indulging Labour’s fantasies. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): About 2½ years ago now, when I, like all New Zealanders, saw the ominous approach of COVID-19, we saw what it was doing around the world. We looked at China, we looked particularly at Italy, and we knew it was coming.

An announcement was made that we were going to lock our country down for an unknown period that could be up to six weeks or two months, and it was something of an eye-opener for me. It was a bit of a road to Damascus, because I remember sitting there thinking that you can’t shut a country down for six weeks or two months, because the long-term fiscal impacts will be so great that we would actually give away everything that we’ve got in the however many years we measure ourselves as having been in New Zealand. But I do remember that the Prime Minister at the time said, “If we look after the people, the people will look after the economy.”, and that’s exactly what happened. We did look after our people and, in doing so, the dire projections that were made in most of the fiscal and Treasury predictions at the time didn’t come into play, and they didn’t come into play because we did concentrate on that which makes up a country: its people. So we did that, and we do now find ourselves in a much better position than we would have been by doing just that—by concentrating on our people.

Now, I move forward to the document we’re discussing today, or the background to it: He Tirohanga Mokopuna 2021. As the previous speaker has said, it does make some quite ominous reading, because, on sitting and reading this document, it outlays many scenarios. It looks at the demographics to come, it looks at the income to come, and it looks like the state of the world. Taken alone, you could walk away and you could actually end up thinking the way I was thinking in March 2020, which was that “Yes, we’re were in real trouble here.” Actually, we’ve now run an overlay of this—run an overlay of this—of people.

Now, you’ve heard some speeches from across the floor in which they presuppose the status quo, and that’s when I sit on this side of the House and feel very fortunate to be here, because those members on the other side of the House, such as the member who just spoke, the shadow Minister of Finance—what they make all their predictions on is the fact that nothing will change, because they know it can’t change because they represent the status quo. They represent those who benefit from the status quo; therefore, nothing can or will change.

We’ve only got to have a look at the history of this country to see the major changes that have taken place that have enabled us to be where we are today. I look at the Treaty of Waitangi, and that was unique. That was something that, for the first time, colonials did respect, or attempted to respect—let’s not talk about what subsequently happened. But there was certainly an attempt to acknowledge that the indigenous people—Māori—did have rights in this land, and that’s something that had been pretty much ignored everywhere else that Europeans had gone beforehand. That has laid the framework to where we are today, and for many of the things we consider, we consider against that framework.

The next thing was the land reforms of the 1890s. Now, New Zealand was, essentially, owned by about 270 families around the country, who were only interested in grazing this country and weren’t interested in intensifying. They weren’t interested in the burgeoning meat trade, because they were doing very well, thank you, from just producing wool and sending it back to old Blighty. Certainly, Jock McKenzie, at the time, and Richard John Seddon realised that this country was not going to thrive if we allowed those who were beneficiaries of the status quo to call the shots, and, of course, calling the shots they were. You’ve only got to have a look at the occupations of those who were in this place, or the equivalent of it, at that time. So, fortunately for us here today, again those changes were made, and we now have a country that is able to turn into the intensive, productive, agricultural country that it is. That simply would not have happened had those who were the beneficiaries of the status quo been listened to.

I then move through to the Depression, and we compare ourselves with the United States here. When we locked down and when the world’s economies collapsed around our ears, what did we do? We, basically, retrenched right across the board. They had Herbert Hoover in the United States, and here we had the then country party, led by Forbes, which I think was the name of the leader of that Government, who, essentially, looked after the status quo. The decision was made that they would entrench the spending, and those who really suffered were those who were on the periphery—the poorer people. But the ones who got through the Depression—in fact, history will show that many of those families who made quite a lot of money during that time actually had money when going into it.

Then, coming out of both those situations, where there was the New Deal in the United States under Roosevelt and, of course, here, we had Michael Joseph Savage, we entered into a major State house - building regime—again, things that we are beneficiaries of today. All those things, again, were opposed and they were all things that couldn’t possibly have been done by a centre-right Government at the time.

So in the time given to me—in fact, I see that the time has gone very quickly—we could actually go through many of these things, but we arrive where we are today at this report. Now, again, those dire projections have been made. One of the things that comes through here is the change in the demographics that is going to happen in this country, and the reason why we simply must invest today where we are is that the money that we have, we’ve borrowed. An amount of it has been borrowed. We’ve been through a fiscal shock, a long-term shock, a hundred-year shock, against which, again, we could have retrenched. We could have, basically, not borrowed any money. We could have allowed the businesses, who have benefited greatly, despite the accusations from across the floor, from wage subsidies and the other fiscal stimulants that have happened, and—

Hon Member: But it’s just to help pay the wages.

GREG O’CONNOR: —unless they’re in tourism or hospitality, they’ve generally done pretty well. And those members over there who are complaining at the moment, I would challenge them to go and talk to their local tradies and ask them, or go and talk to the businesses involved in construction and see what their biggest problem is. Their biggest problem is actually an inability to deliver, and at the moment, it’s certainly not a shortage of orders on their order book—that’s not the thing those members will hear.

Again, we’ve got ourselves into that situation, so we now go to look at the future, and this is a good document. We’ve heard all the speakers here talking about how it is essential that we do look at the world we will be in in 2040. The bottom line through here through the different scenarios is that you can put a template against it as to what we are doing today, and what we are doing today is investing in our people. You will see that the money that has gone on apprentices, for example, means that we will have a generation of highly trained people through the next 20 or 30 years, because we’re getting that with those tradies I talked about before, many of them are looking at retirement. They will be replaced, so we will have a workforce capable of keeping this country working.

We look at the money for education, and, again, I’ll go back to something that the speaker Nicola Willis talked about, which was Better Public Services. What they were was cheaper public services. Anyone can run a surplus if they don’t pay the bills and they don’t do the maintenance.

What this Government has had to do in preparing ourselves for the scenarios painted here in this report is to ensure that we do have the actual schools available where our pupils will be taught. There’s no point in talking about the need for education if we’ve got nowhere to teach them, and that’s what happens if you don’t pay the bills and you don’t do the maintenance. For example, if you don’t build the classrooms and you don’t maintain the classrooms, which, again, was a legacy of the last National Government, then you end up where at some stage, someone has got to pay those bills—because the status quo says, “We don’t need it right now for schools.”

I look at what happened in Tauranga as a very good example. If you don’t invest in the sorts of services that your young people need, you end up with a town that is where it is now, and that’s why you need to appoint a commissioner.

So, against the background of this, I look at what this Government is doing, where our investments are going, and where the borrowings are being invested, and I am satisfied that, knowing what’s coming, we’re doing what we can now to ensure that we inure ourselves against that. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I fear the Labour colleagues who have just been speaking have not got the meno about what this debate is, because Dr Deborah Russell spoke virtually all about the present, and Greg O’Connor gave us a treatise on what happened in the 1880s. But actually what this is about is the next 40 years.

Now, I’ve mentioned this before, my favourite economist is Henry Hazlitt, and I commend his book, Economics In One Lesson to all MPs as a primer on what—

Helen White: No. Ha, ha!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Oh, there she goes. Yes, well, there’s the socialist chuckling away. But let me remind the House what he said in part one: “The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences … not merely for one group but for all groups.” And then he went on to say this: “There are men regarded today as brilliant economists, who deprecate saving and recommend squandering on a national scale as the way of economic salvation; and when anyone points to what the consequences of these policies will be in the long run, they reply flippantly, as might the prodigal son of a warning father: ‘In the long run we are all dead.’ And such shallow wisecracks pass as devastating epigrams”. Well, I would suggest that that prodigal son is none other than the Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson, because he is kicking the can down the road on all of the significant issues that the Long-term Insights Briefing has got. And we’ll touch on the three main ones: superannuation, healthcare, and climate change. And I’m afraid the Government’s position on this is woeful.

First, the rhetorical question: if this is long term and we don’t have to panic today, at what point do we start doing small things differently regularly so that in 40 years’ time we don’t have debt at 200 percent of GDP? And the reality is that should already have started. And the previous National Government in the 2017 election campaign—in fact, the last two—started an honest conversation about what superannuation changes might be necessary and the small but direct changes to the eligibility criteria that would take the worst edges off the cost of superannuation in the next generation. And Jacinda Ardern agreed with the previous National Government when she was in Opposition. In fact, she thought we weren’t doing enough. But when she became Prime Minister, she vowed to resign rather than make changes to superannuation policy. So here’s a Government that says, “Oh, yes, we’ve got to take important action.”, except they don’t take important action. And when they do, it goes the other way.

Take climate change. There’s been quite a bit of discussion here, and there’s been lots of lofty rhetoric by both Labour and the Greens on this, only their record is terrible. Gross greenhouse gas emissions are going up, not down. That’s exactly what happened with the Clark Government when they talked a good game and greenhouse gas emissions went up by 10 percent on their watch. They flat-lined over the nine years of the previous National Government, notwithstanding that there was quite significant population growth. A Labour Government comes back to office, and greenhouse gas emissions go up again. Why aren’t we surprised by that? They ban oil and gas in the Taranaki, and then import 2 million tonnes of Indonesian coal to fire up Huntly because we have a problem with electricity supply.

Simeon Brown: Oh, that works, doesn’t it!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Even Te Huia—my favourite one and Simeon Brown’s as well: we know that it would be less harmful on the environment to take the passengers on the Te Huia train and put them into four-wheel drives. They would get there quicker, cheaper, and with fewer greenhouse gas emissions. How on earth is that a progressive Government actually doing policies that are going to avoid the sorts of harm that this report proposes?

And I won’t have time to touch on the third of the trifecta, and that is the health system. But I’ll just say this: at a time when we need to ensure improved health to prevent long-term conditions, this Government is focused on spending half a billion dollars rearranging the deck chairs in the health system for no demonstrable gain in health outcomes for New Zealanders now nor in the future. That is a significant waste. It’s a distraction in the health system from what we should really be doing: small, steady steps towards avoiding these, and we’re going backwards.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I find it quite incredible that Te Paati Māori has chosen not to speak on the long-term fiscal position. I’m happy to do so in relation to Māori health, because if there’s any party that should be speaking on Māori health I think it’s the Māori Party. Māori have been side-lined and excluded for decades and they have the worst wellbeing outcomes in New Zealand. We all know the statistics. They’ve got significant lower life expectancy and significantly higher rates of chronic and infectious diseases, injuries, and suicide. The report acknowledges that if we think COVID has been difficult, the challenges that we’re going to face around some of these things like health, like an ageing population, and like climate change are going to make COVID look like a walk in the park. It highlights the importance of planning.

There’s a saying, an old saying: if you fail to plan, then you plan to fail. Well, National has no plan. Their policies have failed Māori. In fact, they simply don’t have policies. They say they want equality of opportunity, but they refuse to articulate a single policy that will help Māori achieve equality. Worse, they say they will cut the new Māori Health Authority completely. History shows that a tweak here, a tweak there doesn’t work for health reform. We need to make a fundamental change and I have seen what “by Māori, for Māori”, and for everyone else, can do in my own electorate in Taieri, looking at Te Kaika. It’s our local health provider.

They were the first in New Zealand to set up a drive-through vaccination clinic at the Edgar Centre in South Dunedin. They had that clinic set up overnight prior to the vaccines even being delivered, and the Southern DHB thought, “Oh, we’d better get on to that waka.” They got the vaccines delivered. Te Kaika got vaccines into people’s arms incredibly quickly. My own family went down and by December 2021, almost 100,000 people in Dunedin had been vaccinated by them. They drove the region to one of the highest vaccination rates for Māori in New Zealand. That is what collaboration looks like, that is what success looks like, and that’s the type of model that the Māori Health Authority will be able to empower in New Zealand. It’s about partnership. It’s about having a seat at the decision-making table for health.

But the National Party don’t understand wellbeing. They don’t understand that wellbeing is achieved differently by different people, and then achieving wellbeing is a key driver of equity. The report that we’re debating today underscores that. It highlights how important social inclusion is for our long-term fiscal health. The Treasury gets this. In fact, the Treasury yesterday released a report which looks at the Living Standards Framework, and it tweaks them. It adds to them some fundamental institutions such as whānau, hapū, iwi, households, civil society, markets, and so on. And what that does is it helps us to get a baseline for wellbeing from which we can plan into the future. That report says that addressing 21st century challenges means a greater focus on long-term intergenerational wellbeing outcomes. That report, by Treasury itself, says it’s going to take more than macroeconomic levers to do that.

That’s how this Government operates as a Government. We are looking at wellbeing, we take wellbeing seriously, and we are measuring it. It has given us the baseline to be able to make the 1 April changes which have put more money into the pockets of students, superannuitants, working families, minimum wage earners, and others. We have done that by taking this country through COVID and weathering COVID with an economic outlook that is better than many of our key trading partners. Our economy has grown by 4.9 percent, outperforming most of the OECD. We are in a strong fiscal position. Despite what the other side would have you say, our debt is lower than expected. Our deficits are lower than expected.

National has no plan except to cut taxes for the rich, for those earning over $180,000 by several thousand dollars a year, by giving $2.50 or so tax cuts for our lowest workers, and by building a whole bunch of new roads. Well, that’s not going to be great for climate change. Labour has got us through COVID, and Labour will get us through the next decades because we have a plan, we care about wellbeing, we have a baseline, and we care about people. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): A reminder to all of our members who are online. Please seek a call if you’re expecting to take a call. The next call is a split call and I call on Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, who is joining us remotely—five minutes.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) (remote): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. It’s good to be here to speak, certainly as a tangata whenua for Te Tiriti, which may have started in the 1800s but didn’t end and evolves, as we too must evolve, in a Tiriti-centric Aotearoa.

So Te Paati Māori give credit to the Government in some parts; certainly for trying to change how we view economic success in Aotearoa—an inclusive society that is embracing their tangata whenua. We’ve long known that GDP is not an accurate measure of success, let alone of the health of our people and environment. So we need to ensure the changing of public perception matches the changing of the reality for Māori. COVID-19 has highlighted this reality and exposed just how brittle our economic system is during times of crisis and, as usual, we have seen Māori take the full brunt of it. We will continue to support the Māori Health Authority and more thought towards supporting the Government that realises our potential.

A few things for us stood out in this year’s statement from the Long-term Fiscal Position. One is that people living longer, healthier lives could become fiscally unsustainable if the retirement age doesn’t shift to reflect this. My tungāne Rawiri Waititi caused a bit of a stir in the media last week when he suggested we do just that: change the age for superannuation to better reflect life expectancy statistics. When we look at the fact that life expectancy for Pākehā males is 80.9 years versus 73.4 for Māori, and 84.4 years for Pākehā women versus 77.1 years for wahine Māori, it would only be consistent and equitable to lower the retirement age for Māori to reflect this.

As referred to earlier, Treasury predicts that by 2060, 26 percent of the population will be over 65 years old, compared to 16 percent in 2020. So by 2043, Māori are projected to account for 21 percent of the population but only 11 percent of the 65-plus population. So while people around us are debating co-governance and stale politicking, the reality is we have a health system that sees Māori die seven years earlier than non-Māori in this country. At the same time, every piece of advice given by tangata whenua and experts over the course of this pandemic—and other health kaupapa—has been ignored.

So it’s good to hear earlier that the Minister of Health is acknowledging this and reviewing what could be done better. Until we are able to raise life expectancy with radical change across the board, Māori will continue to work themselves to the bone for this country while not living long enough to fully enjoy the benefits of their hard work.

Another statement worth highlighting from this report is that our current debt levels don’t need to be lowered for our Government to continue to borrow money. Change is happening, and yet we still have the National and ACT kei te tangi hei te kurī [crying like dogs] every time the Government invests just a little bit into social services, as though debt collectors are waiting at the Parliament steps. It’s no wonder the Leader of the Opposition had no idea what the word ‘public’ in ‘public transport’ meant yesterday.

The report also talked about a more sustainable taxation system. We need an end to the current situation which has poor and working class people subsidising the rich through tax policy. Right now, we’re seeing the biggest wealth transfer in generations from hard-working whānau to greedy property developers and landlords who’ve created a generation of renters living pay cheque to pay cheque. So we need to shift this tax burden through tax on wealth including capital gains, ghost houses, pollution, and land value. We would provide tax relief to low income whānau while improving the progressive nature of the tax system, including through exempting food and sanitary items from GST.

We’ve got a plan to do this and we welcome the Government to keep picking policies from our manifesto and to implement. An easy one could be to remove GST from food. We’ve seen things being done overnight by lowering GST.

Before I end, I would like to say that, look, we need to raise the minimum wage to $25, we need to double baseline benefits, we need to stop punishing beneficiaries with sanctions, we need to cancel income support - related debt, and we also need to support a Government that’s focused on creating a sustainable economy. We want a fair society and healthy environment. We are the only party in Parliament whose tax cuts aren’t for the rich. Our people are struggling and we need to make sure that we have an economy that’s able to have a liveable climate. Kia ora koutou katoa.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to talk from my perspective as a new MP. I came in and I went into two select committees. One is the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the other is the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and what I have been absolutely pleased to see is that what we do firmly always looks forward. It isn’t something where we are stuck in the present or the past; we are looking always to a better future. So I’ve done things like met people like the Infrastructure Commission and the Green Investment Fund and those bodies have been set up specifically to make sure that we actually doing that work.

This was a very interesting report because it looked at that perspective of 40 years and it was something which contrasted with some of the behaviour I’d seen in the interviews that we’d done, etc. from the Opposition because I firmly come to the conclusion that what was going on was there was a living as if there was no tomorrow. There was a platitude—there were lots of platitudes. There were lots of things like, “We are for investment in electric vehicles.” but actually then there was a crying out of material which was, “No, no, we can’t go this fast. We can’t do it this way. It’s a tax.”, etc. Every impediment that could be put up was put up to actually moving towards that sustainable future and it worries me because it is of concern that that is what the New Zealand public are being told.

Now, my experience was also in Auckland, where I had seen what had happened to transport because people hadn’t thought forward. In fact, one way of looking at this is to look back and to say, “Forty years ago, what should Auckland have done?” What Auckland should have done is it should have had a decent public transport system and it should have invested in it.

One of the things that was absolutely a lesson for us all was our health system, because what we had in our health system when I arrived in the early part of my involvement in 2017 in the Auckland campaign was we had decrepit hospitals. We had hospitals where there was water dripping from the roof when people were trying to conduct a surgery. That was utterly unsustainable. And what we have now is a report that we are looking at which talks about that. Not only does it talk about building up and reforming the health system as being an absolute priority for the 40-year future but it also talks about the connections of that health of our people with all the other parts of our economy. It makes the connections in the report about things like actually the state of our houses.

I remember in that 2017 campaign I talked to Dr David Geller and it was one of those things I’ll never forget because he had worked in health for a long time—I think he’d just become New Zealander of the Year. He talked about how chronic health had been an issue. So he started his career in health looking at trauma because people would come in with an accident, and by the time I was talking to him in 2017 it was all about chronic health issues because people were living in damp conditions. The children had rheumatic fever. Those are consequences that we will see play out for the next 40 years. So all these things are interconnected and this report actually points that out and it talks about responses and it talks about the absolute social contract that we have in health—that now people understand how important it is.

After all, I think it’s not a coincidence that it comes from the Labour benches, that connection, because it is about understanding the connection between people. That’s a fundamental ideal of Labour—that connection between people, no matter how much they earn. Whereas if you earn lots, if you are on $180,000-plus, it’s very easy to forget that connection between people, that actually it’s going to be OK for you because, at the end of the day, you can write a cheque. Unfortunately, most of the country can’t write the cheque. They need a health system that actually does produce, and I think we’ve finally got a handle on it. I think we’re talking about equity rather than equality. We’re talking about actually providing people with equitable outcomes. I commend that response. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I rise on behalf of the National Party and as the member of Parliament for North Shore. I firstly want to acknowledge our deputy leader and finance spokesperson, Nicola Willis, for her contribution earlier today. The National Party strongly supports long-term planning, and acknowledges the importance of long-term planning in terms of the future of this country. Over the next 40 years—and we’re talking forward to 2060—we’re obviously going to work very hard to grow our country and ensure that it is both fiscally and environmentally sustainable. And in 40 years, I’ll be in my 80s, so I might not still be standing here in this House, but my children will be in their 50s, and in 2060 there’ll be other MPs, no doubt standing in this House—maybe at this pillar right here—and we need to ensure that the decisions that we take over the next 40 years put those individuals in the very best position that we can do to make sure that they can take advantage of both the challenges and opportunities that they will face at that point in the future.

I want to acknowledge, if I may, those who have come before us, because I think that is the point of what this long-term plan is, and in particular, my grandparents who fought in World War II—in the Pacific and Africa and Europe, and in the medical corps in Japan during World War II—and I wear my poppy today in pride and remembrance of them and other people who have served our country.

So the people within this House, and those in this room right now, are in a unique role in order to make decisions around the long-term future of this country, and, in effect, our role is to ensure that we are guardians in terms of the prosperity and protection of this country. But we are at an important point and crossroads right now in terms of our country’s future. In this report on the long-term fiscal position that Treasury have put together—and I want to acknowledge the work of Treasury, because I think they’ve done a good job in terms of this report. But we have a cost of living crisis in this country, and middle New Zealand are being squeezed. So that is the current challenge that they are faced with right now. And we also have inflation that is running at very high levels, and so what that simply means for Kiwis out there today is things are more expensive, and their ability to be able to afford those elements within their lives that are, in effect, “nice-to-haves”, are just simply becoming out of reach.

The other aspect in terms of what will impact us in terms of the next 40 years is that the interest rates have nearly doubled in the last two years. And so what that means in terms of the affordability for Kiwi households is that the ability to repay that mortgage is going to take longer for a home loan, and it also means that household budgets for Kiwis that are out there today are going to get tighter and tighter, and that is real pressure.

So the importance of decisions made off the back of this plan are critical, and, sadly, under this Labour Government, what we have seen is a doubling of debt, nearly, in the term in which they’ve been here, in the last five years. And this debt is forecast to increase, as well.

So we’ve got a significant burden and issue building in the background that we are going to need to resolve and mitigate, to be able to set up those that come after us in the future to be able to deal with the challenges that they will face. Because the reality of what we’ve been through with COVID in terms of that economic shock is that it has had economic and societal implications—we’ve got to be clear—on our population, such as the low attendance at our schools, which has been an implication in terms of the COVID element. We’ve seen a decline in the mental health of our population. Those impacts are going to be felt over the next 40 years, and we’re also seeing increasing crime and increasing family violence. These factors all will impact the implications of decisions that we will make over the next period of time.

The other aspect that’s going to impact this is the large-scale reform that this Government is embarking on, particularly around health and in local government. The real issue there is that it is built on benefits that are unsubstantiated; they’re not going to deliver the outcomes that they talk about. And this is the burden that this Government is leaving for future generations, and that is a great shame.

The other reality is that we’re going to face economic shocks or natural disasters, according to Treasury, every seven to eight years. So the reality is by 2030, we in this House are going to have to deal with and respond to another significant event, and it may be before 2030. But these events will and do continue. And so our ability to deal with what’s in front of us today—respond, but also quite rapidly begin to start setting ourselves up for what comes down in the future—is also critically important.

So I think what Kiwis are really looking for out there is a Government that’s going to put in place a practical and competent plan in order to deal with it—a plan that deals with the short-term implications that we’re faced with, but also a plan that delivers long-term outcomes. And what we see from that side of the House is a lot of talk but not delivery around the outcomes that Kiwis need in this country. They need a Government that’s going to get results, not just talk and make promises, and do what every Kiwi household does today: they live within their means. And this Government has lost focus around that.

This Government is on a trajectory of higher spending, and it’s reinforced in this Treasury report. The higher spending is becoming baked in, and that is only adding to the fact that our debt levels are increasing, and Treasury have stated that this trajectory is not sustainable. So we need to have an adult conversation with the country. Kiwis are sensible, and they understand that this Labour Government can’t continue to spend like there isn’t any tomorrow. They need to be prudent and considerate, but they also need to be accountable for what they promise, and balance the books and make sure that we have a programme to repay debt.

What we definitely know from the finance Minister over on that side is that this Government will not repay any debt while they’re in the seats over there. They keep referring to percentage of GDP as a measure. They will not repay the debt, like every other household in this country needs to do, and that is a great shame.

So New Zealand needs a plan to address the level of debt that we face, and the Treasury, actually, provide a number of recommendations and options within their plan. This Government had their heads in the sand in terms of dealing with this issue. They can’t keep kicking it for touch. They can’t keep buying time and not dealing with this issue. And we’ve heard that across on the other side in regards to superannuation. It is loud and clear. They are ignoring the advice of officials that our population is living longer, we are more healthy in old age, and if we do not deal with the issue around superannuation, which is increasing the age of eligibility, the trajectory of debt is unsustainable.

On this side of the House, we understand the reality that impacts Kiwis; on that side of the House, they’ve got their head in the sand on the big significant fiscal issues that will have implications on my children and future generations, and we need to see some leadership and some competent fiscal management around that.

The other aspects that are raised in this report that are really concerning is the Minister has not asked Treasury to prepare analysis on what it would take to balance the books. How is it possible that he has not asked that simple question, he being the Minister, around how you would balance the books? That shows that there is no forward look around how we’re going to deal with the issues that these guys are building up.

And the other aspect, as I mentioned, is around the superannuation trajectory. These are unsustainable and they ignore the reality that is going to hit Kiwis. So Treasury have said the way in which you deal with superannuation is increase the age of entitlement. On this side of the House, we agree with that, and that’s something that we’ve committed to. Why? Because that is the sensible thing to do.

They have also recommended that you reduce spending, particularly around new spending. Well, we’ve talked a lot today around the fact that we need to focus around quality of spend, and we’ve got a number of examples, as my colleague Andrew Bayly mentioned before—a long list of examples where we’ve seen poor quality of spend.

Lastly, Treasury, in their wisdom, say that we should increase tax rates. Well, I tell you what: on that side of the House it’s the one thing they’re good at, aren’t they? They’re great at increasing taxes that impact Kiwis and households, but they haven’t talked about the fact that we need to grow the economy, and that’s what, on this side of the House, we will do. We will mitigate the impacts of the cost of living crisis, we’ll focus around growing the economy, and we’ll make sure that we are investing in health and education and law and order and also addressing climate change. But also, in addition to that, we’ll make sure that we are preparing for the future and the next economic shock that will impact us. Only under a National Government, under Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis, will they be able to deliver these outcomes for Kiwis and for New Zealanders. Be accountable for getting what needs to be done, done. I tell Kiwis that are out there at the moment: hope is coming to a town near you, soon. National will get it done.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, we’ve heard it officially: National is increasing the age of super to 67. This means that people aged 65 and 66 are going to have put their bodies on the line—their bodies on the line—for two years to pay for Chris Luxon’s tax cuts. They’re going to pay for Mr Bayly’s tax cuts because the hard-working New Zealanders, those who work hard, have been told today by the National Opposition that they don’t deserve the pension. If you’re 65 you miss out; if you’re 66 you miss out—you have to wait till you’re 67. Looking to the future, we must always care and look after our older people so they can retire with dignity. And this is why Labour has made a commitment to make sure that we have no changes to the rate of the entitlement age for New Zealand superannuation because we believe—this Government believes—that people of 65 and over are worth it.

This is, sadly, in stark contrast to the Opposition National Party in outlining, frankly, what must be the only plan I have heard from the National Party. The only plan they’ve got for the future is to raise the pension age. And, let’s not forget, they don’t want to put any more money into the Superannuation Fund either. And let’s not forget another thing about the National Party: they were against KiwiSaver—that’s right, they were against KiwiSaver. So they’re not in it about looking after people in retirement. Not at all.

Now, it was a brutal blow when they cut contributions to the Cullen fund—$20 billion lost over a decade—but that’s what a conservative bunch they are. This decision to not put any money into the Cullen fund is something they’re going to do again. The super fund is a long-term investment funding a global portfolio. It’s an approach to help smooth out the cost of superannuation between today’s taxpayers and future generations. And this is what we’re here to talk about: the future.

Our commitment is keeping the superannuation age at 65. It’s also why we started back the contributions to the New Zealand super fund, to ensure the sustainability of superannuation and the current retirement age. This New Zealand super fund has posted its strongest result ever. It increased it by 29.63 percent, ending this financial year at $59.8 billion—an increase of $15 billion over the last 12 months.

Now, as the local member for Tukituki, it’s very important that I actually talk about the types of investment that the super fund does because, right in my electorate—for example, take Turners and Growers’ global partnership with the New Zealand super fund and an innovative alliance to invest in Envy Apples, one of New Zealand’s premium and delicious export apples—they invested in 40 hectares on Hawke’s Bay orchards right in the heart of Hastings. But oh no, oh no, National wouldn’t do that. National aren’t into investment, they’re not into growth and opportunity—that’s not what they’re here for. They’re here to lift the superannuation age to 67, where all of those hard-working people are going to have to work for another two years to pay for the tax cuts of people who earn over $180,000 a year. Mr Luxon, he’s going to get his $8,000 bonus in tax cuts at the expense—at the expense—of people having to now wait another two years for their pension.

Now, if we keep investing in the New Zealand super fund, by 2030 we’re going to have at least $109 billion in that fund—$109 billion in a decade. Imagine what we’ll have by 2040. And, as this report shows, New Zealand currently spends considerably less on pensions than the OECD average. And, as with other advanced countries, this percentage is likely to increase in future years, and we are well aware of the long-term pressures associated with an ageing population, but that doesn’t mean you just up the pension age. This is why we have committed to ongoing contributions to the New Zealand super fund—we don’t believe that raising the age of eligibility would be equitable.

Remember, we have introduced a Māori Health Authority to help because we have a Māori population who are dying younger—dying younger—than our population. So this is why we need to invest. And, as this report shows, transitioning to a retirement age of 67 does not actually solve the problem.

Now, the second point I would like to make is this:

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s it, nothing. Nothing at all.

ANNA LORCK: And that speaks volumes; silence speaks volumes. “Nothing. Nothing at all.”, Mr Brownlee, because that’s what we hear from the National Opposition—you have no plan for the future. You never, ever, ever come in and say your plan for the future; the only plan you’ve got—the only plan you’ve got, Mr Brownlee—is to increase the pension age to 67.

Now, this speech is about the future, and I just got off a Zoom call, hearing my daughter’s school report and talking to her teacher via Zoom. That’s technology.

Kieran McAnulty: Was it a good report?

ANNA LORCK: It’s fantastic—fantastic. And that’s technology, though, because the future is about innovation. The future is about having ideas and entrepreneurship, number eight wire thinking—that’s what this future should be about. And that’s why this Government has a plan—we’ve put climate change right in the front, we are backing Kiwis, we are backing business, and we are backing our older generation because we will keep the super age at 65. We believe that it is absolutely imperative that we look after our older generation. And that’s the exciting future that people know from this Government, a Labour Government, who are putting people first. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill.

HOUSE IN COMMITTEE

HOUSE IN COMMITTEE

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and for consideration of the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill.

Annual Review Debate

In Committee

Debate resumed from 12 April on the Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We come first to the Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. This is the debate on the financial position of the Government and the annual review of departments, Officers of Parliament, Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises as reported on by select committees.

There are seven hours and one minute remaining in this debate. New Zealand Labour has three hours 49 minutes remaining. New Zealand National has one hour 59 minutes remaining. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 38 minutes remaining. ACT New Zealand has 35 minutes remaining. Te Paati Māori has 10 minutes remaining.

Members will recall that Standing Orders 356(2) and (3) have been set aside, so there will be no sector-specific debates. All annual reviews are available for debate but only specific Ministers will be available each day to respond. The Government has indicated that the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Minister for ACC, and Minister for Disability Issues; the Minister for the Environment and Minister for Oceans and Fisheries; and the Minister of Transport and Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety will be available today. Each debate will be led off by the chairperson or another member of the committee that considered the annual reviews most closely related to the Ministers’ portfolios.

A motion to report progress on a bill must be moved on a call, not a point of order—Speaker’s ruling 80/1. At the conclusion of the debate, questions will be put noting the committee reports on annual reviews and on provisions of the Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. There is no amendment or debate on these questions.

I’ll remind members that they are able to participate remotely. If you’re on the Zoom and want to make a call, please type “call” in the chat. You should also use the chat if you want to raise a point of order.

Finally, it would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions if they have them of the available Minister during their call.

Members, we start with the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Minister for ACC, and Minister for Disability Issues, who is available for one hour to respond to members’ questions. When the committee was last considering the bill, the question was that the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Government for the 2019/20 financial year be noted.

Social Development and Employment, ACC, and Disability Issues

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s my pleasure as the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee to commence the debate for the Annual Review 2021.The Social Services and Community Committee reviews 23 ministries and entities. Our consideration was grouped into sectors and reports we’ve written combining these sector subjects. I want to acknowledge the Office of the Auditor-General, officials from the many ministries, our Parliamentary Service clerks for organising the logistics and their report writing. I acknowledge and thank the participants of the review from our select committee, including those subbing in. Of note, we were able to conduct our review process despite the conditions of COVID with remote working, having a number of meetings which were either hybrid or purely by Zoom. Finally, I would like to thank the Ministers for appearing to summarise the sectors. This produces an additional layer of accountability and scrutiny.

I come now to the Social Development and Employment and Disability Review. We met with the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, in February to provide an all-of-sector overview. We heard that, due to COVID, people receiving benefits were expected to peak at 487,000 people, but this peak did not happen. In January 2022, 366,115 people were receiving a working-age benefit. We heard about the programmes Mana in Mahi, Flexi-wage, Apprenticeship Boost, and He Poutama Rangatahi. We learnt that the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD’s) relationship had strengthened with the volunteer and community groups and the COVID-19 response had helped this.

We questioned the Minister on benefit sanctions, the 2019 Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommendations and progress, and excessive sanctions, warrant to arrest sanctions, and we heard the Minister is satisfied that the changes to sanctions since 2017 have reduced harm to children. The Minister told us that she has increased childcare assistance payments indexed to the Consumer Price Index, that low levels of unemployment have meant there may be employee shortages. Members also asked about job vacancies and matching beneficiaries to these. We heard about examples of this work, including the flexibility of work conditions to support single parents to work.

The Ministry of Social Development is responsible for paying New Zealanders’ superannuation benefits, rent subsidies, student financial support, and the COVID-19 wage subsidies. In 2021, MSD revenue was $1.585 billion, expenditure was $1.406 billion; $310 million less was required due to benefit numbers below 400,000. MSD is responsible for non-departmental expenditure of $32 billion made up of New Zealand Superannuation and three main benefits. The Auditor-General has assessed performance as good. We heard from the ministry about tenant safety in emergency housing and about MSD intensive case management. We learnt more about the implementation of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group. We heard there is a four- to five-year programme of interlocking system change, with 41 recommendations in progress or partially implemented currently. We also heard examples of additional funding for families, programmes to keep people off benefits such as Flexi-wage, and about the reinstatement of the Training Incentive Allowance. We discussed debt, inflation, and the culture of MSD.

We looked at issues that are affecting those with disabilities and we heard from the Minister that the current disability system requires improvement. The Minister spoke about the future intentions to set up the Ministry for Disabled Peoples, or whatever it will be called, which will be established on 1 July this year, and we look forward to hearing about this more in the future. We understand that accessibility and transformation of services for disability people, their family, whānau, and communities is pending.

Overall, the review was thorough and in-depth. We asked and had answered more than 1,000 written and oral questions across the sector. I thank the Minister for making herself available for this committee of the whole House today.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Chair. And I listened to your comment earlier about grouping questions together. I have five themes that I’d like to explore with the Minister for Social Development and Employment, which, of course, as we heard from the member who has resumed her seat, has a budget of $32 billion.

So my first question is around benefit dependency and the numbers that are long term on benefit. Long term, according to the OECD, is more than a year. So my first question is why did fewer people on benefit for longer than three years—I’m emphasising very deliberately “longer than three years”—exit into work in 2021 compared to 2017? How can the Minister blame COVID for fewer long-term benefit recipients moving into work when 2018, 2019, and 2021 had fewer exits? And doesn’t this decline in work exits show that Labour’s employment initiatives are not targeted to those who have been on benefit for longer, with an increase in 50,000 New Zealanders now on benefit long term under Labour’s watch, and will the Minister finally accept that New Zealand does have a significant benefit-dependency crisis?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Mr Chair, before I begin, I don’t want to do a big spiel, but acknowledging the different portfolios that we’ll be covering off today in the committee, it is good if we continue to cluster in one particular area, so encouraging members who have questions to be able to do that. And I’m thankful to that member for giving the opportunity for a theme, and for me to speak to that. This has been raised a number of times, not only during the Estimates review in select committee, but also in the House during debate and during question time, and I know that that particular member who asked the question is keenly watching benefit numbers—as we all have been over the course of the last two and a bit years.

What we have seen, as was pointed out by the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee earlier, was not the dire forecast numbers that had been anticipated at the beginning of COVID, and I do put that down to overall good general management of our economy during this pandemic. Also, when we were first hit with the pandemic, we were very clear that it would not only be social supports that needed to be invested in and put into place but also support for New Zealanders who may find themselves out of work because of the pandemic.

The research tells us that we need to work quickly with people who fall out of employment, to get them back into employment as quickly as possible, and there certainly was a focus on that. The member who asked the question has asserted in the House a number of times over the course of the last few weeks that we have an increasing problem with benefit dependency. I certainly and very genuinely do not think that is the case. When we look at the proportions of people who are on benefit for any given time frame—even though they may have gone up in places a little bit—they’re not significant increases, so it doesn’t give me reason for concern. I’m also, alongside that, very cognisant and aware of the many programmes that we have invested in, as a Government, that are targeted—whether it is Apprenticeship Boost, Flexi-wage, Mana in Mahi, He Poutama Rangitahi—a range of different programmes that are targeted, and we continue to monitor who is taking up those particular programmes.

The reality is that we do have a number of people, as did the previous Government and every Government prior to us being in Government, who are on benefit for a more extended period of time—many of them, for the reasons of health conditions, disabilities, or for the fact that they are caring for people with health conditions or disabilities, and so we do need to take that into consideration. But also the other factor that I wanted to mention is that, quite often, when we have an economic event like we have done recently, it is harder to place those who have been out of employment for longer. So there is this thing where people who come into benefit, it’s easier to place them into employment. For those that have been in for longer, it’s harder. There’s also been additional challenges with regards to, I know, for instance, with sole parents, where school has been out in places like Auckland—inconsistency and reduced hours when kids could return to school—that made it difficult, I think, for a number of people on benefit to be able to take up permanent or full-time or certain employment opportunities because of the general uncertainty that COVID has created in people’s lives, and the flow-on impacts to that. We don’t talk much about that, but I think that there are some other elements like that that we do need to take into consideration as well.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Chair. I didn’t get a specific answer in terms of the long-term component of those going on to benefit, while I accept that Treasury completely got it wrong in terms of the forecast of those who would go on to unemployment benefit—and it’s just as well they have. The question, then, is: given the numbers were so much lower than anticipated, why are there still so many people on jobseeker benefit, with nearly 180,000? While the number, I accept, comes down in March, we are talking about the year to June 2021.

For the employment initiatives, I specifically ask again, as I have done for the last couple of years: which three employment initiatives have been the most successful at supporting those who are long-term benefit recipients into work? That is one of the questions. I’m anticipating one of the answers will be around Mana in Mahi, so I’m going to ask some questions about that. Why do 30 percent of Mana in Mahi participants exit early? Why, when there are more people on benefit long term, are only 5 percent of the Mana in Mahi participants those who’ve been on benefit for two years or more? And, with the employment initiatives that are clearly not effective, why are they still continuing, as outlined in this report received recently?

And, with the large number of job seekers that we now have, whether they are work-ready or whether they are health and disability, why has the employee assistance declined every year in spending for the last four years?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): A number of things are covered off there, and I’ll attempt to respond to each of them. With reference to the employment programmes that we have in place, I refute what that member said about Mana in Mahi. With regards to Mana in Mahi, what we need to look at are the actual facts that we have in front of us. So just under 5,000 people have gone through Mana in Mahi; of those, only 10 percent have left Mana in Mahi and ended up back on benefit. The rest—90 percent—have either completed, are still engaged, or have left and gone on to do something else, but not ended up back on benefit. That happens sometimes: people take up opportunities, it doesn’t work for them, and they go elsewhere. But, overall, with this particular targeted group of people, the fact that only 10 percent out of the nearly 5,000 people that have participated in this programme have ended up back on benefit is actually a success story. So I think that’s important to keep in mind.

With regards to the longer-term beneficiaries, I mentioned a couple of the reasons for why it’s harder to place them in work before, but I’ll extend my answer. One of the things that we found when we came into Government five years ago was that there had been a declining investment into front-facing case management with regards to work focus, and that was actually having an impact on, kind of, those constructive conversations and the support for people to be able to get into work. There’d also been an under-investment in upskilling and training opportunities, and the results of that were that we may have had jobs available—which is still the case now—in our labour market, but there was a mismatch with regards to the skills and qualifications and the training that people may have undertook that were in the benefit system with the jobs that were available. So we have been investing heavily in this area.

It’s not just about the actual employment programmes, though. I do want to mention the importance of doing things like reinstating the Training Incentive Allowance. We’ve seen, over the course of the last year, those numbers double, reminding everyone in the Chamber that we’re talking about sole parents and carers that are eligible for the Training Incentive Allowance. The fact that they may stay on benefit a little bit longer but they’re getting a higher-level tertiary education, to me, is not a bad thing. We know that the research backs that up, because it means that they will be able to go on, get better paid and more sustainable employment for themselves, and the fact that they attain that qualification will have a direct impact on the level of educational achievement that their children will experience.

So we think much longer term than what the previous Government did. We don’t see a successful outcome as just being the reduction in the numbers of people on benefit. We want to know that we are providing them with every opportunity to reach their potential and we want to know that their longer-term trajectory is positive. We want to do everything we can to support them with regards to when they actually exit benefit, they are exiting into something better, rather than just exiting because the system kicked them off or the system didn’t work for them or the system was too hard to navigate.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. And I want to acknowledge how difficult the period that we’re examining has been for many communities who have been affected by the pandemic.

Picking up on the members to my right’s line of questioning on jobs, I’d be keen to, less than explore the number of people on a benefit—I’d be keen to understand the information the Minister has had on whether people exiting the benefit and going to employment, what kind of wages they’re in—is that information collected?—and whether people in the Mana in Mahi scheme are guaranteed a living wage. Particularly interested in the, sort of, types of working conditions that are guaranteed through those employment schemes.

I’d also be keen to unpack a bit some of the stuff we discussed around benefit sanctions. I know we went through that during the annual review hearings, but one of the things I was really concerned about was to hear that—and some of these benefits sanctions that were applied by the previous Government and have been vocally opposed by this Government since they were implemented, shocked to find that there was no proactive checking on those families with children that were being sanctioned.

I was interested in knowing whether the Minister had evidence on whether their warrant to arrest sanction is working. Because I know when I’ve asked this question, she’s pointed me out to the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG) report evidence review paper, but the warrant to arrest sanction is not mentioned once in that paper. So does the Minister hold any evidence that the sanction is working, because the previous Government didn’t have evidence on Section 70A of the Social Security Act 1964, on sanctions for sole mothers. So I’m concerned that we are continuing down a path of putting a sanction on families where there is no evidence that it works.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): With respect to the first issue that was raised and the outcomes for families or people who leave benefit, the last report that we received was about a year ago. We are monitoring that. The next one is due in the next couple of months, and that will be made available. So the member will be able to see. I think this particular period, over the course of last year, given everything that we’ve been faced with, will be of interest to many in the Chamber.

I did see recent information that gave me hope with regards to off-benefit outcomes, and that we were seeing a reasonably significant number of people actually stay in employment after the six month period. Those are the types of shifts that we want to see. But keeping in mind, I think, it’s important for us to acknowledge in the Chamber that a number of people on benefit do take up casual work, are often filling spaces with regards to temporary work, including the seasonal work opportunities that are available. So there are a number of people that will naturally, due to the nature of the work, end up back on benefit.

I know that the member has a particular interest in the warrant to arrest sanction and all of the other sanctions. To date, there are only two of the sanctions that we have managed to get rid of. They were a really important starting point for me, because I think out of all of the sanctions that exist, they had the most detrimental impact on children, and that was the subsequent child policy and also the fact that we repealed Section 192 of the Social Security Act 2018.

With regards to the warrant to arrest sanction, the member knows my views on that particular sanction, and I’ve being very clear on that in the House. You know, it is something that we will look at, moving forward. I’m not in a position to say that we’ve done the work on that to date or that there are any changes in the near future. However, certainly, it’s something that we would like to look at as part of our overhaul. We did commit to looking at ineffective or excessive sanctions. So the question raised by the member about whether or not it is effective is a valid one. But it’s just not one that I can answer right here right now.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) overspent on personnel costs by $154 million to support “improved employment and social outcomes.” Why, then, do we still have 106,000 work-ready jobseeker beneficiaries not in work? And did the Minister intend to help these people into work or are we just referring to improved employment opportunities for MSD servants?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to follow on from my colleague Karen Chhour’s questions and ask specifically: does the Minister see it is a success if somebody is on a jobseeker benefit, then gets into work in the short term—or actually doesn’t that count? In terms of sanctions—and for most people listening, a simpler way to look at it is the consequence. Given the consequences or the sanctions for work have rapidly declined in the time that Labour has been in office, does the Minister believe it is important that if a job is available and where employers are crying out for workers, a person on the jobseeker benefit accepts a job? If she doesn’t, and for example, when there are supermarkets around the electorates that we all represent looking for workers, what is the consequence of a person who is receiving the jobseeker benefit not accepting a job that is available? I give the example of a job in a supermarket but that’s one of many.

Then I also want to know, given that the Minister wants a series of questions, about the wait times for clients who are ringing MSD at the moment—when there has been a doubling of the number of staff answering the phones in MSD, why there has been an increase of 425 percent in the wait time for some of New Zealand’s most challenged people in hardship? Surely—surely—the basic thing to do is pick up the phone.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): There has certainly been an increase in demand on the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), and I think that they’ve worked incredibly hard to respond to the demand that they’ve seen. Again, harking back to the fact that we have been going through a pandemic and that’s put some pressure on a number of Government agencies, but I think, by and large, MSD have done very well in their response.

No one likes to see long wait times. I ask for regular updates on those. Often, the average wait time doesn’t look nearly as bad as what some people experience. It does come down to when people call at times—what time of day, what is happening—and so there are a range of factors that need to be taken into consideration, but no one likes to see long wait times.

The member the Hon Louise Upston asked whether or not I value temporary or short-term work—

Hon Louise Upston: No, not short-term. Just a job.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes, I do, and I said that earlier. We have to recognise that some people will go on and off benefit because they take up those horticulture opportunities; they work those seasonal jobs. So our job is to try and make that transition between that type of work and benefit as seamless as possible, because sometimes that can cause a lot of stress for families.

What I’m also aware of, with my Minister for employment hat on, is that we do need to work with people to get into the work that they are capable of doing and ensure that we are not encouraging any wage scarring situations, where people perhaps are able to earn more but being forced to take up something immediately which then takes them out of the running for looking for the work that actually is well suited to their capabilities, as well.

With respect to supermarkets and the demand or the workforce issues that they’ve experienced due to people going down with COVID, my understanding is MSD has been working hard with supermarkets across the country to be able to support with the workforce shortages that they’ve been experiencing. I would not be able to say that in every instance they have been able to provide them with the worker, but I know that on a lot of occasions, in a lot of instances, they have been working very actively with the supermarket sector to be able to fill some of the gaps that have been created due to people being off work because of COVID or needing to self-isolate.

I’m trying to think—the member from ACT Karen Chhour raised, I think, an issue around a $150 million overspend. There wasn’t a $150 million overspend; I think the member is referring to $144 underspend. Part of that is due to the fact that when we got the funding for the employment focus and employment initiatives, it had been anticipated that we would be experiencing a much greater level of job loss and people coming on benefit than what we ended up actually experiencing. Some of that is money for employment initiatives that is being carried forward to the next financial year, including—I think one of the bigger areas is Flexi-wage.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to continue on with the conversation around supporting people into employment, because National, of course, believes that employment is the best way out of poverty, and we back New Zealanders to overcome the range of challenges that they face in life, and the Ministry of Social Development absolutely must be there in their time of need—which is why it is distressing when people have been waiting on the phone for three hours or more, and, actually, despite the doubling of the number of staff in the call centres, the actual number of calls hasn’t increased over the four-year period.

So I’ve got a couple of other questions. How many working-age beneficiaries are being work tested? And if someone isn’t looking for work, are they classified as unemployed, and, if not, why not?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you. Just following on from my previous questions, I just wanted confirmation that people going into jobs through the Mana in Mahi scheme are being paid a living wage, and, if not, why not, during the period we reviewed?

Also, following up on the benefit sanctions conversation, I’m really pleased to hear that the Minister shares my concerns and that we seem to be on the same page. But considering that she agrees the sanction isn’t great and that it’s harming people, and that, during the period we reviewed, over 75 percent of the people sanctioned were Māori, I just wondered if she could elaborate why no work has been done to remove that specific sanction, despite her party being in opposition to it since 2013, and the Welfare Expert Advisory Group being very clear that it needed to go since 2018.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would just like to point out that the $154 million I was speaking about is on page 9 of the annual review, Ministry of Social Development. It states “personnel costs were $154 million higher than expected due to needing more staff to support improved employment and social outcomes.”

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): We look forward to some answers from the Minister. I thought this was meant to be sort of a quick-fire round, so I’m going to move on to another part of my questions, and that is whether or not she is concerned that now one in five New Zealand children are being raised in a benefit-dependent home? And is she aware of the evidence that shows that the life outcomes of a child raised in a benefit-dependent home are worse in terms of health, education, as well, of course, as their income? And at the very same time that there are 36,000 more children living in benefit-dependent homes, I’m interested in her decision as to why she would pick this time to gut the Children’s Commissioner?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Firstly, I want to acknowledge this Government’s efforts to address child poverty in this country. I want to acknowledge that every other party in this House, except for ACT, but including National, supported our move to put in place legislation so that we can monitor and make sure we are making progress with regards to child poverty reduction. And I acknowledge that, because of this Government’s suite of measures that we have been implementing since day dot, when we got in at the end of 2017, we now see 66,000 fewer children living in poverty, when we are looking at the after-housing cost measure. That is significant, but there is much more to do.

If we want to talk about child poverty reduction, which we are more than happy to on this side of the House, the benefit increases that we passed through the Budget in 2021, and we are now seeing the full realisation of since 1 April, will see up to another 33,000 children lifted out of poverty. To us, those are the figures that we want to be looking at. That member the Hon Louise Upston said that their party thinks employment is the best way out of poverty; our side, this Government, is the Government that not only invested in income support and increasing income adequacy for the poorest New Zealanders but, at the same time, has put an emphasis and focus, finally, on investing in employment, front-line, work-focused case management, upskilling and training opportunities for people who are on benefits. That was something that was neglected by the previous Government, and we need to make that point very clearly.

The member asked whether or not every person who is on jobseeker benefit will be work tested. Well, the member knows that if the person is exempted for health and disability reasons, then, no, they won’t be work tested. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) will work with clients on a case by case basis to support them into employment. Blanket statements about everyone on benefit go no way towards helping individuals and their whānau and actually supporting them in the circumstances that they are faced with.

An example of that, I will just add, is that one time I was talking to a case manager. She was really proud of the fact that she’d supported a woman into full-time employment, who was a solo parent and had never been in work before, and she was in her late 20s. Unfortunately, though, it wasn’t a successful outcome, because that person was not well supported in her own life environment, with regards to her access to transport and childcare to be able to sustain that full-time employment opportunity. In some instances, where you push that hard that fast, you can do more damage than good, because when that woman falls out again, her confidence is down, she feels like a failure, and what have you really achieved? There is a whole lot that has to go around every individual that’s on benefit, to ensure the futureproofing of wellbeing for them and their whānau. It’s so oversimplified by the other side of the House, and it’s to the detriment of people who are in the welfare system.

Moving now to Ricardo Menéndez March, the member from the Green Party, with regards to why we haven’t yet been able to address the particular sanction that he raised around warrant to arrest. It really is because we have such a rigorous work programme at MSD and we haven’t been able to address all of the areas that have been identified in the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s report, but we continue to do that work. I’m actually really proud of the fact that, despite having quite a significant role to play in the response to COVID, whether it be through wage subsidy or the welfare support or support for social services, we have still been able to get on with business as usual and get on to those Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommendations, but not all of them. It’s one that we still need to look at.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Chair. I didn’t get an answer to the question about whether or not—if someone isn’t looking for work—they are classified as unemployed and whether or not the Minister believed the research that talks about the outcomes for children being worse for those who are raised in long-term benefit-dependent homes. I’m going to add another question to that: does she believe or understand that people financially have higher incomes if they are in work as opposed to a benefit? And I want to move on to my final theme, which is about superannuitants and why the Government was quite happy to cut off the entitlements to superannuation for seniors who were stranded overseas through no fault of their own.

I want to know what she would say to Nanette—who travelled to Melbourne to look after her daughter, who had undergone major surgery—who said, “I feel we’ve actually been totally forgotten and ignored. Having our pension cut is not acceptable. There should be some sort of amnesty for people like us.” There are hundreds of people like Nanette, and this side of the House proposed a law change that would have supported those people. There are now some superannuitants—their only source of income—who not only had their pension cut but have been sent a bill for $16,000 to pay the Ministry of Social Development back for money they are entitled to because they couldn’t get back into New Zealand because of managed isolation and quarantine. No fault of their own—heartless, cruel, unkind. And I ask the Minister again: when shall she fix this issue for the thousands of New Zealanders affected?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Pot calling the kettle black! I’ll start with that last issue. It has been an issue that’s been in the media and certainly brought to my attention when people who have been on benefit or getting superannuation have been stranded overseas due to restrictions that have had to go in place because of COVID and the need to protect our borders. In all—if not most, but all, I’m sure—instances, there has been notice given to New Zealanders who are overseas that they needed to return because the restrictions were going to be put in place. That doesn’t mean that it was always easy to get back; that doesn’t mean that it was easy to always get back.

The fortunate thing is that, in the legislation, the chief executive has discretion to apply on a case by case basis where someone has a relevant, valid case, and then they won’t get their superannuation cut. What I would encourage that member to do is, rather than cast aspersions in the House over our handling of these, be much more constructive and actually bring any cases where she thinks that the decision made was incorrect—where there needs to be a review of decision—because the review of decision policy is in place for a reason. Then, certainly, we would be willing to—we’re not doing an amnesty, because the law is in place for a reason and the discretion allows us to deal on a case by case basis. But if the member doesn’t bring the cases to us that she’s concerned about, we will not be able to resolve the ones that she seems to have come across.

The member raised before—and I want to go back to this—that she believes we are gutting the Children’s Commission. We are certainly not doing that, and I’m really glad and thankful to the select committee for the robust process that they have taken with regards to that legislation. That is what the select committee process is about: it is about getting insights from stakeholders and people who wish to submit because they feel passionately about the issue—to get their insights, to take it away, and then to see how we can then make that initial piece of legislation better. What that legislation is actually about is making sure we have got the mechanisms in place to be able to protect the children in State care. There are some things I don’t resile from: one is that I do believe that having an advocacy arm, having an independent monitoring mechanism, and making more clear that it’s the Ombudsmen that holds the responsibility for investigations and inquiry will strengthen the system. And, fundamentally, it’s about those children.

I think the member might have been raising the issue in regards to the possibility of having a board as opposed to a sole commissioner. There are some things I think that we can work on in that space, but I will point out that one of the reasons why we thought having a board would be a good idea is to ensure that we do have Māori actively informed and part of that process with regards to the Children’s Commission, because, to be honest, that hasn’t always occurred across the course of the years. And that’s not saying that everyone that was non-Māori was not a good Children’s Commissioner—I certainly wouldn’t say that, and they certainly have been—but it is important that we have Māori advocating for children through the Children’s Commission, and we haven’t had it at the level that we needed to, and we want to make sure that we have that, moving forward.

And the other issue—now I understand what the member was raising about the employment rate. So the member wants me to explain how we ascertain whether people are unemployed or not. The same formula that is used now was used under the previous Government; it was used under the Government before that and the Government before that, I do believe. And it is about people actively seeking work, and when they identify as actively seeking work and they’re not in work, then they are considered to be unemployed. There are a number of people who are not actively seeking work—particularly those that have health conditions or disabilities. Some may have care responsibilities that go beyond the average person’s. So lots to respond to that member’s question.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d just like to turn the conversation to the disability sector, please, and ask the Minister: what has she done to improve the situation for access to respite care, given how difficult it’s been to find caregivers that are prepared to provide care for 24 hours for $80?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Disability Issues): This is actually not something that comes under the purview of the Office for Disability Issues. It certainly is something that is the responsibility of the Minister of Health, and so I wouldn’t want to overstep the mark by responding to something that is in his delegation. Although, I will say that respite is something that is raised often. It has also been an issue that I think has been exacerbated through COVID, because of the options with regards to respite with COVID restrictions and other things in place. So as the Minister for Disability Issues, I am cognisant of the issue that the member raises, but I don’t have responsibility or levers with regards to the actual respite system that is in place.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): So the question, Minister, was what have you as the Minister done to provide that support. Have you in any way lobbied or approached the appropriate Minister to improve that access to respite care?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Disability Issues): I would need to go away and check when was the last time that I’d had a meeting that specifically discussed that issue, and I wouldn’t want to say when that might have been because I can’t remember off the top of my head, but I’m happy to do that.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I’ve got a few questions relating to ACC for Minister Sepuloni, and the first one was just wanting to look at issues in terms of barriers to access to justice and around review processes, recognising that this was recognised as a real problem by Acclaim Otago back in 2015, at a time where the review process—it was taking a hundred days to get through that process. The concerns that they raised were validated by Miriam Dean QC not long after that, including issues around representation, medical evidence, and people being able to be heard. I’m wondering whether the Minister has any concerns around the fact that, actually, those resolution times are currently, we’re told, 122.9 days through the formal resolution process in ACC, just compared to 58 days in the alternative disputes resolution process—and that, through the discussion in committee, we had mixed data coming from ACC, where they’d changed their definitions along the way without telling anybody.

I now understand, through a submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) review, that, in fact, those numbers of 122 days actually exclude the fact of an additional 70 days within ACC internal processes on top of that 122 days. So it’s taking, through that process, almost 200 days, twice as long as it was taking at the time that this concern was recognised by Acclaim Otago and Miriam Dean QC. The time frame of 58 days through the alternative process actually includes 30 calendar days of ACC’s internal process, where they’re taking a month to send cases to the alternative disputes process. So that alternative dispute part’s only taking 28 days, compared to the 200 through ACC process, and they’re only sending, like, 10 percent of cases to alternative dispute. So is this satisfactory to the Minister, in terms of the confusing data and the outcomes and access to justice?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a couple of questions on ACC too, so I’ll slip them in and maybe Minister Sepuloni can reply to Ms Logie’s question as well.

The first one relates to net trust scores. We have seen, particularly, the provided trust score significantly drop over the last year, so an update on whether or not that has been sort of righted in recent quarterly reports—the business net trust score didn’t really change, but it was already quite low. In terms of providers, I think ACC had a—what do they call it? There was a health strategy, I think, to improve provider net trust, and I’m just interested in what that means and how things are going on that.

The second question is in relation to the independent review of the use of client information. The terms of reference and task was set off, I think, about six months ago. Linda Clark is leading that. It would be quite good to hear how that’s going, whether the Minister has received an interim or final report on that, and whether the report will be released to the public.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Just related on that point, in terms of privacy, it would be great if Minister Sepuloni could also speak to the fact that we’ve heard from previous, in the last year, questions to ACC where they told us, previously, their privacy protections included files being divided into compartments, limiting people’s access to different parts of sensitive claim files, that there was a regular review of sensitive claims access, access controls, and audit logs. And now we hear, just in the last couple of weeks, that work is under way to further restrict and control access to the core claims management system and monitor what part of the client’s file staff access. Can you tell us the difference between what they told us they were doing already and what they’re now saying they’re going to do?

And, finally, when the Minister was saying in the House on 27 October that 14,000 people had access, and we now hear that in October, ACC—and there were only two working days after that—limited access to 800 people, had they informed the Minister that they had done that? Or did they do it in the two days after?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for ACC): I’m going to try and traverse the questions as quickly as I can. I’ll start with the privacy issue and the review that’s under way. I believe that that review has just been completed. I’m expecting to get the report in the next couple of weeks, and, of course, in due course that will be made available to others and then we will be able to look at the way forward with regards to how we improve the privacy of client information. I actually think there may be something in this for outside of ACC as well, because I do understand that part of what’s been raised is, actually, what is needed for protecting information in this modern era, in particular with more people working from home. And so there is a lot to think about that I think will be important not just for ACC but other Government agencies, and potentially outside of Government agencies, given the large number of people that are working from home.

Net provider trust scores: no, I don’t think they are at the place that we want them to be. In my most recent meeting with ACC, there’s a range of things that are going on, and I think it’s fair to say that many of them fall under the umbrella of important organisational cultural change. That would include how we handle individual client data, and that would include, you know, everything, including how we interact and build trust with the providers that are accessing support. I do believe that that work is under way, and so I would hope to see better results, moving forward.

And with regards to Jan Logie’s question around the actual review wait times: that was quite a specific question and something that, if she is OK with, I think I will go away and get some clarifying information. If there was contradicting information that was given to you previously where it didn’t make sense, then I want to look at that, and we will look to clear that up so that it is given to you in a way that does actually make sense. And, again, if there are issues with regards to review wait time, then that really does sit under this more blanket issue that I do have absolute trust in our board chair, the board, and the chief executive (CE) with respect to them being able to address those things.

I will note, too, it’s been an exciting year for ACC. We have got a new board chair—I acknowledge the work from the previous one, but a new board chair in the Hon Steve Maharey, a new CE, with Megan Main, and new board members as well. And so we are looking forward to the invigorated energy that they bring to the portfolio, and I have absolute confidence in their ability to be able to do the job and do the job well.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Kua tae mai te wā mō te kai o te pō, nō reira ka tīmata anō te komiti hei te whitu karaka i tēnei pō [It is now time for our evening meal and the committee meeting will resume at 7pm tonight], at which stage we will have the Minister for the Environment and Minister for Oceans and Fisheries. Kia ora.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Good evening, members. We now have the Minister for the Environment and for Oceans and Fisheries in the chair.

Environment, and Oceans and Fisheries

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Chairperson of the Environment Committee): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I’m very pleased to introduce the annual review 2020-21 debate on the environment sector, with a very brief summary of the Environment Committee’s examination of performance of Predator Free New Zealand, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), the Climate Change Commission, the Ministry for the Environment, and the Department of Conservation.

The Environmental Protection Authority spent $33.2 million last year. And the committee noted that 2020-21 was the fourth year in which the EPA has operated a deficit budget model, and has been funding its work programme from reserves. And while the EPA received an additional $1 million to reassess the regulatory controls on chemicals, we heard that the authority was only able to reassess nine of the 43 substances on its priority chemicals list—all of them synthetic pyrethroids as well as hydrogen cyanamide.

Moving on to Manatū Mō Te Taiao—Ministry for the Environment. In contrast to the EPA, the Ministry for the Environment had 30 percent more revenue in 2020-21, up to $124 million, with spending of $119 million. And it had more than 150 additional full-time staff compared to the previous year. This increased funding recognises that the ministry is responsible for major reforms in climate change, resource management, waste, and fresh water. And the committee questioned and discussed with the Environment Secretary issues in each of these areas. One of the suggestions the Auditor-General made was that the ministry improve the links between how it measures the impacts of its work and the environmental outcomes that it seeks to achieve. On climate change, we heard that the ministry had heard more than 10,000 public submissions on policy proposals for the emissions reduction plan, and that, of course, is due to be released by the end of May this year.

The Primary Sector Climate Action Partnership—He Waka Eke Noa—is also due to provide its recommendations to the Government in May on the design of a farm-level emissions pricing system for implementation by 2025. The ministry told us that it was both working with the He Waka Eke Noa partnership while also preparing for the backstop option of agriculture coming into the emissions trading scheme (ETS) at a 95 percent free allocation if this is required. And committee members raised the concerns of rural communities about the effects of carbon farming and offsetting through planting permanent pine forests and changes to the ETS settings there. And we certainly heard that the ministry recognised the importance of having an equitable transition strategy as we shift to a low-emissions economy.

Moving to He Pou a Rangi—the Climate Change Commission. Like the Ministry for the Environment, the Climate Change Commission has engaged in substantial public consultation. It received and analysed more than 15,000 submissions on its draft advice to Government on how Aotearoa should reach our 2025 emissions targets. And that public feedback contributed to the commission’s 33 recommendations in Ināia tonu nei: a low emissions future for Aotearoa. So here the committee questioned and discussed the modelling and analysis, which supported the commission’s recommendations, the processes for offshore mitigation, given the current 100 million tonne deficit in emissions reduction from domestic action, which will need to be met through offshore mitigation. We looked at the performance of the ETS and the policy measures which complement the ETS, because it alone can’t achieve the level of emissions reduction that is required to meet our targets and budgets: measures such as the Clean Car Discount, possible biodiversity credits, and how we discourage deforestation of pre-1990 forests. And the commission noted that it is still developing the systems and processes that it needs to report on all the performance measures in its statement of expectations.

And with Te Papa Atawhai—Department of Conservation—they had a 14 percent increase in revenue last year, up to $590 million. And for the third year running, the Auditor-General noted that the department’s management control environment needs improvement, and we heard that the department was rolling out a $62 million corporate services work programme to improve performance here. And we had very wide-ranging discussions with the new director-general, Penny Nelson. And the committee also invited both the ministry and Te Papa Atawhai for a joint hearing and examination of Mahi mō te Taiao—Jobs for Nature.

I thank the select committee staff, the Office of the Auditor-General, and all of the staff working in the agencies in the environment sector for their work. Kia ora.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on the Minister for the Environment and for Oceans and Fisheries. And can I remind members that we have 45 minutes from the beginning of the session for answers and questions with the Minister.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I thank the chair of the Environment Committee, the Hon Eugenie Sage, for those introductory comments and the members of the committee for their examination of the Estimates.

I won’t cover all of the issues that have been raised, but the member the Hon Eugenie Sage is correct that, in terms of additional funding there is quite a lot that’s come into the Ministry in respect of Resource Management Act (RMA) issues, where we’re proposing to repeal the RMA and put in its place the Strategic Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environments Act—the NBA. That’s a big piece of work necessary because the RMA really hasn’t met its purpose, which was to protect the environment—but also to enable development. Neither of those outcomes have been properly achieved, because the processes under it take too long and they cost too much, and they actually haven’t protected the environment across a number of domains, including water and climate-changing emissions.

In respect of waste, the member herself led a lot of this work in the last Government, of which she was in part, as the Associate Minister for the Environment, responsible for waste issues. The big changes coming through there are a container deposit scheme that we’re currently consulting upon; a standardisation of kerbside collection so that we’ve got standardisation around the country, because at the moment far too much waste ends up in recycling bins, contaminating the good stuff, degrading it, and making it more expensive to recycle, and, conversely, too much good stuff that is recyclable is ending up in the waste bins, so that’s the second main part of that strategy; and the third part is that we’ve had advice from the Climate Commission that in order to meet the methane reduction targets necessary to meet the targets that we’ve set as a Government, we do need to separate food waste and have that collected separately, because, if you just put it into a landfill, by the time a landfill is capped and methane is collected in a landfill, it’s already produced a lot of methane.

Final point I’ll make just briefly is in respect of fresh water. We’re continuing on with the implementation of the reforms that we legislated for during the last term of the election. I’m happy to answer questions on that or some of the other issues that have been raised by the member.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank the Minister for the Environment for his introductory comments. I’ve got some questions in relation to the cornerstone legislation relating to the Natural and Built Environments Bill. Will a bill be introduced to Parliament this year, so that a full select committee process can occur?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Yes.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Is the Minister committed to a full select committee process—simultaneously or independently—for the Natural and Built Environments Bill and the Strategic Planning Bill?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Full select committee processes will be run for both; we’re not proposing to truncate them. They’re big and complex pieces of legislation, but we do expect that they will be run in parallel.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): What are the reasons for the delay in the time frame for the introduction of the Natural and Built Environments Bill?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): There is actually not much delay. There was an article that was in the media recently that suggests that there was substantial delay; there isn’t. We’re expecting it to be introduced for a first reading in the last quarter of this year.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Has he or his ministry shared a draft Natural and Built Environments Bill with any external stakeholders? For clarity, I’m asking about a full draft of the bill, as opposed to the exposure draft that was released last year.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): You may wish to ask more questions. I call on the Hon Scott Simpson.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): If he has released a full draft of the proposed new legislation, who are the stakeholders that he’s shared it with, and what has been their response, and, if they have had a full copy, when will he release a full copy to this Parliament and the New Zealand public?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair. There’s a long background to these reforms. There has been considerable civil society disquiet with the ineffectiveness of the Resource Management Act (RMA), both as a tool to manage and encourage appropriate development and to protect environmental bottom-lines. That civil society endeavour has included reports by the Productivity Commission, with recent reports showing that infrastructure consenting costs are 250 percent of where they were about 10 years ago, so it’s been a very costly system.

In addition to the Productivity Commission’s work, there have been independent reports by the Environmental Defence Society, in concert with the infrastructure NGO, the Property Council; and the northern Employers and Manufacturers Association, as it was then. And that led us to doing the Randerson report. The Randerson report is, essentially, the template that we’re implementing, which was our promise to the electorate, and we’re going through that process. The first half, if you like, of the core equivalence to Part 2 of the existing RMA, went to an inquiry at the Environment Committee last year. The results of the inquiry, in addition to working through all of the other issues that have arisen from a reform of it, are currently being worked through. We’ve got a cross-agency board running in respect of the Strategic Planning Bill, and it’s bringing all of the different agencies of Government, because, of course, the interests of different Government departments include transport, education, and health, as well as the Ministry for the Environment and the Department of Conservation. All that work is proceeding at pace, and it is quite complex work—it’s one of the more complex pieces of legislation on the statute book, and it’s very important that we get it right.

All of that consultation by those prior organisations—then through the Randerson panel which consulted up and down the land, including with Māoridom, but also with local authorities, NGOs, and civil society—has led us to actually getting down to doing the hard work now of putting it together and drafting it. Whilst we have had some limited consultation during this phase, including meeting our obligations at law to the Treaty partner, and working with local Government because they’re the implementation grouping, we’re actually not broadly consulting with anyone; neither are we proposing to take a finished version of the bill to anyone before we introduce it to the House and put it to the select committee, at which stage there will be a full select committee process and everyone can have another crack at submitting.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Has he received advice from officials at the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, or Treasury, outlining their concerns that the proposed bill will not improve the efficiency of the planning system, as stated in the objectives of his cornerpiece legislative reform? Is the reason for the delay disgruntlement with some of the stakeholders, notably—or potentially—iwi, and, if so, what is the cause of their disgruntlement? Has he finally agreed definitional meanings to portions of te reo that were part of the exposure draft legislation, and, if not, when will that occur and how does he envisage that taking place?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of the first question, no, there’s no disgruntlement or disagreement holding up the progression of this bill. We are working through complex issues—there are people who have different opinions on them—but that’s the task of Government: to work through those issues and come up with sound proposals. In respect of the assertion in there that there’s substantial delay—there’s not.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Chair. If I may, Minister, I’d like to ask a few questions around aquaculture. What consideration—and I’ll put them together rather than—has he given to urgently using powers under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act to roll over the various salmon-farming consents, particularly at the top of the South Island, that are up for renewal in the next year, to ensure they don’t get bogged down like the wider consent application for new water space? And, aligned to that, Minister, do you accept the need for bespoke legislation, perhaps similar to how the Parliament reflected on facilitating Rocket Lab as a new industry, to enable proven aquaculture concepts, like salmon-farming, in New Zealand to proceed?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Thank you. If I don’t address all of these questions, please put them to me again because I might not have picked up all of the questions. In respect of whether we’re considering using fast track for applications, I have, as Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, excluded myself from the consideration of the fast-track application, which is in process, because I thought that it would be a bad appearance if, as Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, I made that decision as Minister for the Environment to put something through fast tracking. Instead, I delegated that decision to Minister Nash to act as Acting Minister for the Environment for the purpose of that decision, who has to act in concert with the Minister of Conservation—so we’re not closed to the idea of using fast track in respect of consenting of aquaculture space.

There is a very sad history on consenting for aquaculture; it’s been a lurch from one policy response to another—none of which have worked for 20 years. There was a gold rush under the “first in, first served” rules prior to 2008, when Labour was last in Government—we called for a moratorium. The moratorium was to allow councils to do some planning work, which they then didn’t do. The moratorium didn’t work, neither did handing it back to councils, again, because that just got bogged down under the last National Government, and that didn’t work either.

There’s been some progress on the re-consenting of existing sites in the Marlborough Sounds through a national environmental standard, which sets out some re-consenting pathways, but even that hasn’t been as successful as one had hoped for. And, this year, we’ve had this terrible instance of the effects of climate change killing lots of salmon in some of the king salmon farms in the Marlborough Sounds area, where they’ve suffered very high rates of mortality—so large that they had to make a notification to the stock exchange that this is going to have an effect on their profitability. They’re in the middle of plan hearings with the relevant councils to get new space. I did seek advice as to whether we should have some intervention—I was advised that that would actually slow things down and make things worse, rather than improve things.

So we haven’t done that but we are looking at what should be the process going forward so that we can develop an aquaculture industry, because although there are environmental concerns with aquaculture, that doesn’t mean to say that you can’t have aquaculture; it’s just got to be in the right place with the appropriate biosecurity separation and the appropriate rules surrounding it so as to minimise environmental harm, and, at the moment, the system doesn’t seem to deliver that.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just building on that, then, and relating to the second question that I’d raised, the work that the Minister has signalled is going on; is that, in his mind, likely to lead to specific bespoke legislation for aquaculture to enable future commercial opportunities to be able to proceed at far greater pace than, clearly, the challenges—I actually agree with him—that he’s outlined, over the last 10 to 15 years?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): There are, essentially, three choices: more national direction under the Resource Management Act; fixing it through the national planning framework, which is the equivalent under the new legislation, which, of course, takes a while; or a combination of both, involving bespoke legislation—and a final decision hasn’t been taken on that.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe. The Minister will be aware that orange roughy is one of the species targeted by New Zealand bottom trawling vessels fishing in the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management area. Like other deep-sea species, orange roughy are long-lived, living up to 120 or 130 years. They’re slow growing, they mature late, and that makes the species very vulnerable to over-fishing, and catches have certainly crashed since the 1980s because of over-fishing.

New Zealand’s annual report to the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation in September last year showed that orange roughy catches in areas such as Lord Howe Rise, the Northwest Challenger bank, had dropped significantly compared to 2019 and earlier years, despite the overall number of tows increasing.

So is the Minister aware of any concerns from fisheries observers, Fisheries New Zealand, fisheries companies, or others involved in the orange roughy fishery or its management about catch rates for orange roughy, the health of orange roughy fish stocks, signs of stock decline either in New Zealand waters or the South Pacific, and, if he is aware of concerns, how are they being investigated and addressed, and will he ensure that any concerns or any other relevant information about the health of the orange roughy fishery in both New Zealand waters and the South Pacific are made public before the Deepwater Group or other fishing companies apply to the Marine Stewardship Council for recertification of orange roughy?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): The member will be aware that in respect of stocks within the New Zealand exclusive economic zone (EEZ), there is a cycle of assessments of the health of those stocks. Orange roughy hasn’t been assessed under the most recent of those sustainability rounds, because we’ve just done one and it wasn’t in there. From memory, it wasn’t in the prior one. I can’t recall offhand for the House when it is scheduled to next come up, but the member is right that, in yesteryear, there were assumptions as to the abundance of that fish, and there were mistakes made, including probably the underestimation of the age of the stock and the age that they had to get to before they reproduced. Those lessons have been learnt and are now taken into account in respect of the EEZ stocks.

In respect of the offshore stocks beyond the EEZ, in the international waters that are handled through organisations like the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation, that’s a slightly different process, because they don’t have our quota management system. But, again, we try to assist those bodies by providing the information that we know from the management of our own stocks in order to manage them sustainably.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Staying with oceans, in terms of the negotiations that were happening with the United Nations on a global oceans treaty and the target of some countries of protecting 30 percent of the high seas by 2030, what position on that issue, of 30 percent protection of the high seas, did Aotearoa New Zealand take to the negotiations at the United Nations? Has New Zealand been encouraged or lobbied by other countries to join that call for 30 percent protection? Has the Government consulted with our Pacific neighbours, such as Palau, which supports the call? And if the Government doesn’t support the 30 percent protection of the high seas, why not? And if the Government hasn’t made a decision yet, what are the reasons for the delay and when can we expect a decision?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Some of those issues lie within the responsibility of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, rather than me as Fisheries. I think that the answer, though, to assist the member, that the member got from a question to the Minister of Foreign Affairs recently was that those issues were being considered by Cabinet, and a decision is envisaged before the next meeting, when those positions have to be put by the New Zealand Government to that body.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like turn to the Government’s Jobs for Nature programme and ask two or three questions in that regard.

First of all, Minister, there is a significant underspend in the funding that’s been allocated, and I’m keen to know what the Government’s plans are to address the underspend.

The second question relates to the way the metrics are recorded in terms of the outputs for the programme. A fairly blunt metric has been used that just seems to allocate number of people employed and number of jobs created. My question is: why is it not that the metric should be expressed in the number of paid hours worked and the duration of the employment of each person employed?

Then, finally, I’m keen to know whether there is a better measurement or why environmental outcomes other than just statistics such as X number of land under plant pest control in terms of hectares, land under animal pest control in terms of hectares, area under wilding conifer control under hectares. Why can’t there be a more sophisticated analysis of the environmental outcomes that the Government seeks to achieve and the programme has or has not achieved?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Look, I’m aware that the select committee has looked into this a little, and I’m also aware that there has been a review of this programme by a Government agency, the name of which I forget just as I stand on my feet. This project has actually been going very, very well and actually was well reviewed. It had some funding streams that were a combination of existing funding lines for the Department of Conservation and the Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries and perhaps Land Information New Zealand, I think, as well. In addition to that, during the time when we thought COVID was going to have such a terribly bad economic outcome, we also had a vote of additional money from Parliament to augment those amounts to bulk it up.

The results have been outstanding in my opinion. There was an article in Stuff just within the last week from a town on the West Coast, which had its tourism industry decimated. And they made the point that they are able to make ends meet because of the Jobs for Nature employment opportunities that we created around Fox and Franz Josef. They were mainly, on that occasion, led by the Department of Conservation.

The member is right that there have been a wide range of projects funded. Some of them have been clearing wilding pines—an issue that we haven’t got under control in New Zealand, but are now making some progress on. There was money put into wallaby control; we’ve got a problem with wallabies spreading in parts of the South Island. In respect of some of the other work, there’s been a lot of work done around planting the margins of waterways. Initially, some of that was the Department of Conservation; more latterly, additional funding has been provided through the Ministry for the Environment.

As to the way in which there is a computation of jobs, you have to have something that’s robust that Opposition parties and others can critique. So there was a metric chosen of the number of hours worked, and that was computed into jobs by dividing the hours into a full-time job, and, you know, the outcomes have been very good. There have been millions and millions of plants planted around New Zealand. I was just last week at another one of these projects in respect of the Porirua Estuary. There are many tens of thousands of tonnes of sediment getting into that estuary every year, ruining the pipi beds, the mussels, and clogging the estuary up with sediment—a combination of sources, including Transmission Gully, actually, where there were quite a few breaches of their consents plus problems around some of the subdivisional activity not being done as well as it could be. And the answers to that are quite complex, including riparian margin planting plus better management of those events that create risks of sediment loss. That’s another good project.

In respect of the issue that the member asked as to whether some targets are not being met, the fencing target for the first year of the projects was 740 kilometres of fencing—sorry, the target was 942 kilometres; the actual fencing was 740 kilometres, and the recipients of funding who are contracted to do this work, and still have to do it but have been delayed in their work, said that there was a shortage in contractors, in part because the job outturn as a consequence of COVID was not as bad as was initially feared.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I’d like to ask you some questions about consenting under the Resource Management Act (RMA)—to start with, fast-track consenting. The Port of Tauranga has been trying for two years to get consent to extend its wharf, a $65 million project to expand a port facility which handles 42 percent of New Zealand’s shipping. It’s been rejected by the Environmental Protection Authority, and that consent application has been kicked back to the slow lane. That port believes that it’s only got three more years before it runs out of capacity. We’ve seen major supply chain issues, which are causing costs to flow through into the economy and inflation in every sector of the economy. Does the Minister think this is acceptable, and, if not, what will he do to get this project on track?

I want to come to Auckland housing development. Developers can’t even get consents for simple housing developments in a reasonable time frame. Auckland Council had over 800 consent applications for land use and subdivision, but no planners to allocate them to as of February 2022. That means that the RMA 20-day consent requirement to actually issue consents 20 days after they’re received hasn’t even started. Some of these applications were made in October, November; they hadn’t been allocated, Minister. That means thousands of homes won’t get built this year because a council doesn’t have the resources, the capability, to actually consent basic earthworks and subdivision for housing. Does the Minister think this is acceptable, and, if not, what urgent and immediate action will he take to unlock the consent backlog for both major projects like Tauranga port and housing in Auckland?

Finally, Minister, the freshwater regulations two years ago—they’ve been unworkable. We haven’t seen water get any fresher as a result, but what we have seen is that farmers identify correctly that it’s impractical for them to be sowing crops while there’s still snow on the ground. So the Minister and the department varied the freshwater regulations so that farmers could plant crops and they wouldn’t die in the cold.

Unfortunately, quarry operators pointed to other issues with the freshwater rules, particularly around prohibitions on disturbing wet areas that mean they can’t even start the earthworks needed to get to the blue rock for construction. Now, Minister, I know these quarry operators and land developers have raised this with you multiple times over the past two years and that you and your department have undertaken to do the work to unlock land for quarrying and inland development, but some quarries are now mothballing. They’re moving their gear to the Waikato, and what that means is every truck that travels 30 kilometres, every 30 kilometres doubles the cost to quarry rock. That’s adding cost into housing and construction and infrastructure. It’s causing inflation to flow through to all aspects of the economy. Minister, do you think it’s OK to stop quarrying, to stop local land development because of your freshwater rules, and, if not, what are you going to do about it and when are you going to do something about it, Minister? Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I really enjoy it when the ACT Party leads with their chin. In respect of the consenting issues in Auckland—and I see a few smiles on the face of the National Party here, though, because they know that the ACT Party made a terrible tactical mistake on this—the number of homes being consented for being built in Auckland since we came into power has doubled from 10,000 per annum to 20,000 per annum. On this side of the House, we call that success; on the other side of the House, they can’t get over the fact that they lost the election in 2017.

In respect of the fact, “Do we need to do even better? Do we need to create more building opportunities so that fewer people need a resource consent to build a house?”, we absolutely do, and we cooperated with the Green Party and the National Party in respect of upzoning legislation to change the plans in councils, including Auckland, to make it a permitted activity for which you do not need a resource consent to build up to three houses three stories high with the appropriate setbacks in the suburbs of Auckland. What did the ACT Party do? They voted against it. Why did they vote against it? Because their leader lives in Epsom, in the leafy suburbs of Epsom. They didn’t want to have any housing intensification in Epsom. And so an incredible blue means that the ACT Party for the whole of this Parliament has got no political credibility on any criticisms of the Resource Management Act (RMA) or its replacement legislation.

Simon Court: Point of order, Madam Chair. The questions are quite specific. They’re about the Port of Tauranga. What is the Minister going to do to get the fast-track consenting application for the Port of Tauranga on track? It’s about: what is the Minister going to do to get Auckland Council to start processing 800 consents? The Minister knows that it is 15 percent down in January. And what is the Minister going to do to get the quarry operators working again by reforming the freshwater regulations that he has promised them they will do? Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Thank you. You will now take your seat. That was not a point of order. That was a debating point, and I will now go back to the Minister.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I was enjoying responding to the question as to why we haven’t done more than double consents in Auckland from 10,000 per annum to 20,000 per annum and pass legislation to mean that fewer resource consents will be needed in the future, because we’ve got this upzoning legislation that every party in this House voted for, except the ACT Party, which is ashamed to this day that they turned back on their deregulatory criticisms of why we haven’t got enough housing and backed their leader in Epsom because he was worried about the leafy suburbs and whether he would get their lifeboat seat in order to get elected again in their dirty deal that they do in Epsom with the National Party every time.

So, in respect of the question as to what are we doing, well, we’ve got that legislation already passed and those new plans have to be promulgated by Auckland by August this year, which will make a massive further increase in terms of building opportunities in Auckland. I thank the National Party and I thank the Green Party and, actually, I thank the ACT Party for the opportunity to highlight that on one more occasion. In addition to that, we are baking into the new Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA) system expansive housing markets, because although the planning system isn’t the only cause of excessive house prices, particularly excessive land prices in New Zealand, it is one of the issues. The National-ACT Government in nine years did nothing to fix it, and we are, because we are the party of deregulatory reform where necessary to have more expansive land markets, including in Auckland.

In respect of the two other questions that he raised: Tauranga, we have put that on to direct referral to—I forget whether it’s to the Environment Court or to the Environmental Protection Authority. But then the notification decision, in legislation that the ACT Party and the National Party changed when last in Government, said that where a non-notification decision is to be challenged, that goes to the High Court rather the Environment Court, which was a stupid decision of those Governments, which stopped notification disputes being resolved quickly in the Environment Court. That is stuck at the moment. Again, that will be fixed by the new NBA, which we will pass this term of Government in a way that the National Party and the ACT Party never achieved.

The third issue that he raised, which is a fair criticism, actually, of the freshwater reforms, was that we did not get it quite right in respect of wetland protection and it has had an impact quarries, for example. That has been consulted upon. The way in which you change national guidance under the RMA is very, very constipated and takes a long time—something else we’re going to fix in the national planning framework. But until then, we’ve actually got to comply with the law under the RMA, which we are. And those changes are in drafting and are expected in an exposure draft form to be provided to industry participants in May.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Fantastic. I thought we were going to prune juice for a moment. So, if I may, I think it’s far more enjoyable, Minister, when it’s calmer and back-and-forth like we had before. Can I return to that and ask you, please, when is it your intention to make public the Government’s decision around the 2016 Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill and is it his intention to send it back to the select committee to reflect on the various changes that, no doubt, he has made?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In the fullness of time.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Returning to fresh water, the Minister will be aware that there was a significant Environment Canterbury report on nitrate levels in groundwater going back over 30 years and 10 years. That report concluded that, over the past decade, nitrate levels were likely or very likely increasing in 51 percent of the wells tested and showed a decrease in only 24 percent. The report concluded, if there had been widespread changes to land-use management happening around the region over the past five to 10 years that we would expect to be seeing some improvements in groundwater quality. Now, the Government has amended the national environmental standards (NES) for fresh water, has the Minister, in preparation for the review of the NES for fresh water in 2023, asked the ministry to do any work about the effectiveness of those regulations to date and whether further changes are likely to be needed—in particular, a reduction in the cap on the use of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser, which is currently at 190 kilograms per hectare per year?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the Minister, a reminder that we have around about five minutes left in this session. I call on the Minister the Hon David Parker.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Chair. I mean, I would say that two of the most pressing issues in Canterbury are nitrate levels in groundwater and problems which are partly nitrate-related in the Ashburton lakes area, which are at risk of tipping into a state which will see them severely degraded to the extent that they’re not already. The member’s quite right that the national policy statement (NPS) on freshwater management includes new attributes in respect of these issues, which have to be met by new water plans. I’m also aware that the NPS on drinking-water sources is of relevance, which is a matter which is under the control of the Hon Kiritapu Allan.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on honourable—not honourable, sorry, Todd Muller.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Well, we’ll see; maybe one day. Through you, Madam Chair, to the Minister: do you support the continued bottom trawling of deep-water seamounts? Do the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act announced today, in effect, act as a disincentive on inshore trawling, as the various compliance requirements will make it uneconomic for many of those vessels to continue operating?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): We have a working group being established with the industry, and also NGOs, to look at what we do in respect of bottom trawling in the exclusive economic zone. It’s a difficult issue; we’re not proposing to ban it totally, but we are looking to make progress to minimise the environmental harm that it causes.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. Is it the Minister’s Government’s intention to introduce reformed marine protected areas legislation, and, if so, when and in what form?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): We haven’t made decisions as, to date, we still do intend to progress marine protected area reform. Whether that results in legislation this term is not yet clear.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): To the Minister, can he outline his expectations on the next steps on revitalising the Hauraki Gulf?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Implementing the Sea Change report in the manner that was announced last year.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): For the full nearly five years of this Government’s term, there has been a commitment to standardise kerbside recycling, and the Minister made a passing reference to it in his introductory comments. What time frame does he have for actually concluding that piece of work, and what guarantees can he provide ratepayers that there will not be added cost, in terms of a cost of living crisis, to a standardised kerbside recycling programme?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): There’s a consultation document out amongst members of the community, including the waste industry, at the moment. I suspect that’s got about another month to run, and then we’ll take decisions following that. As to whether this will increase costs, actually, I think it’ll be the reverse. I think if we’ve got less waste getting into recycling bins, that will ease the cost of recycling and improve its viability. If we’ve got less good stuff getting into the waste, then that will actually improve the waste end of it as well.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Final question, the Hon Scott Simpson.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): In regard to the Government’s plan to introduce a container recycling scheme, the further consultation document is in the public arena at this stage. What are his proposed time frames for concluding that piece of work? And, again, what does he see as protections for not adding to the cost of living for consumers by implementing a scheme that, on the face of it, adds cost at point of retail? I understand, obviously, the return scheme does that, but there are high administrative costs in a scheme that is, on the face of it, potentially largely administratively expensive and relatively cumbersome.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well, there is no short-term effect on the cost of living, because the container deposit scheme takes quite a while to stand up, and, indeed, wouldn’t be stood up, I think, until about 2025, after the next election. So it’s not a present issue. In respect of net costs, after people get their deposits back, they’re quite a bit lower than was forecast in Queensland, pursuant to a report that’s been done of their recently introduced scheme by their Productivity Commission.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Thank you, Minister. Members, our time with the Minister for the Environment and for Oceans and Fisheries has ended. The Minister of Transport is now available for 30 minutes to respond to members’ questions.

Transport

GREG O’CONNOR (Chairperson of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee): It gives me great pleasure to rise as the chairman of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and I see members of my hard-working committee here in the Chamber tonight. This year, we heard from City Rail Link Ltd (CRLL), Maritime New Zealand, the Ministry of Transport, and Waka Kotahi—New Zealand Transport Agency. We basically adopted it as a sector, which is an excellent way to do it, because the sector is organised into aviation, land, rail, and maritime transport.

Of course, the Ministry of Transport is responsible for transport policy and for monitoring most parts of the sector. The strategic planning and the implementation of regulation is carried out by the transport agencies Waka Kotahi—New Zealand Transport Agency, KiwiRail Holdings, the Civil Aviation Authority, and Maritime New Zealand. The independent Crown entity the Transport Accident Investigation Commission provides the investigation service. These agencies work collaboratively.

A significant proportion of the funding for land-based transport and coastal shipping comes from the National Land Transport Fund—the NLTF. The fund is funded from fuel excise duties, road-user charges, motor vehicle registration and licensing, and other Crown revenues, including Crown funding.

Much of our work was talking about the decarbonising of the transport sector, and we discussed what work is being done to reduce carbon emissions in the carbonised sector. The ministry told us that it is focused on creating a more sustainable transport system and encouraging more people to use public transport or active transport. We also discussed how Waka Kotahi sets ambitious emissions reduction targets and what Maritime New Zealand is doing to develop environmentally friendly practices. Transport is responsible for 43 percent of New Zealand’s domestic carbon dioxide emissions and 21 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.

The ministry has a green paper. Hīkina te Kohupara was developed and consulted on—this green paper—and this discussion document sets out potential ways of reducing emissions across the transport system. It also outlines the policies that will support this. It uses the avoid, shift, improve framework—or the A-S-I framework—to identify these opportunities. Of course, “avoid” means to improve the overall efficiency of the transport system through interventions to reduce both the need to travel and trip lengths; to “shift” is to improve the efficiency of trips by promoting mode shift to low-carbon modes such as walking, cycling, public transport, coastal shipping, and rail freight; and, finally, to “improve” is to lower the emissions of transport, vehicles, and fuels. We asked the ministry whether reducing fares for public transport or making it free would encourage people to use it, and they agreed that it would be one of the ways to increase use.

No report would be replete without mentioning COVID-19’s effect on the transport sector. Obviously, it affected all parts of the transport sector, and we heard how the ministry remained responsive to COVID-19 on the City Rail Link project, how Maritime New Zealand undertakes regulatory work, and how the Auckland boundary supply chain issues were managed.

In March 2020, the Government committed $372 million to fund the International Air Freight Capacity scheme—and I might just ask the Minister, who might like to elaborate on maintaining the scheme for maintaining international air capacity with that additional $170 million, and the success of that. We also spoke with City Rail Link Ltd, and they acknowledged that COVID-19 has caused significant disruptions to work. It said that the effects were broad and ongoing. During 127 days of alert level 3 restrictions, work was able to continue at about 80 percent of usual efficiency. Overall, CRLL has been affected by some level of COVID restrictions for 271 days. They were also affected by severe shortages.

So that really covers a lot of the work that the committee did and what we heard from. Now, I would particularly ask the Minister to elaborate back on that air traffic—the essential transport connectivity scheme and maintaining international air capacity.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call in this debate on the transport sector. I do just want to start with a couple of introductory comments before asking the Minister some questions. I think what became incredibly apparent during the select committee hearings of the annual reviews was that this Government is leaving an infrastructure hole in New Zealand. We have seen project after project which was under way being cancelled: East West Link, Mill Road, Whangārei to Port Marsden, Woodend bypass, Cambridge to Piarere, Ōtaki to Levin cancelled and then restarted, Tauranga Northern Link cancelled and then only partly restarted.

The number of projects which are now coming up to completion started by the last Government is awkwardly coming up to completion, meaning there is going to be a massive transport infrastructure hole left by this Government. We’ve had Transmission Gully opened a couple of weeks ago; Hamilton bypass, which National started, almost complete; Pekapeka to Ōtaki almost complete; Pūhoi to Warkworth almost complete; but nothing new is actually under way under this Government. I think that’s something which this Government is going to have to be held to account for at the next election.

Then you’ve got big promises: $29.2 billion for the light rail, and we’ll get to that shortly, but first I’d like to ask about some of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme projects. The first one is regarding Mill Road in South Auckland, a critically important piece of infrastructure, which we discussed at the select committee. We were told the Minister would have advice around the rescoping by March of this year. I would like to know: has that advice come, has a preferred option been decided, and will that road be a four-lane highway or is it now only going to be a two-lane highway?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Just responding to a couple of queries from members. Firstly, acknowledging and thanking the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, Greg O’Connor. I did notice a small typo on page 15 of the report, though; I have to inform the member the total value of the New Zealand upgrade package is $12 billion, not $12 million—apart from that, an excellent report.

In response to his question about the Maintaining International Air Connectivity Scheme, that has been a critical part of our response to COVID-19, in maintaining freight connections for imports and exports that otherwise would have collapsed, potentially, given the lack of passenger travel to support air freight. There’s been a total outlay, up until this point, of nearly $1 billion, but that has supported approximately $20 billion of imports and exports to New Zealand and retained significant and important air corridors that will be critical as New Zealand recovers from COVID-19; so a really good example of Government having an active and positive role in supporting New Zealand through that difficult period.

In response to the member opposite’s comments, I do just have to set the record straight here: this Government has a record investment that’s going into the transport sector. The total investment going in through the National Land Transport Fund is approximately $24 billion over the last three years, which is a 40 percent increase on the previous period; $8.7 billion going in through New Zealand Upgrade Programme (NZUP). Many new projects are going ahead across that programme across road, rail, walking, and cycling. There is certainly no lack of investment; in fact, the critical challenge we face from the sector is making sure that the sector has enough capacity to keep up with the investment that we’re putting in.

In respect of Mill Road, I started to receive initial advice through on the South Auckland NZUP package and I expect to receive further advice before joint Ministers make decisions in the coming months.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Noting the climate crisis that we are facing and the initial comments by the chair regarding our emissions profile in the transport sector, I wanted to get an understanding from the Minister, looking back at the period we reviewed, as to whether he’s confident in the capabilities of the Ministry of Transport and Waka Kotahi to prioritise investment into public transport infrastructure and cycling and walking infrastructure that meet the needs of our diverse communities and lowers emissions.

Another question that I had for him was regarding the status of KiwiRail as a State-owned enterprise, and, again, noting the urgent need to reduce emissions, and the fact that that will involve higher investment and prioritisation into the electrified rail system, whether he thinks, looking back at whether the status that prioritises shareholder profits over sort of other paradigms, such as operating in the public good, is fit for purpose.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. What interesting comments from the Minister the Hon Michael Wood, talking about the amount being spent. This is the problem with this Government. They’re all very good at saying “We’re spending this; we’re spending that; and we’re spending this.”, but the reality is: they have a problem with delivery. Mill Road is a classic example of a project which they said they were going to do, then they cancelled it, then they said they were going to do it again, and the costs keep going up. And the Minister has just admitted to the committee that he still hasn’t even got an options report as to what he might be able to do with it. That is the reality up and down this country, with the New Zealand Upgrade Programme.

I could come to the point around the light rail, and I think that’s a very good segue through to the Auckland light rail project. We were told at the time of the hearing that approximately $50 million, at that point, had been spent on consultancy fees and other things for Auckland light rail. Is the Minister aware that the amount spent on Auckland light rail amounts to something like $7 million per metre of press release that this Government has issued on light rail in Auckland?

Hon Scott Simpson: How much?

SIMEON BROWN: $7 million per metre of press release this Government has issued on light rail. And that project’s been through so many different iterations. We’ve had the initial announcement fanfare before the election. We’ve had the twin-track process. We’ve had the super funds getting involved. We’ve, then, had it cancelled. And then it’s back on the table, and there’s still no delivery.

So can the Minister please tell me: will the final business case for Auckland light rail be completed before the next election?

SIMON COURT (ACT): Minister, one question tonight. Why does the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission say that other countries could deliver six, seven, or eight times as much track for the estimated $14.6 billion cost of Auckland light rail? Is this an indictment on the Government’s ability to efficiently deliver transport projects?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): If I can respond to a number of the questions that have been raised. The first from Mr Menéndez March, who asked about the capacity of both the ministry and Waka Kotahi to prioritise and lead the decarbonisation efforts that are needed across the transport sector. Yes, I do have real confidence there. The Minister of Climate Change, the Hon James Shaw, has been on public record as particularly recognising the role that the Ministry of Transport has taken in leading efforts to work out how we can develop credible policies to decarbonise the sector as we develop the emissions reduction plan. We’ve had a significant programme over the last year of engaging with the public, through Hīkina te Kohupara, that was mentioned by the chair, as we develop up our decarbonisation plans for the sector. We’ve already started the work there. Of course, the Clean Car Programme—policy designed by the ministry, operationally delivered by Waka Kotahi—already delivering exceptional results in terms of rapidly transitioning our light fleet. So I think that the answer there is yes.

In respect of KiwiRail: yes, more investment will be needed to support KiwiRail as it takes more freight and more passengers on to rail, which is incredibly important in terms of reducing our emissions. Worth noting, the Minister of Finance would be very pleased if, in fact, we had received dividends from KiwiRail. We’re not taking them out of KiwiRail; we’re investing to make up for 20 years of neglect and managed decline under the previous Government.

In respect of the member opposite’s—Simeon Brown’s—question, he’s quite wrong about projects not being delivered. I do note that, when the previous Government came into office at the beginning of its nine years, it committed to seven roads of national significance; I think it completed three by the time they’d finished their term in Government. This Government has a massive infrastructure programme under way across transport. Northland’s one-way bridges at Taipā and Matakohe were replaced. Auckland’s $250 million Southern Corridor improvements have been delivered. The new Puhinui station is open. Work is under way under Tākitimu stage one. The North Canterbury Transport Infrastructure Recovery project in the South Island is finished. State Highway 1 on the Southern Motorway is under way. The electrification between Papakura and Pukakohe is under way. Significant works on the Waikato Expressway are completed. And more coming later this year. There is a massive list of improvements that this Government is leading. The difference between this Government and the previous one, that that member can’t quite get his head around, is that we’re not solely focused on delivering four-lane highways as the only solution to New Zealand’s transport problems; we’re investing in a wider range of transport infrastructure, consistent with the climate challenge that we face.

In response to Mr Court’s question, there are real challenges that the Infrastructure Commission has laid down in terms of the efficient delivery of infrastructure in New Zealand, not just in transport but across the suite. I think there are real issues that we need to delve into there. They’ve identified, for example, the need for New Zealand to really address our consenting systems if we do want to lower the cost, particularly through the time that it’s taken to get infrastructure delivered efficiently. This is something that I continue to work with my agencies on because we do want to make sure that we get the best value for taxpayer dollars to deliver the most infrastructure that we can for the benefit of our country.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Well, we just heard that this Government said they won’t be delivering four-lane highways, and I think that’s something which the people of the Waikato will be incredibly disappointed about: Cambridge to Pirere cancelled and never coming back under this Government. The important roads of national significance, which improved road safety and made the lives of New Zealanders better, getting people home quicker and safer but also moving trucks and freight around our country, are critically important. Well, the reality is we know they can’t deliver a four-lane highway, because they can’t even deliver a cycle bridge—can’t even deliver a cycle bridge. If they can’t deliver a cycle bridge, how on earth can New Zealanders believe them when they say they’re going to build a light rail?

Hon Member: Well, New Zealanders can’t.

SIMEON BROWN: Well, they don’t. That’s the reality. They don’t. How on earth do they believe this Government’s going to deliver light rail? Well, we know they can’t.

I’d like to ask about the money that is being wasted under this Government. I note the New Zealand Herald ran a story yesterday. There’s a shortfall in money coming through from fuel excise duty of about $350 million. I just want to point out to the Minister: $51 million on a cycle bridge which was cancelled, $98 million for Te Huia train, which, by the way, is running on diesel, emits more fuel than if you drove a ute between Hamilton and Auckland, takes longer, and actually the passenger patronage has been pretty, pretty disappointingly poor, Megan Woods. And the cost? A $280 subsidy per person. Let’s Get Wellington Moving: 35 million bucks on consultants and $250,000 on construction. That’s what is happening under this Government.

But back to the Auckland cycle bridge. Can the Minister please explain to the House: why is money still being spent on the Auckland harbour cycle bridge since it was cancelled? After the announcement around its cancellation, $1.2 million has been spent, and so can the Minister please answer that question. Also, can the Minister please answer the question: why is the New Zealand Transport Agency still now considering reallocating lanes on the existing bridge when we were told at select committee that was not going to be happening?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I’d be interested in the Minister’s insights on the move towards Auckland’s bus services now becoming predominantly foreign-owned and whether he thinks that this is something that we should be concerned about, particularly as this model of ownership prioritises profit over potentially the wellbeing of people? And, in light of the information regarding Kinetic’s purchase of Go Bus, I’m just wondering whether he’s got any insights into what he’s seen in the past and how that may shape the future debate on the ownership of public transport.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Briefly, in answer to Mr Menéndez March, those matters ultimately aren’t my responsibility; the tendering of those services does sit with local government rather than central government agencies. I do note, however, that we do have the review of the Public Transport Operating Model under way, which is examining the questions and issues that Mr Menéndez March is pointing to, and I expect there to be further announcements there in the coming two or three months.

In response to Mr Brown and his comments, look, the reality here is that for 50 years, New Zealand has under-invested across a range of modes. We’ve under-invested in public transport. We’ve under-invested in our rail network. We’ve under-invested in safe walking and cycling networks. This is a Government which has a deliberate policy of giving New Zealanders more transport choices across all of those modes, and we’ll continue to do so.

In respect of his particular question, there is no further money that is being spent on the cycling bridge option. There were some costs that were incurred after the decision that was made, because there were contracts that were entered into with people who were doing the design work, but there is no ongoing cost.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): The Minister of Transport hasn’t answered a couple of my questions. One of the ones around the cycle bridge was why is the New Zealand Transport Agency reconsidering the reallocation of lanes on the existing bridge as part of a Northern Pathway programme? At the select committee—and it’s mentioned in the report—this was expressly ruled out, so can the Minister please tell the committee why that is now being reconsidered? I’d like the Minister to actually answer that question, because it’s actually a question that many Aucklanders, on one of New Zealand’s most critical pieces of infrastructure—the Auckland Harbour Bridge, critical for moving people around Auckland, and freight in and out of Auckland—why is the Government reconsidering reallocating lanes for a cycle bridge, after cancelling that cycle bridge? Why are they considering reallocating lanes? I think that’s a question that Aucklanders and New Zealanders need to know. How many more millions of dollars is the Government going to sink into that particular programme?

The other question the Minister hasn’t answered is regarding the Auckland light rail. The Auckland light rail is something which is, well, $14.6 billion and up to $29.2 billion dollars, according to Treasury estimates. And the question that Aucklanders and New Zealanders have is: when is that final business case actually going to be delivered? I asked the question before, and I ask it again. Will that be completed before the next election? We’ve had lots of announcements from this Government about light rail, and the Minister stands up and says, “Oh, we’ve just got to bite the bullet.” Bite the bullet! Well, it’s a very slow-moving bullet, because they announced that in 2017 that it’d be completed by 2021; it’s now 2022, if the Minister hadn’t quite noticed, and, well, I’m not sure if the bullet’s gone right past us or it’s still on its way. But—

Hon David Bennett: It’s in a time warp.

SIMEON BROWN: —or in a time warp—not 1 metre of construction has actually been done.

Hon Members: It’s The Matrix!

SIMEON BROWN: Yes, it’s The Matrix—it’s The Matrix. We don’t know where their bullet is, but they’re going to bite us. That’s all we know, from this Government. But will they even deliver a business case? I’m not even asking for a metre of light rail by 2023. I mean, I don’t think it should be built then, because I think it’s going to be an incredibly expensive waste of money. But will we even get a business case before the next election? Guess what! This country doesn’t believe this Government when it comes to light rail, because they have promised, promised, promised and issued, issued, issued press releases, but we’ve seen absolutely nothing which gives us any confidence. Will we get that business case before the next election?

SIMON COURT (ACT): Madam Chair, thank you. Minister Wood, one final question for this evening. In November last year, I asked you a written question: what is the forecast final cost to complete the City Rail Link? And you said that we needed to wait, the Government needed to wait, until significant milestones had been reached. Yesterday, after Cabinet, you said that you were aware that there was a significant cost blowout coming. The Auditor-General has said they’re aware of a significant cost blowout. Yet, in response to my written question of a few weeks ago, you’ve said that you refer back to last year’s response. You don’t know what the final cost will be. So, Minister, could you give the committee and the people of New Zealand some confidence that the Government can actually deliver a project like City Rail Link, with some confidence around the budget and timing? Or are we to expect that this level of performance would continue with light rail?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I do thank the member for his question, which is a serious and reasonable question, and, increasingly from the Opposition benches, he is taking on the role as the member who does ask serious questions about the transport sector. In respect of that particular question, I have noted for a period of time that the City Rail Link (CRL) does face cost pressures, particularly relating to the very real impacts that COVID has had on that project. There have been points over the course of COVID where that project has had to be closed down or has been significantly impacted for periods of time. There have been points where it has been difficult to secure supplies. And, of course, there are significant cost pressures that come on because of supply. All of that sits alongside the general nature of a project of that scale, where often the final allocation of costs will not be known until more towards the back end of the project. Broadly speaking, CRL advised Ministers that a much firmer picture as to the final allocation of costs is likely to be clear by approximately the end of this year. But, in the meantime, we are working closely with them to examine the particular COVID impacts, and we hope to have a greater handle on that sooner.

The other member who asked questions really does demonstrate why, increasingly, the National Party is just not seen as a serious commentator on transport issues by anyone credible in the transport sector.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: And they can mock and guffaw and make jokes about significant infrastructure projects, because they take some time, but the reality is that in the major metropolitan centres of New Zealand, we have for 50 years failed to make the investment in mass rapid transit system. That’s why our cities are congested. That is why we have poor air quality. That is why we have high carbon emissions. And this Government is setting about those tasks. It does, of course, take time at the beginning of very significant infrastructure projects through built-up city areas to do your planning right, to do your consultation right, to make sure that you have a detailed design that stacks up. These kind of projects internationally take some time to get under way. None the less, in the space of one year since this Government has come into office, we have an indicative business case on the table—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: And the members, again, refuse to engage in a serious debate. They know and everyone knows that in the previous term of Government there was not agreement amongst the governing parties about proceeding with that project, and so it couldn’t. That’s the reality. Everyone knows that. From the beginning of this Government, we have set about that task. We have an indicative business case under way, detailed planning that is now under way, a firm political commitment to move forward with the project. I think that New Zealanders of all of our major metro centres want a Government that is ready to actually make these investments, to make these cities better after many years of neglect, and that is what we will continue to do.

I do expect the detailed business case to be finished by approximately the end of 2023, which I have informed the member of several times previously.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call Simeon Brown, a reminder that we have about two minutes left on this issue. Simeon Brown.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you; I’ll be very quick. So we’ve just heard that that business case won’t be completed before the election, which means it’ll be over six years since that was first promised, and they’re trying to rewrite history as if the last three years or the previous term didn’t even happen—didn’t even happen. Well, the reality is this Government can’t be taken seriously on transport, because they just spend time talking and talking and nothing is actually being delivered. In what year will construction begin under this Government’s plans on the Auckland light rail?

Hon Scott Simpson: Which generation?

SIMEON BROWN: Which generation?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): The Government has already put on record that we expect early works to begin in 2023.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, our time with the Minister of Transport has ended. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is now available for 30 minutes to respond to members’ questions.

MARJA LUBECK (Chairperson of the Education and Workforce Committee): Thank you, Madam Chair, and it’s a great honour to kick off this debate in the annual reviews on the workplace relations and safety portfolio. I acknowledge the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, the Hon Michael Wood, who just swapped his hat, and my select committee colleagues across the Chamber who are taking part in this debate. This year, alongside the other select committees, we considered the sector as a whole for our report, combining the annual reviews for WorkSafe as well as for ACC.

I’ll start off with an outline of the process that we followed, and then I’ll talk about the findings of the committee. With the help of the almighty Zoom facility, we met several times in March, between the 2nd and the 30th, to consider this annual review, and on 9 March we met and heard evidence from the Minister. We also heard from WorkSafe New Zealand and received advice from the Office of the Auditor-General. I want to thank all of our officials and our team of parliamentary clerks, who helped us with this process.

The impact of COVID-19 on the labour sector was one of the predominant themes of this review—quite unexpectedly! Border closures have resulted in worker shortages in sectors that rely on migrant labour and specialist skills, such as healthcare, as well as in sectors that have lost third-party revenue, such as tourism. The Minister shared with us his view that the COVID-19 response is a really good story about how key stakeholders, from regulators to policy agencies, employers, and unions alike can come together and work really well in what are very unprecedented and challenging circumstances. The Minister noted the development of measures to support people to stay in work and weather the short-term impacts of COVID-19 on workforces—of course, with the help of the COVID-19 leave support scheme and the COVID-19 short-term absence payment.

COVID-19 also increased WorkSafe’s workload, as we heard, with one aspect of this being the increased work on ensuring that there is compliance from businesses with COVID-19 obligations—including things like vaccine pass scanning and contact tracing technology. The Minister told us that WorkSafe’s education-first approach is good, modern regulatory practice. Seven thousand conversations took place with employers to help them meet their obligations, and in the majority of cases, that actually resolved the issue. Related to this education-first approach, the Minister also told us that WorkSafe is increasing its investment in prevention programmes. He told us that intervention and prevention is more cost-effective, and increasingly WorkSafe have adopted the “at the top of the cliff” approach. They provide the employers, the employees, and others with the tools they need to actually prevent harm from occurring in the workplace, which is obviously always the preferred way of doing things.

The Minister told the committee that in dealing with the COVID challenges in his portfolio, there is still a firm focus on the long-term challenges. We heard about the significant reform programme that’s been under way, such as the implementation of the 10 days minimum sick leave, work on the Matariki public holiday, Holiday Act reform, and good progress being made through the modern-slavery legislation advisory group to deal with that issue of modern slavery. The Minister also told the committee that introducing a new fair pay agreement system was a top priority in order to deliver a fairer and more productive labour market which encourages collaborative relationships between key stakeholders, such as the employers, the unions, and peak bodies. The Minister noted in that relay that the New Zealand labour market had been largely deregulated for around 30 years, during which New Zealand has seen some of the worst productivity performances in the world. The Minister also noted that sector-wide pay agreements are common in countries with more productive economies.

Just to finish, in the review of the Standing Orders 2020, select committees were encouraged to conduct these overall sector-wide reviews to assist us picking up more themes across an entire sector. The Standing Orders Committee also encouraged us to invite Ministers to a hearing, and that particular increase in ministerial accountability and participation in this new style of annual review debate means that Ministers in this current Government are subjecting themselves to far greater scrutiny than has previously been the case. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair for the opportunity to talk in this important debate on a highly relevant issue for many New Zealanders, which is the way in which our workplaces in this country are organised and regulated, and asking some basic questions of the Minister in charge. Because we’re all conscious of the fact that these are challenging times in the economy facing New Zealand. We look around the world, we see what’s going on. We see inflation rising everywhere, we see the retreat of globalisation over the last few years—which for a small trading nation such as New Zealand is a considerable threat and a real cause for concern. So our focus needs to be on strengthening our economy so that we can maintain our living standards, so that we can allow New Zealanders to look after themselves and their families and be prosperous, and a focus on that growth in the economy.

When we look at the workplace relations rules, there’s an element which is focused on ensuring redistribution and fairness and security in the workplace relations rules that we have. There’s also an element that should be focused on our international competitiveness and how we can do well internationally. I suppose the point I would—or the worry that I have about this Government’s current trajectory is that it focuses very much on the redistribution side and very little on the international competitiveness side.

So I’m very keen to hear from the Minister, he having so far refused to accept that there is any connection between adding more and more costs on to New Zealand businesses, small and large, either through very substantial minimum wage increases—30 percent over the last three years—through adding extra entitlements such as an extra week of sick leave, extra public holiday, and his proposed fair pay agreements. He refuses to accept any link whatsoever between those additional costs and either an impact on our international competitiveness for those businesses that are seeking to trade with the rest of the world or on the cost of living for New Zealand consumers, which, as we all know today, more than any is a highly relevant topic, as New Zealanders struggle, particularly those in the squeezed middle, middle-income earners who are not the focus of any attention from this Government, who are facing those higher costs that they are struggling to deal with. So I’m very keen to hear from the Minister whether he has rethought that and whether he does acknowledge any connection whatsoever between the many additional costs that he and his Government have imposed on businesses and either our international competitiveness or the costs of living facing New Zealanders.

Then I want to get on to the question of the mandatory union deals that he is pushing through the House under the falsely named fair pay agreements. I want to know how he arrives at the characterisation that he makes of New Zealand’s workplace relations framework, the many thousands of businesses up and down this country, as all engaged in a “race to the bottom”. I want to know where he comes up with this, why he chooses to, kind of, characterise the efforts of New Zealand businesses as engaging in a race to the bottom, particularly given the fact that our minimum wage, for example, is one of the highest in the world. There’s no exaggeration in that; it is one of the highest in the world. Certainly in relation to the median wage, it is very much amongst one of the highest in the world. So I’ll be interested to understand where he comes up with the idea that in that context and with all the other provisions that we have in the New Zealand context, there is a race to the bottom going on, and that New Zealand workers are in this parlous state, notwithstanding imperfections that we see all around the world, and the desire for everybody to have higher incomes, which is very much the focus of all Government activities.

I suppose the point that we would make is that the best and only sustainable way to improve to generate higher incomes is ultimately to have more productive businesses and selling products that the rest of the world are prepared to pay for or our local consumers are prepared to pay for. That should be the appropriate focus of this Government rather than characterising all those New Zealanders who are engaging in enterprise as being engaged in a race to the bottom.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following on from Mr Goldsmith, I just wonder if the Minister would like to comment on the OECD’s economic division noting that centralising and co-ordinating negotiations over wages and working conditions has a tendency to compress pay differences among workers. As a result, it can weaken the link between individual performance, wages, and working conditions, and could negatively impact productivity growth, given that last year there were approximately 160,600 workers being paid the minimum wage in New Zealand compared to 2018 where there were only 71,500. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In response to the member who’s just resumed his seat, I’d note a couple of things. The first is that if one holds the view that we have undesirable income inequality in our country, which I do, then some compression of wages may not be a bad thing.

The second thing that I would note is that the OECD, through its labour, work, and social services directorate, does recommend—and the Government has taken this advice on board—that the most effective, functional, productive, and equitable labour markets do tend to have a degree of sector-based bargaining within them. And again, I point the member and also Mr Goldsmith to the very clear international evidence that New Zealand, with its highly deregulated labour market over the past 30 years, has, in fact, had a lower rate of labour productivity than most economies who have sector-based bargaining, including Australia. Mr Goldsmith’s speech could have been a speech given by a National Party backbencher in this Chamber back in 1991 when they brought the Employment Contracts Act to this House and promised that going down that track would lift our productivity, would lift our competitiveness within the world, and none of it happened. We went in the other direction, in fact.

If we take Mr Goldsmith’s commentary to its logical conclusion—he almost said it himself, in fact; he believes that we become more competitive by having a lower wage economy. That is not the policy and that is not the vision of this Government. The most effective, competitive, innovative, and dynamic economies around the world invest in their workers. This Government has a policy programme under way that is about making us a more innovative and productive economy: our work with regional skills leadership groups, our work driving local economic development through infrastructure provision, our work boosting apprenticeships to record levels, our work reforming the vocational education system are all about driving those outcomes.

Fair pay agreements, consistent with sector-based bargaining systems around the world, actually support the workforce and employers to come together to deal with some of the long-term challenges that we face, whether it’s around productivity, whether it’s around skills and training, whether it’s around critical work shortages, which actually most employers identified to us is the biggest handbrake that they currently face on their future growth prospects. We actually believe, on this side of the Chamber, that workers and employers working together on those issues through sector-based frameworks is a good thing. That side of the Chamber has never been able to accept that workers have anything valuable to contribute to those discussions, and that’s just the fundamental difference between us and them.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Well, I’m conscious I only have 2½ minutes left according to the allocation, but I’d be interested to know, given the fair pay agreements, how the employers will be represented by employee associations, and given the New Zealand businesses’ indication that they won’t be fulfilling that role, who will? And how will they go about coming together? If you take a sector, you might have thousands of employers all around the country doing their own thing, no association. They’ve got three months to come together to form a negotiating half to go into negotiations with the unions. How does the Minister expect that they will actually form themselves into a group? Who takes the lead on this? Who pays for it, importantly? Who is nominated as the employer lead? How does it all work?

Then, if it falls over and the backstop is brought in, which he brought in as an addition to this legislation after two years of getting it all organised—he wasn’t well organised and please explain how that happened—it goes to a fall-back position whereby a default bargaining party will be appointed. Who will do that and how will this default party be able to really engage effectively with all the employers and businesses involved in order to get their views and to represent them properly? I’d be interested in the detail from the Minister of how that will be organised.

Finally, I’d be very keen to know from the Minister how these complicated mandatory union deals being imposed on businesses up and down the country under this proposed so-called fair pay legislation—how that is going to make New Zealand businesses more agile and more flexible to respond to the massive changes that they’re dealing with on a daily basis, on a monthly basis, and a yearly basis at the moment, so that they can continue to survive. How will it make them more agile and flexible? I know he doesn’t have an answer. I know he will engage in cheap political points, attacking us and dreaming up nonsense about productivity over the last couple of decades, which is quite wrong—the figures that he outlined before—but I’d be grateful if he could give us a clear, unpolitical answer as to how these fair pay agreements will make those businesses more agile and flexible so that they can continue to survive and thrive in a changing world.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the Minister, may I just remind members that the session for workplace relations and safety actually ends at 8.45, so there’s still a bit of time left.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Briefly, in response to the member, I mean, I think to a large degree in the previous interchange, I responded to the member’s final question. We actually believe that employers and workers working together can improve outcomes for businesses and for sectors. In fact, we’ve seen that over the course of COVID, where, repeatedly, workers, unions, and employers have come together to deal with a fast-changing and extremely challenging situation. We’ve been able to work through the challenges around, for example, workplace vaccination issues by having employers, unions, Government working together in a tripartite way that hasn’t actually taken away flexibility. It’s enabled each party to bring its views to the table and arrive at good solutions, and I expect the same to happen on a sector basis. Of course, none of that takes away from the very many fundamental ways in which individual businesses will continue to make their own decisions.

In respect of the more specific question the member asked about employer bargaining units, employer associations exist across many sectors and we expect them to have a lead role in terms of taking on that role in fair pay agreement (FPA) bargaining. They will have a duty of good faith to engage with the employers that they represent in the course of FPA bargaining, and that duty of good faith will be similar to the duty of good faith which currently exists in collective bargaining. So, for example, across a large multi-employer collective agreement like the metals agreement, the employer representation organisations have to go back and engage with a large number of employers in that sector. In respect of many collective agreements, unions have to represent in good faith sometimes many thousands of members and engage with them, get their views, and report back to them. The same will need to occur in respect of fair pay agreements for both the union party and also the employer association.

In the event that the employer association is not able to form for some reason, there is the ability for Business New Zealand, if it wishes to, in accordance with the parliamentary paper, to take on that role. If they do not wish to, then there is a facility for that agreement to be determined. In respect of support and where costs might be assisted with, the Government in the Budget last year did confirm that up to four FPAs per year would have financial support provided to them to assist with some of the costs that will be incurred by both parties on each side.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to ask some questions around workplace health and safety of the Minister, particularly in relation to upstream responsibilities in the health sector; noting how disturbed I was to hear the reality that WorkSafe is focusing on three sectors in our country where they have the most concerns around the health and safety of workers. Those sectors are forestry and construction—possibly two sectors we’ve come to expect to be focusing on—but the third is our health sector, which is primarily Government-funded and where Government has primary responsibility for, and they have been having some significant conversations with the Ministry of Health and DHBs around funding as an upstream decision that leads and has an impact in terms of levels of staffing that impact on safety of workers.

I’m aware that right at the moment, Allied Health workers are balloting to strike and they’re calling on the Government to extend the mandate to ensure that the DHBs are able to come to the table with an offer that will address the very significant health and safety concerns of those workers. I’d love to know if the Minister is taking his role, in terms of advocating around the Cabinet table, for that extension of that mandate to protect the health and safety of those workers and to protect the Government from potential upstream enforcement.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Obviously, I don’t have responsibility for funding, which comes out of other Votes to fund—for example, the health system. What the member is referring to is WorkSafe’s approach, which is to engage with employers to make sure that health and safety responsibilities are being considered upstream. This is a shift from the old-school approach—which was more about the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff—to actually engaging with employers, engaging with boards, engaging with funders to make sure that health and safety considerations are looked at much further upstream; we consider that to be a much more effective approach in terms of preventing harm to occur to workers.

So WorkSafe is shifting in that direction and they do believe in a free and fearless way, and in that respect engage with both private and public sector employers to that extent. In respect of the particular issues that come up, say, in the Allied Health bargaining, I will let the parties work through those issues themselves in what is a sensitive and sometimes challenging collective agreement negotiation. But the member can rest assured that the Government does want to see a fair and equitable settlement in place there that deals with the legitimate issues that have been raised by that workforce and which, frankly, have been ignored for too long.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the committee report progress on this bill presently.

Motion agreed to.

Progress to be reported.

Bills

COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members, we now come to the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill. This is the debate on clause 1, “Title”. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Assistant Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Leave has been requested for all provisions to be—leave is denied. The question is that clause 1 stand part. all those in favour say Aye—sorry. Sorry, I’m getting ahead of myself. I call the Hon Paul Goldsmith.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. So here we are, dealing with yet another piece of urgent legislation from a Government that has been very poor at managing itself over the last few months.

Hon Members: What did you just do?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I don’t know what you’re—I’m getting heckling from Ministers on the other side who don’t understand how the operations of Parliament operate. The only thing I’d say is that what we’ve seen is the constant introduction of bills that are rushed through the House under truncated periods where, ordinarily, New Zealanders would have had a chance to look at bills properly and debate them properly. But this one has been rushed through in order to try and bring about some rather minor improvements to how the courts could operate under the COVID-restriction environment. What we have come to expect from this Government is that if this bill finally works its way through Parliament and comes out the other side as enacted, it will be in operation too late to make much of a difference, because we have—as all New Zealanders are keenly aware—finally opened up and reduced some basic restrictions that were in place that were making life more difficult.

So this bill, in Part 1—there’s lots of discussions going on elsewhere. This bill focuses on three areas in Part 1, which are around the security side of things in order to try and reduce the barriers to the court security officers dealing with all the many things that come up in the COVID environment. But what the bill doesn’t do and what isn’t in Part 1 is any sort of significant change to the way that technology could be used to speed up the work of the courts, and I think what most people looking at the justice sector at the moment in this country—two things they’ll be asking themselves. One is why is it that we’ve got this substantial increase in violent crime across New Zealand, which is causing many New Zealanders great concern—and I heard a yawn from the other side. They’re not particularly interested in violent crime as an issue. It doesn’t fit with their overall sort of view of the world that crime is something that we should be concerned about and the victims of crime are something that we should be focused on.

Secondly, people looking at the justice sector look at the broader issue of the very slow movement of justice through the sector, the very long delays that New Zealanders are facing to get justice, and, in particular, the lives on hold for month after month, year after year, trying to get resolution to court practices. What has been astonishing in this process has been the slow uptake of technology within our court system. We heard yesterday and we saw the details yesterday that at least 29 courts in this country, up and down the country, have no access to any audiovisual facilities that would make it easier for them to get the work done during lockdown-type situations.

We’ll hear from the Minister of Justice, no doubt, saying, “Oh well, even though this bill is too late”—and it’s too little, too late—“you never know, we might go back into a COVID sort of lockdown.”, and yet two years into this situation, they’ve still made very little progress when it comes to the basic technology that would help so much of the work of the courts to carry on rather than being stopped, as they have been over the last few months. I mean, it only took the protesters and rioters over the street—which this Government refuses to have any accountability for and doesn’t want the Justice Committee to ask basic questions about—to shut down the Court of Appeal for a week or so and to knock off cases that people were wanting to get the outcomes to. Everywhere you look, you have examples of the courts not being able to operate.

So here we are, and we’re left with what we’ve got. The bill does a few things. It makes a few little tweaks. It will come in too little, too late, and yet the things that would actually make a difference, this Minister hasn’t got around to dealing with. So there’s a lot of work to do on that score.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Mr Chair, thank you very much. It might help Paul Goldsmith, the member who just resumed his seat, to understand that there are no parts of this bill, so you might actually want to read it. We’re debating this clause by clause, so we’re actually debating the title: clause 1 of the bill. The member referred to Part 1, which makes me think that the member hasn’t even read the bill himself, which would pretty much be the case because he didn’t refer to the title at all during his first contribution. So I’m looking forward to the following contributions from the member.

I also want to embed the track record that the member has with numbers, because, as we know, his track record as the finance spokesperson—

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Ah, ah—

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: —I’m getting to the point—for the Opposition was sketchy. The member quoted a number—29 facilities, I believe. That is wrong. Again, the validity of the member’s numbers have been called into question because they are wrong. It is 12, and by the end of the year, we will have addressed nine of those court facilities to make sure that there are audiovisual links in there in order to do the kinds of things that we need to do to make sure that our court facilities are more efficient. So for those who may have stuck around for the five minutes of that contribution, which in most parts was irrelevant to the piece of legislation before us, I think you can take it from the fact that the member doesn’t know that there are no parts in the bill and has got his numbers wrong that the validity of pretty much everything that the member says in this debate is worth zero.

So can I thank the judiciary and can I thank the senior leadership and the staff of the Ministry of Justice, and also the practitioners of law, represented through the New Zealand Law Society, for the effort that they have put in over the last two years to ensure, under challenging and trying circumstances, that justice has continued to be served. I think, out of a crisis you always forge stronger relationships, and I think that’s certainly been the case for those making sure that justice can be served.

Obviously, under the alert level system it was a very rare occasion for participants to be physically in a court or tribunal room. It was only the most serious of cases that may have been dealt with in a face-to-face manner, and as we moved to the COVID protection framework, on which we’ve made announcements today, there were more in-court hearings held. This piece of legislation will ensure that we can support the Ministry of Justice and the judiciary and those working in our courtrooms to continue to be able to have certainty about how they run the day-to-day operations of courts and jury trials, and I think that’s important. There is a backlog of cases that came about because of the cessation of cases during the lockdown, and we need to make sure that we deal with those. So, in a very simple way, this piece of legislation gives certainty to the judiciary about some of the decisions that they make, noting their independence, and also too the likes of security operations staff who are employed by the Ministry of Justice about what they can and cannot do in terms of making sure people who are entitled to and who want to enter our courthouses and tribunals around the country can do that in a safe manner.

I’m sure there’ll be questions that come about, and I might try and pre-empt those because of some of the contributions that were made in the second reading speeches last night, particularly those of the ACT Party and Nicole McKee—who I have a lot of respect for. I think she always arrives at this House and argues points as opposed to politics. I’m always happy to debate both. But there was some concern. While they have fundamental differences with the Government’s continuation of this passing of legislation—and we think we need to make sure that it is there—there was a fundamental question about the length of time that some of the temporary measures may be in place, especially in and around deferral of jury service. My understanding is that the maximum period of deferral of jury service as it stands now—the normal operation is that that can be deferred for up to two years. So the ability, once this piece of legislation is repealed, along with other COVID legislation, potentially, later on, is that that continuation of deferral will continue, basically, because the current settings allow deferral of up to two years.

Again, I think the main point of debate that has been had up until this point in terms of this piece of legislation is whether it is still required. It is. While we are certainly pulling our way out of the current COVID situation, we don’t know what’s going to happen, and between the passing of this legislation and any expiration or the lifting of the measures within this piece of legislation, I think the judiciary and those who operate our courts will welcome the support to enable the full and effective and efficient and safe operation of our courtrooms. I’m happy to answer any questions that members may have.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): I call the Hon Paul Goldsmith, and I’ll just remind members that this is a debate on clause 1, which is the title.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Well, if that’s the case, I feel the need to just respond to the Minister of Justice’s answer—the previous answer—where he chose to question the numbers around the courts and their audiovisual facilities, and this is in relation to a bill called the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill. He said that my figures were wrong. They’re based, obviously, on his answer to a written question, and he said that there’s only 12 courts that don’t have the video equipment. Maybe he could just listen and tally up, and maybe his maths will be good.

So Dargaville doesn’t have one—that’s one—Kaitāia doesn’t have one—that’s two. Papakura doesn’t have one. Pukekohe: no. Huntly, a satellite court: no. Morrinsville: no. Te Awamutu: no. Te Kūiti, a satellite: no. Ōpōtiki: no. Thames: no. Waihi: no. Taumarunui—I think we’re up to 12 already—Tokoroa, Hastings, Ruatōria—there’s none there, so you’ve got to get on your horse and come down from Hicks Bay if you want to go to the court there. Waipukurau is not there. Wairoa, Hawera—not there. Marton’s not there. There’s nothing in Taihape. There’s nothing in Dannevirke. There’s nothing on the Chatham Islands, of course—which would be useful if it was. Nothing in Wellington’s Employment Court. Nothing in Wellington’s Māori Land Court. There’s nothing in the Wellington tribunals. Nothing in Kaikōura. Nothing in Westport. Nothing in Ōāmaru. Nothing in Alexandra. Nothing in Gore. Nothing in Queenstown. I think that list adds up to more than 12, and so if the Minister wants to come into the House and—none of them have the full video.

So, after two years when the rest of the world has discovered something called Zoom and the other half of the world has discovered something called Teams, the court system still carries on as if nothing has happened, nothing has changed. I know, Madam Chair, Madam Speaker, Mr Speaker, or whoever you are—Mr McKelvie—that you might be wanting to narrow this debate, but the point is, just in response to the Minister’s question, that what we’re trying to get to with this piece of legislation is what we’ve got here. They’ve brought in a piece of legislation which is not doing very much. It will arrive too late, given the fact that the restrictions have been withdrawn, and yet meantime, the things that actually would have made a difference in terms of improving New Zealanders’ access to justice, swift justice, so that they can move on with their lives—such as the implementation of audiovisual facilities. They haven’t done the—well, I think the better title would have been the “COVID-19 Non-response Bill” and then we might have got somewhere. But that’s not what was delivered at all so far.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi) (remote): [Audio missing]—the bill is, of course, highly relevant to this—

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Can I just—excuse me. Order! Can you just start again, because we missed the first bit—sorry.

CHRIS PENK: Thank you very much. I don’t know whether that was a connection issue or what, but thank you for allowing me the chance to engage again on this, the first clause of the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill, and I welcome the opportunity to engage with the Minister in the chair tonight, albeit remotely in my case. The title of the bill is indicative, I think, of the attitude of the Government towards the court system as it pertains to COVID-19 response in a couple of key ways. I do want to highlight that in a way that the title of the bill is apt, but actually a serious piece of the puzzle is missing, and it’s in relation to the fact that we are talking about court safety, but not court efficiency.

The phrase “(Court Safety)” is in the title, of course. That’s within brackets after “COVID-19 Response”, and it indicates a desire on the part of the Government—quite rightly, of course—to ensure a court system that is safe for its participants. The public health perspective is obvious. COVID-19 brings with it serious challenges from that point of view, and it’s right, of course, that the Government takes into account those and commits as best it can for the safety, and, of course, I use the word “Government” in its broadest sense. That’s the different branches of the Government, so of course the judiciary is part of that.

The Government of the day, as represented by the Minister of Justice in this case, is looking to make the courts more safe, but, of course, there should be a dual purpose in all of these COVID-19 response types of bills which acknowledges the need for not only safety but also efficiency. If that seems as though it’s an emphasis that’s misplaced, I suppose it would be an easy and obvious criticism but a misplaced one in itself if there were criticism that we should be considering efficiency in the same breath as safety. The reality is we have a court system that is hopelessly slow. It’s outdated in ways that my colleague and friend the Hon Paul Goldsmith has described. The situation has considerably worsened over the last several years, and so for any legislation to come before this House affecting the operation of the court system and not to take seriously and—as reflected in the title—not to include that twin imperative of efficiency as well as safety, I’m afraid, is an indictment on the Government’s approach.

My question to the Minister, obviously, will be seeking a response to that, and I will proceed to the second point that I did want to make in relation to clause 1, the title clause. It’s in relation to the lack of acknowledgment of the tribunals that we have in this country. We have a court system, often referred to as such—sometimes “the judicial branch of Government” is the way we refer to it—but, of course, we have a huge network of tribunals, authorities, and the like in this country. They’ve been woefully neglected by the Government in general terms and, certainly in response to COVID-19, there’s been little or nothing that has been done to make them more efficient and, until recently, more safe either. So the Government’s lack of attention and care in regard to the tribunals and authorities and the like in this country that perform such important roles within our justice system, sadly, is reflected in the courts, but not the courts and tribunal moniker for this legislation. So I would welcome the Minister’s explanation as to why he didn’t see fit to acknowledge and include their important role in our system.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): We are debating the title clause, and so I thank the member for making a reference to it in his contribution. As with safety goes efficiency. If there were disruptions abounding because of the lack of safety measures being taken in our courtrooms, then you would get the kind of disruptions that the judiciary and the Minister of Justice would not like to see because of the interruption to the safe and efficient operation of the courts. So I think I will leave that point at that.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to speak to clause 1, the title clause of this bill, which will soon become an Act with the majority that Labour has in the House.

So this bill is called the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill. Now, I just would suggest that the Minister could call this the “Too Little, Too Late Act 2022”. I note that the pandemic began at the beginning of 2020. The country went into lockdown in March 2022—that was over two years ago—and it’s only now in April, and we’re in the 13th day of April 2022, that we’re in committee stage talking about enacting the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill. So I would suggest that the Minister could reconsider calling it the “Too Little, Too Late Act”.

I think back to 2020, and at that time I was working in the courts in Invercargill, and sometimes we were connecting by a form of audiovisual link. Everyone was trying to figure out how to make things work in the courts, and sometimes we were going into the courts and having appearances with people who were getting themselves in a bit of a strife, but everyone was trying to make it work. Everyone has made it work since then to this date, but now we’re getting to a point where today we’re going to orange, as the Government has announced—the orange setting in the traffic light framework—and yet we’re talking about bringing in a COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill which will expire when the COVID settings expire. So the Minister could also call it the “We Don’t Need This Act Any More Bill”.

I note the contribution from my colleague Paul Goldsmith, who talked about the Ruatōria court. I’ve spent a little bit of time as a child in Tolaga Bay, and so I know this area. Horses are still well used, and it’s cool to see the kids on the horses. But I have heard stories from judges of the horses turning up to court, and so it makes me think that the Minister could call this the “Horse Has Bolted Act 2022”. It would work perfectly. It really fits this bill—I mean, the horse has bolted. The country has moved on. The world has moved on. If you want to be a little more to the point, we could call it the “Whoops, the Train Has Left the Station Act 2022”.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Subsidised, at 200 bucks a pop.

JOSEPH MOONEY: But we’re not talking about subsiding anything; we’re just talking about the train leaving the station, and suddenly Labour has realised: “Whoops, two years have gone past since the pandemic began and we better do something about these courts. What about the court safety? Oh, let’s just bring in something.” Time’s over, but the train has left the station and the world has moved on.

Another name the Minister could consider would be the “Time Warp Legislation Bill”, taking us back to the beginning of 2020. But the world has moved on, and maybe that would be a good name for the bill, just to make it clear to the people in New Zealand what this bill is really about: “The World Has Moved on Act 2022”—it’s no longer needed.

I note that this is a temporary bill—well, that is the way it’s framed. It will be temporary. It’ll no longer be needed once the COVID framework is no longer needed. So maybe that’s what it could be called. Maybe it could be called something to reflect the fact it is temporary—“There’s Nothing More Permanent than a Temporary Solution Act 2022”—because if you keep on bringing in these pieces of legislative architecture, it becomes more and more difficult to remove them. So maybe that’s something that the Minister could consider.

But, look, we’re here at a point where the Omicron wave is decreasing. New Zealand is largely getting on with it to the point that the Government has decided to allow Australians back into New Zealand as of today. We’re now moving into the orange framework, and yet we’re talking about bringing in the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill. Maybe another name for this could be the “Two Years Too Late Act 2022”.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I always attempt to try and address members’ questions. I don’t think I addressed a question from Chris Penk that he posed in his contribution earlier on, where he discussed the issue of tribunals. I’d like to push back on the point that Mr Penk made. There were changes to the operations of many tribunals, especially during our level 4 and 3 lockdowns, to make sure that they continued to operate, whether they did that either remotely or by papers. It was certainly something that we did to make sure that decisions were continuing to be made—the Tenancy Tribunal is one example.

I’d like to acknowledge Mr Mooney for his attempt to try and stick to the issues around clause 1, around the title, but I also just remind him that this pandemic has been around for two years. For about a year the alert level settings were in place and we are operating under a different situation right now, and look, in some ways this piece of legislation will be in place for a short amount of time—we hope—in order to give the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice some certainty. But we don’t know that for sure, and I’m sure that if we weren’t passing this legislation and things got worse, Opposition members would be crying, “Why didn’t you do something?” So we’ve got a framework here in order to make sure that if things do worsen—and we’re crossing our fingers that it doesn’t—there is a framework in which the Ministry of Justice and the judiciary can work through to make sure that justice can continue to be done.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members, we now come to clause 2. This is the debate on clause 2, “Commencement”, and I’d remind members and the Minister that this is a debate on clause 2 and it’s a very tight debate.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Clause 2 says that the Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent, and a number of members have made comment on the time frame which this piece of legislation is tracking on. Mr Penk also made a contribution about making sure that our court system is efficient.

I can guarantee you one thing, and that is if we pass this legislation as soon as possible, we’ll give the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice the ability to ensure there is efficiency and safety in our courts. So that is why we’re making sure that this piece of legislation is available to them, and the faster that it is passed, the quicker that will give certainty to those arms of Government to make sure that the efficiency that we’re after and the safety that we’re after comes into force as soon as possible.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi) (remote): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I acknowledge the Minister’s responses in relation to clause 1. There was one aspect of that which was not entirely satisfactory to me, so I’ll attempt to shoehorn that into a subsequent clause.

For now, though, clause 2 at its heart goes to the timing of the legislation going into force, and, of course, the day after Royal assent will be reasonably short order after it has passed through this House, perhaps as early as tomorrow. But the point, really, that the Minister must address in boasting that the court system will be able to be more efficient and more safe in the time that the bill is passed begs the question why on earth it is that it has taken until April 2022 for such measures to be put in place. If they are so necessary, then why is it that they have not been at least attempted earlier—for example, at the time that the COVID-19 Protection Framework, aka, the traffic light system, was passed in late 2021 by that Government?

So I say to you, Mr Chair, and to the fellow committee members that the Minister can’t have it both ways. He can’t claim that this is terribly important in the interests of safety and efficiency and that it’s going to do all kinds of important and valuable things and necessary things without acknowledging that, surely, he’s saying that these things haven’t been able to be done in the meantime. With all due respect, the position is simply not a logical one for him to sustain.

So I have a number of other calls that I would like to make or questions that I’d like to put to the Minister in relation to clause 2—I’ll just put that on your radar, Mr Chair—but in the first instance, I would like the Minister to respond to that point: how he can be so positive about the changes that this bill will be introduced without appearing to be in the least bit embarrassed about the fact that it’s taken him and his Government so long to arrange them.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): During the debate on clause 1, I outlined the time frame at which both the alert level and the COVID protection framework were in place. The Opposition can’t have it both ways either, because if we had introduced this piece of legislation when the COVID protection framework came into being, then I’m sure there would have been cries and howls that this was being done under urgency and not given due consideration. We took that into consideration, and that was the opinion of the Government to make sure that there was at least the ability to have a considered policy discussion about this and for it to have a relatively thorough parliamentary scrutiny, as well. If we had put it on the normal legislative track, then we’d probably still be here in June, July, and August trying to get this through, and the same howls of anger would be coming from the Opposition.

We don’t know what is going to happen over the next three or four months. We’re still kind of hoping for the best, but we’re watching the winter season very closely, as well. That could—and, hopefully, it will not—have an impact on the public health situation in New Zealand, but if it does, it, again, will have an impact on the efficient and safe operation of our courts, and, again, the Opposition can’t have it both ways, as well. If we aren’t prepared for that, I’m sure there’ll be howls of opposition. We are in this House today, making sure that we are prepared for the worst by making sure that this piece of legislation goes through.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi) (remote): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. With all due respect to the Minister’s response, I find that actually somewhat fatuous, and it ignores the reality that National supported this bill at first reading because at that time it was better than nothing. We made it very clear in our first reading speeches that the bill should have been introduced long before, certainty should have been provided to the courts, the safety and efficiency mechanisms should have been available much sooner, and the backlogs that now plague our court system would be that much less, accordingly.

But, in good faith, we did support the bill at first reading for all the reasons that the Minister has said—that it was better later than never; that’s my phrase, not his, to be fair—but in the intervening period of time, the Minister needs to acknowledge the fact that the Prime Minister, who is, obviously, part of the same Government, has put in place rules reducing vaccine mandates and pass requirements. For him not to acknowledge that and the fact that the world has changed, not only in terms of the shape of the pandemic but in the Government’s whole-of-Government response to this thing—for him not to realise that there is a difference between the environment in which we are living, from a policy perspective, from the first reading to now, and the intervening months that we’ve had, with a shortened period, as it’s been, at select committee, is, frankly, negligent. I take issue with the Minister suggesting that there be some sort of politicking involved in terms of the National Party’s response.

As I said, we supported it in good faith. The fact is that this was better late than never, at first reading. We can see no reason for it now at second reading, given that for the courts to be in a more stringent environment than the world outside the courtroom makes no sense, just as it made no sense for the courts to have an uncertain environment when there was certainty in the rest of New Zealand from the time that the COVID-19 Protection Framework was passed. For the Minister to suggest that it’s important to have parliamentary scrutiny for legislation such as this in a very highfalutin kind of way that suggests that it wasn’t important for the remainder of the COVID-19 response legislation in late last year, I think will be viewed very dimly by everyone outside the court system who has, obviously, been affected by those strictures.

So I’d welcome the Minister’s response to that and, in particular, I would welcome his advice as to whether he thinks that the other changes that the Government has made in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic are in anyway relevant to this, or is he living and expecting the courts to live in some sort of parallel universe?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I thank the member for his vague references to the success of the Government in dealing with the current outbreak, because we are at the situation where we are able to lift the restrictions that we’ve had in place in order to keep New Zealanders safe. I’d also like to understand what his crystal ball was saying late last year when we started looking at this issue, when the Omicron wave had not hit yet, and we didn’t know how long the Omicron wave would be here with us. In order to deal with that in terms of the safety and efficiency of courts, we started the policy process and introduced this piece of legislation very early this year in order to make sure that we were prepared. Again, at the very beginning of this process, the Omicron wave had not hit. We had to make sure we were doing everything possible to make sure we had in place the measures, and we gave the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice the ability to deal with that.

It looks promising that we’ll be able to lift even more restrictions in the near future in order to give the freedoms that New Zealanders enjoyed pre-COVID back and that, hopefully, the likes of the operation of our courts can continue as close to normal as what it used to be. It is imperative on the Government, though, to ensure that there are protections and the ability for the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice to deal with anything if it were to get worse.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Well, it was very interesting to hear from the Minister around the commencement. This bill is to be enacted after it gets Royal assent, and the point we’re making, of course, is that that will be too late because the world has moved on, and that’s why we’re not, fundamentally, supporting this bill. But he used the excuse that, well, we would have been crosser if the Government had included these measures back in November when they were ramming it through the light-setting regulations in sort of a seat-of-the-pants response to the situation that we faced as a country.

The point that we would make, and have made consistently, is that we are two years into this pandemic and the Government has had many months and years to prepare for the inevitable outbreak of COVID in this country. I mean, if you go back to the strategy of this Government, it was to buy time for New Zealanders to be prepared for the arrival of COVID. Nobody ever dreamed that, somehow, New Zealand would never ever get it. We live in the world, and unless we’re going to seal ourselves off for ever, we would have had to deal with COVID at some point. So the strategy, as far as we could work it out—it has never been very clearly articulated by the Government. The strategy, I can only assume, was to buy time, and to buy time to do two things: (1) to get New Zealanders vaccinated when that was available, and, (2) to prepare the health system to be able to cope with a surge of infections when it came to New Zealand in numbers, which it inevitably would do.

Now, our criticism of this Government, of course, is that they didn’t, having bought that time at colossal expense—[Interruption]—yeah, it’s coming, Mr Speaker. Having bought that time at colossal expense, with $60 billion borrowed, what did they do? Well, they mucked around on the vaccines and took six months too long to get us started, because the rest of the world apparently needed the vaccines more than us, and, secondly, they didn’t prepare the health system. So, as a result, we found ourselves where we were. So that negligent slowness left the country exposed, as it were, and, in the meantime, they did nothing to prepare for basic things like making sure that the court system could work in the context of some kind of lockdown or restrictions regime, which would be inevitable when COVID came into the country.

It’s astonishing to hear from the Minister that they started the policy process of trying to deal with some of the issues raised in this bill only at the start of this year. We heard that—we heard that just now. Given everything that they could predict and the difficulties that they’ve been facing in the courts, this Minister finally got his officials to start looking at the policy issues at the start of this year, maybe after they had been camping over Christmas. They’d had a big year, they’d gone camping, he’d done his Christmas festivities, probably in late January—when he says “the start of this year”, it’s probably late January that he got back to work—and they started focusing on the issues in this bill. No wonder it’s so late, and no wonder the commencement date is so late as to be not very effective.

I don’t like to extrapolate too far on this, but it does seem to me to be a pattern. It does seem to be a pattern that has emerged in this Government that they respond to things very late in the piece and make it up as they go along, and then bring in stuff which demonstrates that they are doing something, but really doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, and that’s a tragedy. In the meantime, as we’ve said all along, if this bill did do something useful in terms of making it easier for technology to operate in the court situation and we had time to look at it properly, we would be keen to see the commencement occurring the day after its Royal assent.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 Temporary amendments to enactments

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): We now move to clause 3. This is the debate on clause 3—and schedules 1 to 3—“Temporary amendments to enactments”, and I’d remind members this is a debate, if you haven’t already exhausted yourselves, where you can get on with it.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to ask the Minister about this section and the schedules of this Act being repealed on the date on which the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 is repealed. I want to ask the Minister just on the question of what will happen, and what will his response be, if the date that this Act comes into force happens just after the date on which the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 is repealed. I want to ask would the Minister be a little bit embarrassed if that were to happen: when you get to the point two years down the track after the pandemic began and the Act is scheduled to come into force, and then the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 is repealed?

I ask this question because matters are moving rather quickly. Today is the day that Australians can return into New Zealand. It’s been an exciting day, fantastic for our tourism industry, fantastic for families who haven’t connected with their Australian cousins for a long time. We’re excited as New Zealanders to welcome Australians back to New Zealand. It’s fantastic. However, I also note that today is also the day that the Government has announced that as at midnight tonight, all of New Zealand will be moving to the orange setting, so restrictions will be reducing, and yet we have this bill here, which will be carrying on as if the pandemic has only just begun.

This would have been a bill that would have been very helpful two years ago, or even a year ago or even six months ago, but today, we have Australians coming back to New Zealand, we have the whole country moving to the orange setting at midnight tonight, and yet we are talking about bringing in a temporary Act which will come into force the day after the Royal assent, and it could come in potentially just on or just after the date on which the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 is repealed. What would be the Minister’s response if that were to happen?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I thank Mr Mooney for his hypothetical question. As he will know, the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act will expire at the end of June of this year. So the sooner this bill is passed, the more effect it will have. I very much doubt that this piece of legislation will be passing after 30 June 2022.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi (remote): Mr Speaker, as you’ve rightly noted, clause 3 is the last remaining clause. It includes under its banner all the schedules, which make all the changes. So I do look forward to, or at least I hope that there will be some kind of reasonable debate in the committee of the whole House tonight about this.

I note with disappointment that Labour members other than the Minister appear to have no interest in making a contribution other than to seek closure motions. For such an important piece of legislation affecting fundamental rights about which Labour members have been perfectly happy to speak at previous stages, and, as contained in clause 3, hugely fundamental rights affecting freedoms and security of people in this country, including the jury selection, basic fundamental rights contained in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—the lack of engagement that we’ve heard and a desire to shut down the whole debate within, seemingly, an hour or so, and the lack of seriousness on the part of the Minister, I find deeply disappointing.

More importantly than that, for the people who are affected by the horrendous backlogs we’ve seen in relation to the coroner’s court, other courts, various tribunals, and Family Courts throughout the land, the lack of seriousness that is very obvious in some of the Minister’s responses they will find deeply disappointing. So my opinion in these matters isn’t relevant, and the Minister can dismiss that if he wishes, but I do want to place on record, in relation to the crystal ball comment, that I find it amusing—and I’ll be charitable—that the Minister would drag out some sort of crystal ball metaphor to accuse us of wisdom with hindsight.

It was in this very House that we were asking questions—I was asking questions; other colleagues were asking questions—when the COVID-19 protection framework, aka traffic light system legislation was being passed, rushed through in urgency, and we said what about the courts? There was nothing in that legislation that contained the provisions, for example, that we find now in clause 3 of this bill. Nothing was said about them, either in or out.

That legislation didn’t say whether it covered the courts and tribunals, and so we asked the question. There was our crystal ball, Minister. We had at it at the time, we asked the right questions, and we received—to be fair to the Government, the Attorney-General came down to the House and explained that it wouldn’t be appropriate for that regime to apply to the courts because it was important that the Courts be able to conduct their own affairs. Fair enough—that was a reasonably good answer back in November or December of 2021. It’s not a good enough response in April of 2022 to be rushing something through the House on the basis that, clearly, they hadn’t thought about it and didn’t act quickly. So for months, further delays have been ruining the lives of many Kiwis, and I would very much hope that we’re going to have a serious interaction about the detail and the fundamental rights and freedoms contained in the provisions under clause 3.

The first of those that I want to touch on is in relation to jury selection. What does the Minister believe is the balance that’s been struck between traditional methods of selecting jurors and that contained in clause 3 of the bill?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Obviously, we are passing this piece of legislation to give both the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice more flexibility and more certainty about the way it operates the courts. The member asked in the final part of his contribution in terms of how juries are selected and the changes that have been made there. One of many things around the jury changes that I think within this piece of legislation could be quite useful in terms of the management of the large numbers of people who are called for jury selection is that under current settings or normal sittings, as it is, jury selection has to happen on a particular court precinct. Within this piece of legislation, in order to manage any health and safety risks that either the ministry staff or that the judiciary have put in place in a particular location, that can be done off site. That isn’t able to be done under the normal settings.

I think one of the positive changes in terms of jury selection changes is that very simple health and safety one, where that jury selection process, where we are bringing large groups of people together, which can be a risk for people if they are either vulnerable or haven’t had COVID or may have COVID—the ability for the court staff or the judiciary to ask for that to happen off site and for it to be done in a much safer way is one of the aspects, I think, that this piece of legislation enables that to be done in a safer way.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for his engagement with the debate this evening. I want to refer to clause 2 in the new Schedule being inserted in the Courts Security Act by clause 3 in Schedule 1 of the bill, which is the power to ask for identification and information. It says that “(1) A court security officer may ask any person who wants to enter, or is in, a court to provide the officer with—(a) the person’s name and address; and (b) evidence of the person’s name and address; and (c) the person’s reason for either wanting to enter the court or being in it, if the officer has reasonable grounds for asking for the information; and (d) evidence of the person’s compliance with a direction given or requirement imposed under clause 1(1).”

Now, I’ll just ask if the Minister has spent any time in any of the courts around New Zealand and appreciates the difficulty that, in particular, paragraph (b) could impose, which is evidence of a person’s name and address. I ask that question, Minister, because I have spent a lot of time in courts from near the top of the North Island to the bottom of the South Island, and very often we are dealing with people who live very complex, challenged lives and simply do not have any documentation apart from maybe their court summons, if we’re lucky.

So my question here is: has the Minister turned his mind to the problems that this could impose on persons who are required to attend court, but do not have evidence of their name, do not have evidence of their address, and are being required by a court security officer to supply either one or both to enter the court?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I thank the member for his question. Look, my understanding is that most of the issues that are in the clause that the member refers to embeds the current situation in terms of what security officers can ask for, other than the issue that the member is asking himself. I think there could be some relatively simple ways in order to make sure that we can have evidence of people identifying themselves, if they are definitely there for a specific reason. If they have been summonsed, then they will have a summons themselves with their names—

Joseph Mooney: Not always.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Not always, but I think if they’ve managed to get there, then they know they have to be there at a particular time and at a particular place, usually because they’ve been sent a letter with their name and their address on it.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi) (remote): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I have a question for the Minister of Justice regarding the jury selection. I do want to acknowledge his response to my previous question in that space, which I thought was helpful and thoughtful. I would be interested to know his thoughts to the extent that that interacts with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and fair trial rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

I also want to pick up a theme of my questioning that had commenced under clause 1, and it was in relation to the role, if any, that tribunals have in our court system. In his mind, with regard to the COVID-19 response, the Minister said that tribunals, along with courts, were treated in a certain way during level 4 and level 3, and I don’t wish to relitigate whether those were appropriate. That’s outside the scope of the bill. But is the Minister saying that there is nothing in this bill that relates to tribunals, and, if so, how can he justify such a huge gap in our justice system treatment unless he’s prepared to say that the dictates of public health, safety, efficiency, and so on don’t equally apply to our workers, our litigants, our parties in those systems?

I do want to acknowledge that juries, specifically, of course, don’t operate within the tribunal system, so I do acknowledge that one particular specific carve-out. But in respect of most of the rest of the provisions, I want to hear from the Minister whether or not they apply equally to tribunals, and, if not, why not, and, if not, also, when he will be introducing legislation that gives them some certainty about security and safety in procedural aspects in the COVID-19 environment, because, again, the Minister can’t have it both ways. He can’t say these things are important for courts but not for tribunals. So, again, I do want to hear the Minister say something more about that.

While I’ve got the call—noting it’s probably never more than a couple of minutes away from another closure motion being sought—I do want to ask the Minister to justify clause 6 within the new Schedule to the Courts Security Act in clause 3 of Schedule 1, and that’s the one in which court security officers are being asked to inform persons of the consequences of them being denied entry or being removed from court. Is the Minister, through this legislation, saying that court security officers are appropriate to provide legal advice to those who have been denied such a fundamental right as being denied access to a courtroom?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I thank the member Chris Penk for his questions. I think I’ll just remind the member that within the piece of legislation, if there are instructions from a judge or a head of bench around any changes or protocols, they have to be done to keep the health and safety of the courtroom and to also be in the interests of justice. I’d also note that this piece of legislation has been, obviously, through the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet process and has been found compliant.

I do think the member asks a reasonable question in terms of who is covered by this. It is courts and it is tribunals that, I understand roughly, are held in court buildings. So there will be a very small number of tribunals that won’t necessarily always hear issues in person that won’t be covered by this, but the vast majority of tribunals that operate—especially those that operate on the site of a court—are covered by this piece of legislation.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi) (remote): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and thank you to Minister Kris Faafoi for that response. I wonder if the Minister can explain—excuse me as I search through my notes—what changes are made in this legislation that will be worthy of consideration as perhaps promoting safety and/or efficiency, particularly efficiency in the technological space. Going forward, does he see this as an opportunity for unlocking some of the issues that the courts have had logistically in terms of operating oftentimes in a paper-based kind of way, requiring physical attendance, including in geographical locations where that makes it prohibitively expensive and difficult for literal access to justice in many cases?

I wonder if the Minister as well, when he’s talking about the possible application of the legislation to tribunals—and it appears to me concerning that the Minister doesn’t seem to know one way or t’other whether that’s the case. We’ve heard a couple of different versions of that throughout the night, and I wonder what he will say next on that. But particularly, given the provisions within this bill at clause 3, via the various different schedules and amendments to those handful of Acts, how many of those actually have functional audiovisual link and audio link facilities such that the advantages—temporary as they may be—of the bill can actually be enjoyed by users of those tribunals. I’ll give him a clue: it’s more than 12, and it’s also more than 29.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I thank the member for his questions and probably ask him not to rely on Mr Goldsmith’s numbers there. Can I just in response to his question note that while this is a temporary piece of legislation, I think there will be aspects of it that we will look to to ensure we can make changes that are of a more permanent nature. The Government has certainly injected funding into the Ministry of Justice in order to try and deal with some of the backlogs that have eventuated over the last two years, and I think some of the initiatives that have come from that we will certainly be able to look at putting in with more permanence. That debate, because of the permanence of those settings, deserves, I think, a fuller policy process. Obviously, it will possibly take further investment, and I won’t commit to anything over and above what the Minister of Finance has committed to because that is rather career limiting. But I think there are aspects of what we have done over the last couple of years and aspects of this piece of legislation which can help us improve efficiencies.

I would also point out that there have been longstanding efficiency issues with the court processes, some of them exacerbated by the previous Government in terms of the Family Court changes and some of them that will necessitate the likes of investment in some of the back-office functions of the Ministry of Justice. Some will also require, possibly, legislative change in order to make sure that justice can happen more efficiently. Some of them will be practices of practitioners and, possibly, the Ministry of Justice and the judiciary as well. All of those can be brought together to look at the system—hopefully, post-COVID—to make sure that justice can be better served and swifter.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Minister, I’m going to ask you a couple of questions. I understand we’re probably sort of getting towards the tail end of this, but these are important questions I want to ask and hope to get answers from you about.

So in Schedule 2, inserting new Schedule 1AB in the Criminal Procedure Act—we’re looking at pages 8 and 9 in front of us—it talks about audiovisual links and it says, in particular on page 9, “audiovisual link or AVL, in relation to a proceeding, means facilities that enable both audio and visual communication between, or to be received by, participants when some or all of them are not physically present at the place of hearing for all or part of the proceeding”, and my question here is: does the Minister envisage that where appropriate, things like Zoom or Microsoft Teams could be used, because I note that the courts tend to have a preference for secure communications in their audiovisual link. But this seems to leave it open for a broader application for using tools that are commonly used now—and, in fact, we’re using in the House—for something like Zoom, for example. So that’s my first question.

My next question is over the page, on page 10, under Schedule 3: Part 1, “Temporary amendments to Juries Act”. I note that it says that “(2) The temporary provisions set out in clauses 3(2) and 21 of Schedule 2 apply during the period—(a) beginning with the repeal of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020; and (b) ending on the second anniversary of the date on which the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 is repealed.” So my question here is: why has the Government decided to end those provisions two years after the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 ends?

My third question, Minister, is—moving to pages 14 and 15—referring to the powers of judges. So in particular, down the bottom there at clause 4 in new Schedule 2 being inserted in the Juries Act, it states that “(1) A head of bench may make a protocol setting out additional requirements”, and then I’ll go over to clause 6, “Judge may impose requirements on jurors for particular trial”. I note it says, “(1) A Judge may, on their own initiative, impose requirements on jurors for a particular trial if the Judge thinks that the requirements are reasonably necessary in the interests of justice and to protect the health and safety in the courts to take account of the effects of COVID 19.”

Now, I acknowledge that on its face, that seems fine, but my question is: has the Minister considered New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications here for a juror who feels that their freedom of movement or association or other freedoms have been impacted by the judge’s decision and consideration given to recourse to appeal the judge’s decision, because I note that a judge may hold a juror in contempt. It has been done in the past, and they have been imprisoned. So there is a potentially significant issue for a juror if they feel that a judge has imposed requirements on them, and then they’ve been found to be in contempt of those conditions that have been provided for them.

So I would appreciate it if the Minister could refer to those three points in particular.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): The clauses that the member referred to around audiovisual and audio links is just embedding what is already there. I guess, in response to the member’s general question, you want to make sure that it’s secure as possible. I’m not sure which platform the Ministry of Justice uses, but I’m sure you’d want it a little bit more secure than any old Zoom link for security purposes.

The second question around the different time frames: we, obviously, want this piece of legislation to expire at the same time as the primary legislation around COVID. The maximum amount of time that you can defer someone’s jury service, I understand, is two years. So, technically, if someone has deferred their jury service at the very end of this piece of legislation, then the ability to control that deferral will need to be able to go for another two years.

I think the member’s third and final question was about the protocols that a judge can have and that can change in a particular case. If a protocol was in place in a courtroom or within a tranche of courts—whether that be the High Court or the District Court, for instance—each member of the judiciary has the ability to manage that courtroom in the way in which they see fit. So if they believe that a jury member should stay there, despite their adherence to the safety rules, which is in the interests of justice—if they can manage that, then it is within the purview of each member of the judiciary to manage that in the way that they see fit.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi) (remote): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but there are, obviously, a number of important issues yet within the bill that we do need to canvass. So I look forward to the opportunity to continue that interaction with the Minister.

I didn’t receive a response or an addressing of the question even, let alone an answer, in relation to court security officers. I asked specifically about new clause 6 of the new Schedule being inserted in the Courts Security Act by clause 3 of Schedule 1 of the bill that talks about the “Duty of a court security officer to inform of consequences when person denied entry or removed.” This is an important matter. We’ve got a situation where a person may be denied entry to or removed from a court under this legislation by a court security officer, who in performing their role, naturally, has to be given the ability to remove persons from a court or deny them entry.

I don’t think anyone would quibble with the fact that, ultimately, we do need to have people given the power, if necessary, to do that. But to then expect that security officer, who I suppose we might refer to as a bouncer in a courtroom setting, and I don’t mean to diminish the importance of the role by saying that—either role, in fact, whether at a courtroom door or a nightclub door. But the fact of the matter is these are important rights. They’re fundamental rights for New Zealanders to attend court, all things being equal, where other legitimate restrictions on open justice do not apply.

Where, if it’s determined under this legislation that a person should be denied access to the court, then under this legislation, we have in the following clause a requirement that the court security officer—not a duty lawyer, not a judge, not a registrar—should give, effectively, legal advice to the person so removed or so denied. We hear that they “must at the same time tell the person the gist of clause 5.”, and I presume that means something like the nature and meaning of effect. I presume that the plain language mafia have got to this one, to the extent that statutes and any other Government documentation is more easily understood in plain language, that’s all well and good. But the fundamental point is, and the substantive point remains, that to ask court security officers to tell people why they are being denied access to courtrooms in which they might have a legitimate interest in proceedings seems to me not good enough, and I want to know from the Minister—and this is why I’m asking him again—whether he thinks it’s good enough.

I also do want to ask a couple of other related questions. I do expect the Minister to at least address them—whether or not to my satisfaction, I do request that he at least try. One is that he has talked about changes to improve the court system that he and the Government have made well beyond the four-year mark. I’d like to know what those are, because, actually, on every measure, access to justice in this country is getting worse. Yes, it’s been a longstanding problem. Yes, it wasn’t perfect under National. Yes, it’s getting worse under Labour. Yes, COVID-19 has played a part in the Government’s response to that. But I do want to hear the Minister justify—seeing as he has brought up in this debate changes that the Government has made to improve the court system—exactly what they are. These will be news to a lot of Kiwis who have been denied their right to access justice in this country these past several and further years.

I do want to know, beyond vague promises that there may or may not be better funding of the system—I mean, it’s all very well to say cheerily and collegially that he can’t make promises about cheques that the finance Minister won’t write, but in that case, what changes can be made of a non-financial nature that might improve the system? What stroke-of-the-pen changes are represented as an opportunity within this bill that are not being taken up and that he would actually seriously wish to take forward that he would brief his Cabinet colleagues on and that could be made?

For example, as suggested by the Auckland District Law Society in the submission process via Samira Taghavi: will the Government contemplate an opportunity for people to appear remotely and participate remotely, with their own consent, at their volition, perhaps for other matters than are currently contemplated? The bill makes some nods in these directions, but I do want to know from the Minister which specific changes he will contemplate making.

By the way, Minister—excuse me, Mr Chair, but I can’t see the clock. I don’t know how close I am getting to five minutes, but please regard this as a call for a continuation. I won’t have much more to say, but I do want to at least finish this thought and have a response from the Minister in that time.

These are important issues. They’re fundamental issues, and we haven’t canvassed them properly before this bill is rushed through, seemingly, in this week. So my final question there, on which I do also request a response, is in relation to vaccination status as it affects the ability of people to participate in the court process. I think most people have acknowledged the fact that—[Bell rung]

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): In terms of relevance to the bill and the provisions that the member Chris Penk asked about in terms of court security officers: this is just a continuation of the existing provisions. I can assure the member that security officers are trained to ensure that they operate within the constraints of the provisions.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 3 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

Report of Committee of the whole House

Report of Committee of the whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and reports progress. The committee has also considered the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the report be adopted.

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.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill is set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day, and the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill is set down for third reading next sitting day. In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, the House is suspended, and I will resume the chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting to consider members’ orders of the day. Pō mārie.

Sitting suspended from 9.57 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 13 APRIL 2022

(continued on 14 April 2022)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of those bills.

House in Committee

House in Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members, the House is in committee on the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill, the Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill.

I remind members that are able to participate remotely that if they are on Zoom and want to take a call, please type “call” into the chat. You should also use the chat if you want to raise a point of order. If we receive new tabled amendments, I will advise member so that they can request the House page to see the new amendment. Finally, it would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions, if they have them, of the member in charge of the bill during their call.

We come first to the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill, and the debate on clause 1.

Bills

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

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): We come first to the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill and the debate on clause 1. This is the debate on the title. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): We move now to clause 2. This is the debate on clause 2, the commencement. The question is that clause 2 stand part.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 Principal Act

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you. First of all, I’d like to acknowledge the member who is in the chair, Ricardo Menéndez March. I’m guessing it is a very difficult—well, it’s quite an exciting opportunity for you.

I would like the member to please have an explanation for us in regards to how he came to this legislation, and I would be also particularly interested in the definition of “disability assist dog” and why he believes that this is the most appropriate term. Thank you.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you to the member Angie Warren-Clark for the question. So, in terms of the whakapapa of the bill, it all came about last decade when members of the Deaf and disabled community raised the issue of the struggles to access adequate housing due to discrimination that they were facing because they had a disability assist dog. They were working with Mojo Mathers and the late Murray Whittington, who raised the issue of the discrimination that he was facing. Back in 2015, Mojo drafted this bill, and now I’ve had the privilege to carry it through the House.

Why we’re using the language of “disability assist dog” is that it’s defined in the Dog Control Act, and what is really clear is that there is rigorous training that occurs in order for these dogs to be certified. I think as submitters have said—and many of us, actually, have spoken about—these dogs are not pets; they do mahi, and this is why we are linking the definition and sort of drawing on the relationship with what’s in the Dog Control Act.

Submitters have also raised previously—which I agree with—issues around the need to ensure that these dogs can behave with the discipline required to enter these public spaces. But it is really clear, as well, that we have measures in the Human Rights Act that prevent discrimination towards disability assist dogs, because to discriminate against a disability assist dog is to prevent certain people from participating in their communities.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. To the member in the chair, because I’m mindful that this is your first time in the chair, I’m just going to ask a series of questions and then take a seat and let you respond—you don’t have to respond immediately to me. Sorry, Mr Chair, just explaining that.

I’m particularly interested in the interpretation section of the Human Rights Act, and I wanted you to, I guess, draw out some more information in regards to that. So, in the interpretation section, the meaning provides for “disability assist dog”—that we’re changing under the Dog Control Act. I wanted you to just talk to the committee in regards to why it’s important that this aspect is discussed—thank you—and why you’ve landed on this.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Order! Can I just remind the member that this is clause 3; the piece you were talking about is in clause 4.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Oh, thank you.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve just got a small question for the member regarding the Human Rights Act and whether he thinks that there could be some conflict between other humans in terms of—I’ll use the scenario that someone perhaps with an allergy to dogs is in a restaurant, say, or a cafe, and someone with a disability assist dog comes in. Do you consider that there is a conflict there, and which person or which animal would have precedence in that scenario?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I thank the member for the question. On that hypothetical, I think part of why having discrimination on the grounds of having a disability assist dog is important is that it could allow, for example, if there was to be a grievance in such a hypothetical situation, for, say, if the disabled person may have to be excluded from a cafe because somebody else had an allergy, they could take that process with the Human Rights Commission. I think that’s why this is important, because then they can decide as the mediators whether that would be a ground to take it further or to explore how that occurred.

So I think this is the important thing that we currently don’t have, right? If there was to be exclusion because of whatever reason, because you had a disability assist dog, currently it would be pretty much impossible to take a complaint to the Human Rights Commission and have that mediation happen. I mean, I don’t want to dwell too much on the specifics of that hypothetical, but I do want to speak as to why having this in the Act allows those processes and that mediation to take place, and I think that is a really important component to that.

I think we’re all clear—and submitters were really clear—that while this is a really important amendment, there will be other steps, such as an information campaign built on things that were discussed, as well as ensuring that people know the processes that they can take regarding the Human Rights Commission when these grievances occur.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. The member Ricardo Menéndez March—I didn’t quite understand what he just explained. If the member can please—sorry, I’ll take this off—[Removes mask]—let us know which parts of the Human Rights Act this amends. I know that the general policy statement talks about—

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Order! I think that we need to keep these issues for the next section.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: I thought we were doing clause 3.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): We’re only on the Human Rights Act changes—clause 3.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: Sorry, Mr Chair. I’m asking the member to clarify the changes to the Human Rights Act.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): And those changes are in clause 4.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: OK. It says, “This Act amends the Human Rights Act”. I’m talking about that.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Well, the bill does amend the Human Rights Act, but I think the changes you’re talking about are in the next clause.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: OK. All right. Well, perhaps I’ll take a seat and let another member take the opportunity to ask a question.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 Section 2 amended (Interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): We move now to clause 4. This is the debate on clause 4, amendment to section 2, which is the interpretation. The question is that clause 4 stand part.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Thank you, thank you, thank you for the opportunity. I’d like to say it again; I’d like to ask the member to give us a clarification in terms of the changes to the Human Rights Act—if you could actually inform us of that, thank you.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I thank the member for her question, but also with all due respect, the member was with us throughout the committee stages, and so I—whether this is a point of clarification or for herself, it’s in question, because it works better to know which bits of the Act we’re amending.

So, basically, just to clarify on section 2, what we’re inserting is the language around “disability assist dog” has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dog Control Act 1996. I already spoke to that in earlier speeches, where, basically, we are drawing that link with what is in the Dog Control Act into the Human Rights Act to, basically, stop grounds of discrimination. So, hopefully, that answers your question, but I mean she has sat through the committee; if she wishes to do a bit of a speech to further raise awareness—or whether this is a bit of a gotcha question—I would welcome a further discussion.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity, yes. Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a Thursday and it’s brilliant that we’re here today talking about the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill in the member’s name Ricardo Menéndez March.

So my question, really, is about clarification so that members of the public are aware of what—the Human Rights Act is important, so that’s why I asked the question, in terms of exactly what the changes are. So the disability assist dog—I want to really, if the member can please explain to me, I haven’t had a dog since I was in my late 30s. But I’d just like the member—his name was Goodie and he got stolen. So anyway—I used to call him Goodsy-Woodsy-Woo.

Anyway, I’d just like to ask the member, please, if he could explain to us the definition of “disability assist dog.” Thank you.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair, and if I can have your indulgence I’d just like to say: [Member uses New Zealand Sign Language] congratulations to the Deaf Society of Canterbury for their 100-year anniversary—all right!

Hon Members: Yay!

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I must say I was a bit nervous and awkward having a go at that, so it’s great to see that this bill is making lives a little easier. But I would invite the member just to talk to Supplementary Order Paper 145 that has been tabled in the name of Penny Simmonds. Certainly, the impression that I have is that it’s a little loose, probably, and it doesn’t look like it’s had, perhaps, the consideration and thoughtfulness that is necessary. Now, I’m not saying it’s ill-founded in principle, but we have a workable bill here that makes a great change and I’d just be interested in the member’s thoughts, because, at the moment, I’m yet to be persuaded that the proposed amendment, which broadens the definition which is in the principal section, section 2, in clause 4 of the bill, is really an effective amendment and a necessary amendment and one that doesn’t, perhaps, create more problems than it solves. So if the member would like to address that, that would be much appreciated.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you. I’ll just go back to the previous member’s question and refer members of the public who may be tuning in for the first time to speeches in the first and second reading, where I think we traversed very thoroughly about the mahi that disability assist dogs do and perform. They enable people to participate in their societies. They can also perform lifesaving duties for people who have seizures. And in terms of what we are very much doing in the Act, it’s replacing “guide dog” with “disability assist dog”, because it does have a broader definition. But, again, if somebody is watching here for the first time, I think there are very thorough, explanatory speeches in the first and second reading, so I would be loath to use precious time to discuss a member’s bill, to traverse something we have done for many hours.

I cannot understate the importance of the duties that disability assist dogs provide for the community, but I also understand that other members have an interest in discussing Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 145 put in by Penny Simmonds, who, hopefully, is joining us remotely, but I can’t really tell. What she was looking for is to, basically, expand the language in section 2, in clause 4 of the bill, to also include not just disability assist dogs that have been trained or are being trained or have been certified as trained to assist a person with a disability by one of the organisations listed in Schedule 5 of the Dog Control Act 1996, or by a private trainer recognised by one of the organisations listed in Schedule 5 of the Dog Control Act 1996.

I think this is something that organisations like the Human Rights Commission encouraged us to explore—encouraged us to broaden the sorts of work animals that could be included in the Human Rights Act for the purposes of supporting disabled people and enabling them to participate in their communities. I do note the Human Rights Commission also encouraged any changes to have broader consultation with the community. So it is unfortunate that this SOP was brought, I guess, so late into the process, because that consultative process wasn’t able to happen. But I do think that the language is considered enough in terms of enabling both the guarantee that there will be a degree of discipline and acknowledging, as well, that if this SOP was to go through, further work would be have to be done by different departments to ensure that.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora, Mr Chair. I want to ask the member on this really excellent bill—I just wanted to follow up on my colleague Dr Webb’s comment about the Supplementary Order Paper. I’m concerned about the fact that this has come late when, actually, it’s quite complicated, and you’ll remember the discussions we had with the various organisations talking about the need for these dogs to really be properly accredited. And I was concerned when I heard member Penny Simmonds’ comment that owners might accredit themselves and their own dogs loosely under some arrangement with one of the accredited organisations. That is concerning when you consider the safety issues.

I am a massive fan of disability assist dogs, but what bothers me is, as you say, the lack of consultation, the need for wider consultation if we were to do something like this, and isn’t it a complete answer that, actually, a new organisation that’s springing up to train a different sort of dog could actually be accredited by Order in Council, or am I incorrect?

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thanks, Mr Chair. I just would like to also circle back in regards to Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki’s question. Because it is relevant to the topic of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), I would like the member to go through, for the benefit of those listening, who the disability assist dogs training organisations are listed under the Dog Control Act. The reason I ask this is because of my concern about the SOP that sits specifically around the training and expertise.

I’ve had a little bit of a look in regards to what the training for the dogs is, in fact, and one of the things—so I looked at the low-vision foundation particularly. In fact, interesting story: I was quite keen to be a trainer or a volunteer to support these dogs for low-vision. Unfortunately, my husband wasn’t a fan of it because we would have to give the puppy back. So the training occurs from a period of 12 to 18 months with a volunteer, and, at that point, the volunteer then hands the dog over for a professional six-plus months training package. It costs thousands and thousands of dollars to do this. There is a huge network wrapped around, including the appropriate selection and picking of these dogs, and breeding, to get them to the right types of traits that they want. Some are smaller, some are bigger, and they are matched appropriately with people. The other thing that happens there is the full cost of that dog is paid for by the low-vision foundation. What happens there is the vet bills, the food bills, the registration bills, and respite—so if a family has something that occurs and they can’t look after the dog for a little bit of time, there is some respite.

This SOP recommends that there will be sort of a contracting out of the opportunity for these organisations that are well and truly safely listed and have a set of guidelines and have had many, many years of experience doing this—contracts that out to an individual person. That’s from my reading. Now, if I have my reading wrong, I would like to just acknowledge that, but the reality is it was only raised with us in the House on the second reading. We didn’t have the full participation of the member Penny Simmonds throughout our select committee process; it was not something that she was able to participate fully in. We did brush upon this idea of the extension. It was one thing that was outside of scope. It is not something that we should hurry through. The risk to our community is, one, reputational damage—what happens if a dog is not well trained and causes harm. In fact, I have circumstances where people who are not part of those organisations with clear, appropriate training have actually harmed community members, harmed the reputation of those dogs, and also caused great distress to the community and to their, I guess, person they’re matched with—I’m not quite sure of the term.

As a consequence, I think this is very clearly something that is worth considering in the future. It’s looking to perhaps solve a problem that we understand and know, and that is that we don’t have enough dogs happening, that they’re very expensive to get, and that there is a wait-list. We recognise that. But that’s not something that should be discussed in an SOP in the second reading. We need to give more attention to this matter. We need to have had discussed this. We need to have listened to the community and their views. We didn’t traverse this at all with their views. Accordingly, I don’t support—Labour does not support—this submission. Thank you.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Point of order, Mr Chair. There was a ruling in the previous Parliament about having party boxes on top. I see the member’s just removed his box.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Order! The person in the Chair is in charge, and if you’re going to take frivolous points of order, we’ll move on very quickly.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, I’ve got to say, this is an embarrassing display of filibustering on such a trivial—not trivial bill, but a trivial part of the process, when we should be actually assisting the disability assist dogs to get through this House, without slowing it down in such a pathetic way. I’m so embarrassed by this at the moment.

I want to speak to Penny Simmonds’ Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 145. Now, this is a woman who has extensive experience in the disability sector, someone with a lot of credibility and a lot of empathy and knowledge about how the disability sector works but also what the challenges are for people actually inflicted with some form of disability that need a disability assist dog. So, in terms of the contribution made by the member who just resumed her seat, there can be huge wait-lists for people waiting on dogs to be trained. In the schedule, there is an extensive list of those organisations that provide that training. What Penny Simmonds’ Supplementary Order Paper simply does is add another opportunity for another form of training, and I’ll quote from the SOP: “by a private trainer recognised by one of the organisations listed in Schedule 5 of the Dog Control Act 1996”. It is a complementary addition to the existing schedule and it will simply allow for the same competencies to be administered in the training of the dog, the same outcomes to be resolved, and, actually, maybe just give further opportunity for further training of these dogs so that they can become part of the system and go out to the people that need them. I think this is a very simple, practical addition to the bill and I urge the member in charge of the bill to give it serious consideration and support this amendment and this SOP. Thank you, Mr Chair.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Chair, thank you very much, and I want to thank Ricardo Menéndez March for continuing to champion this piece of legislation, which, obviously, Mojo Mathers had—you took it on yourself to pick it up and run with it, and then to have it drawn out of the ballot is no easy feat.

I’m glad to be standing here in support of the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-discrimination) Amendment Bill, and talking here, obviously, around clause 4. I’m standing here in the House this morning with my poppy on, and it got me thinking about how big a role animals play in our lives. I remember back in 2014 and the commemorations for 100 years of the war to end all wars—World War I—and around the horses that went to war that never came back. In human history, obviously, animals—and particularly dogs, in this instance—serve us so well and are definitely our companions, our best friends, but also workhorses, or dog workers—however that is.

But I just want to come back to the Supplementary Order Paper, and I know it probably was a slip of the tongue, but I don’t think we’re being trivial at all this morning; I think we are actually leaning into this, and just wanting to get a sense. And if anything is trivial, I guess—I mean, I would like to hear from Penny Simmonds this morning to hear, if this isn’t a trivial addition, why it was only added on 7 April this year in terms of the fact that this was nothing that was discussed in the select committee that we’re a part of.

At the moment, with those eight organisations, under the Dog Control Act of 1996, that are able to train, I think, at the moment, that is appropriate, and, I guess, in terms of Ricardo Menéndez March, just wanting to hear a bit from you around whether you have engaged with some of those organisations to hear from them, in terms of it continuing to be just under that Dog Control Act of 1996, because I really feel that once we start getting into private trainers, there is risk. I guess, as I looked at the select committee and then also I remember in the second reading really looking into these different eight organisations and the different roles they play and how, like my colleague and the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee, Angie Warren-Clark, said, there’s a role we as communities play to serve these organisations in terms of training, in terms of developing not pets but actually enablers for people with disability, for people who are looking for a disability assist dog.

So, yeah, I guess that is my question, really, in terms of your engagement with these organisations, in terms of what their reflections were. Was there any openness to having private trainers coming into this space? Because I think it is important to not trivialise this but to ensure that we get it right. The other part of it, I think, as I was looking back on some of those submitters, one of the questions was around if we bring this into the legislation—which actually baffled me—it might bring more dogs into public places. I thought, “Why is that a problem?” But, I guess, in talking with these disability assist trainers, they probably have really good perspectives on that, so I’d like to ask the member in terms of, I guess, any reflections and feedback on that, on those eight organisations: have you spoken to them? I guess your feedback would be appreciated.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): I want to take this opportunity—and in my two previous contributions, I forgot to acknowledge those who are in this sector who train dogs. I could never, never understand what it is to be blind. We can talk about the value of having a guide dog or a disability assist dog, but we, as people with sight, will never understand that. So I just want to acknowledge everyone who is providing a much-valued and needed service, and I just want to honour the services of those people.

It’s important—members across from the other side have said that we’re trivialising this, but it’s important that we talk about Supplementary Order Paper 145, because I’ve asked the member for a definition. I want to talk about paragraph (b) in her proposed amendment to the definition of “disability assist dog” in section 2(1), where Penny Simmonds’ Supplementary Order Paper talks about the organisations listed in Schedule 5. I would like the member, just for the record, to name those organisations, and, in the same breath, I want to acknowledge that my nephew—he has a dog. She’s a black bitch, and her name is Swain.

I just want to acknowledge that everyone has a dog, but a disability assist dog is a different type of dog, and organisations who are going to recognise these private trainers actually need to be named in the House. So I’d like to ask the member to name those organisations in Schedule 5 of the Dog Control Act 1996. Thank you.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I am concerned about this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). Respect to the member who has brought it to us, but there was a lot of work done on this during committee. We heard from a lot of organisations, and you’ve already, yourself, mentioned the Human Rights Commission’s point of view, which is that any extension of that required further extension of the work done.

My concern, to the member who is actually bringing this wonderful little bit of legislation, is it’s too late and too little. But also, I really do want to hear from the member who’s brought the SOP as to her answer to the concerns that we’ve got: that this is going to end up creating a bit of a Wild West situation with the training of dogs. We don’t want that. This is so important. It would devalue the work to not have a proper regulatory regime, and particularly there’s one available by Order in Council if we need to extend.

I particularly want to ask the member who’s brought the SOP why she said in the House—and I may be wrong, but my memory is she said this—that this would enable owners to train their own dogs. It does create the possibility of a poorly regulated accreditation regime which will devalue the importance of disability dogs. That’s the question I’d like answered by the member who brought the SOP.

NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): I move, That the question be now put.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): I want to continue on with some interrogation of the Supplementary Order Paper and seek clarification of what it adds, besides a few words. When you look at the Department of Internal Affairs advice about what you need to do to become one of the organisations on the list, it is rigorous—and it is rigorous for a very good reason. These organisations not only have to prove that they can train these dogs but that they can continue to support the clients, the people whose lives are enriched and enabled by having these well-trained dogs, these workers, in their lives.

When you look at the Department of Internal Affairs, they talk about making sure that the legal management and governance structures are there and that rigor is there so that there is accountability and an opportunity for ongoing support, because this is a very important role that these dogs play. We’ve been told that this is about improving access to these wonderful working dogs, and I understand the intent, but we’re talking about ensuring rigor, quality, and ongoing support, and that has been recognised in the procedures that the Department of Internal Affairs requires and the very high standards they set to allay the concerns that have already been mentioned about “what happens if?” or “what happens when?”, and as we have more of these working dogs in broader parts of our community.

I’m really curious to hear how allowing, I guess, the fraying at the edges of this very disciplined regime is going to assist ongoing access to quality working dogs. The people that they assist deserve no less. Others in the Chamber today have acknowledged the work of these organisations and the dogs that they train to help people in our community live full lives with dignity. So that is the question for whoever answers it from the other side: how is this Supplementary Order Paper really going to improve things.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a real pleasure to get another call on this matter. We still haven’t heard from the member whose name this bill is in as to why he believes that this is an appropriate Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) and is supporting it. I’d be interested to hear. And I’d also be interested to hear if he could name the organisations who spend many, many, many years training and supporting these dogs.

I wanted to just ask the member Penny Simmonds if she has looked at Assistance Dogs International, which is the international movement around dogs and making sure that they are appropriately trained. They have a mission and a vision and values, and one of the values that they talk about is the dog health and welfare, the ongoing dog health and welfare. What we know about our organisations who train these amazing companions, these amazing dogs that do this work, is that they have, I guess, what we would call, an after-care service, a service that supports these dogs when they retire. So what thought has gone into on the welfare of these animals?

I’d also like to pick up on my colleague’s questions in regards to the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), the guidelines for authorisation to certify disability assist dogs. It is, as my colleague Angela Roberts said, a very comprehensive list, and I want to know from the member whose name this bill is in whether, in fact, he has looked at this and whether it is compatible with the wording of the SOP, which enables, I guess, for me, a sense of contracting out, and where we have a very specific set of skills and work and training, and hundreds and hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars invested in these animals to be appropriate for, and the matching to, their person. I want to know whether, in fact, this has been thought out.

I guess, my final comment around this is that this is an interesting topic; don’t get us wrong. We do not take it lightly to be voting down this SOP and not supporting it. We certainly think that this is a matter of interest. Nevertheless, it was too late to bring it to this committee. We should have had the opportunity to engage and invite the community who this affects to discuss this matter with us. What we know about the disability community is they are silenced enough, and, therefore, we would say, “Nothing about us without us.”, right? So we would have liked to have invited the opportunity for those to submit on this matter, even though it is out of scope—even though it is out of scope. It would have been worthwhile having that discussion. So I’m really disappointed that that wasn’t brought to us and I would like the member whose name this bill is in to address that and to perhaps consider my views around the DIA and what his views are around the very stringent and important training that is required for these animals, and the regulation to ensure that they are absolutely appropriate. Thank you.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to commend the efforts of the Labour members for using almost their full slots to make their contributions, specifically to ask me to list the organisations that train dogs that I think they can google if they really want to know. I appreciate they want me to know and to name them. But for those people viewing, I can give them a list, which is 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 Dog Trust, Perfect Partners Assistance Dogs Trust, Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Inc. Happy to send a paper list to the members if they genuinely would like to understand the comprehensive list.

Speaking to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 145, I would really like to hear members from National also explain their rationale for bringing this forward. But I do want to note and address some of the concerns that have been raised regarding the issue of disciplining, the sphere of—it was brought by, I believe, one submitter around the consequence of having more dogs in the public space. And while I totally understand the need for these dogs to have adequate training and that there are procedures in place, my understanding with the SOP is that this is why the language is very clear that it’s not just any private trainer; it’s a private trainer that has been recognised by one of the organisations listed in Schedule 5 of the Dog Control Act. While I totally take the points from Labour members around berating the late stages in which this SOP was being brought forward—I empathise with those statements regarding my wishes of having had a much more consultative process with the community—I also want to acknowledge that, in the submission process, the feedback from disabled people was very much one of urging us to ensure that they’re able to participate in their communities.

While organisations play a massive role in enabling these dogs to do their work, and, therefore, also ensuring that disabled people can participate, I also think that we should be taking the feedback from organisations like the Human Rights Commission, which are encouraging us to look at expanding the provision for these services. So, if this SOP was to go through, I think further consultation needs to be had, and I think the submitters were really clear, anyway, that more work needs to be done beyond this bill, both in terms of information campaigns and in reviewing the language that we use. So I think no one is disputing that. Again, we’re waiting to hear from the National members, but I think I also don’t want to fall into a sort of all-or-nothing space in terms of the discipline aspect of the training, because the SOP was, I think, quite precise in terms of naming that it would only be one of the organisations that can designate a private trainer.

Again, I would love to hear from the member Penny Simmonds. I do acknowledge her work in the disability sector, and I do want to also acknowledge the conversations I have had with Mojo Mathers, who drafted this bill on this specific issue. I think, as Parliament, we will need to be continuously taking steps to genuinely ensure that our processes are participatory. I know the chair was really great when it came to ensuring our select committee process was really inclusive, and I think, as part of that, we should continue genuinely engaging with disabled people to ensure that our legislation is fit for purpose.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that Penny Simmonds’ amendment to replace clause 4 set out in Supplementary Order Paper 145 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 65.

Amendment not agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 Section 21 amended (Prohibited grounds of discrimination)

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): We now move to the debate on clause 5. This is the debate on clause 5, the amendment to section 21, “Prohibited grounds of discrimination”. The question is the clause 5 stand part.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

Bills

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

In Committee

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

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members, we now come to the Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 23, and Schedule 1, amendment to Unit Titles Act 2010. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Leave has been requested for all provisions to be taken as one provision. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): This is a bill that is a member’s bill that has benefited greatly from an extensive and collaborative select committee process. I want to acknowledge the contribution of officials and members across the House who have sought to make this bill better during the select committee process.

On the Table we have a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) from the Minister which outlines a number of changes designed to make this bill work in practice for those living in unit title dwellings, for those who wish to purchase them in the future, and for those operating bodies corporate. National members will be supporting the Minister’s SOP 144 as we believe that the amendments make the bill more workable in practice.

We remain of the view that there are some things that could be done to strengthen this bill further and to make it more operable, and I want to in this call just outline two of those, both of which are covered by SOPs in the name of National’s housing spokesperson, Chris Bishop. The first relates to disclosure requirements.

During the select committee process, there were a number of concerns raised by submitters about how disclosure would work with the changes that had been put forward in the bill. I think the intent of everyone is to ensure that when someone goes to purchase a property, they can get good, transparent information about any problems that that building may have had or any defects, that they have awareness of that before they put in an offer, and that they can have confidence that if there are problems with the building, then they will get that information up front. I believe that the changes that the select committee has made in this regard will ensure that that process both works for potential purchasers but also isn’t overly bureaucratic and burdensome for those in the sale process.

There was some debate and discussion about the issue of remediation reports. Now, those reports are prepared by a building professional that reviews and reports on investigations of any defects within the unit title development. Now, there was some advice that it would be expected that remediation reports would by default be included in any pre-disclosure requirement. There has been a lot of discussion about the need for defects to specifically be brought to potential purchasers’ attention, and so SOP 149 in Chris Bishop’s name just makes that clear. It’s a belt and braces approach to specify that remediation reports that have been commissioned in the past three years by the body corporate be as of right available to a potential purchaser, and I commend that SOP to the committee.

The second outstanding issue where National members have come to a view that this bill could be better is that of proxy voting. Now, in the initial member’s bill which I had brought to the House, we sought to limit proxy voting, and there were some good arguments raised by both submitters and officials about why we should be careful not to limit proxy voting too far so as to disrupt quorum of committee or make it difficult for business to occur. So what Chris Bishop has put forward in an SOP is a bit of a compromise, because we still believe—and I want to acknowledge all those stakeholders who have come to me with their stories—that proxy voting can be misused and can undermine the democratic management of bodies corporate.

So SOP 147 sets out that proxies can still act as proxies for a single eligible voter who owns multiple units, regardless of the number of units in the unit title development—so to make clear that that is the case—and it also makes clear that if eligible voters actually give a direction for how they want their vote to be cast, then that doesn’t count towards a proxy cap. It then also proposes that the proxy cap be kept to more than 10 percent of the total principal units, whereas in the original member’s bill that cap was at 5 percent, and, again, more than two principal units where there are 20, rather than one, as it was in the original bill. So I speak to that SOP because I want to encourage members around the House to support it as a workable compromise that would meet the concerns of those who have seen abuses of proxy voting, while also not going too far.

Again, I thank officials and all those involved in the select committee process for getting this bill to where it is today, and I acknowledge the Minister’s SOP.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Mr Chair, I just want to acknowledge the member Nicola Willis, who’s just resumed her seat. The Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Bill has been a bill that has gone through the Social Services and Community Committee and actually had a number of extensions applied to it. I’ve been privy to extensive correspondence between the member Nicola Willis and the Minister the Hon Poto Williams—there has been a huge amount of work. I also want to acknowledge the officials for their going through extensive and very detailed—and oftentimes contradictory—submissions from certain submitters.

I think it is really important that I continue to bang the drum of the three key issues that I raised at select committee, which will come as no surprise to members on both sides of the House. In fact, they were raised as recently as last night with both the member in charge, Nicola Willis, and the Minister’s office. Those three key issues, as put forward in the select committee report—in what we used to call the “Minority view”, but I believe is now called a “Differing view” of the Green Party of Aotearoa—centred around, firstly, proxies; secondly, the disclosure regime; and thirdly, around the potential for professionalisation of body corporate managers.

Mr Chair, you’ll see that there are two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) on the table related to proxies, and I want to acknowledge the fact that the member in charge, Nicola Willis, originally drafted this SOP that is now in the name of Chris Bishop. It is somewhat more nuanced than the one as put forward by myself. But none the less, we will continue to progress with that, I think really importantly, to make the points that this is something that is necessary for there to be some form of limitation on.

To that effect, we’ve heard and we saw reflected in the select committee report, and we’ve heard from the Labour Party in particular, that they believe that e-voting resolves the issue of potential for proxy votes to be abused. However, I would raise the argument—as put to me, and also in personal experience—that there is, in fact, no consistency with the way that online meetings of bodies corporate currently occur. I can reflect even, actually, on my own recent experience, in my own body corporate, where we held a hybrid meeting—those of us who were joining from a distance, doing so via a kind of Zoom link, and those who were in the room couldn’t hear each other. These are the kinds of teething problems that we are going to experience as we implement things like this e-voting.

I’d also like to raise that there is still a profound problem in the inconsistency and the power imbalance when it comes to access to information for access to those proxies. This is something which many constituents have raised with me, because it is the case that those who currently sit on the body corporate have access to that information of who owns those titles within those apartment blocks, whereas those who may perhaps be seeking to put forward a different proposal than the incumbents on the body corporate do not have access to that information, and therefore are not able to drum up the same level of support that those who have that incumbency bias do. To that extent, it is still an issue that there needs to be some form of proxy limit. So to that effect, the Greens are putting forward our own SOP, but we of course will also be supporting the elegant solution as proposed by the member in charge.

Secondly, with regard to disclosure regimes, I want to acknowledge the Minister and her officials’ work on putting forward a quite comprehensive SOP. But in engaging with stakeholders in here, I particularly want to acknowledge Tim Jones from the Body Corporate Chairs’ Group; and also the City Centre Residents’ Group (CCRG), who have done a huge amount of work in working through these SOPs as put forward. There are still substantive issues that they are identifying with the feasibility and workability of that disclosure regime, and some potential headaches for lawyers further down the track. This is something which we don’t want to see occur, so it is unfortunate that it appears as though the Government’s SOP, only in periphery, addresses some of these issues and doesn’t, at this point, seem to go to the heart of it.

To that effect, I want to acknowledge the other SOP, in the name of Chris Bishop—which I know that the member Nicola Willis has had a lot to do with—which goes towards that issue of disclosure. To that effect, in speaking with the member last night, the Greens withdrew our SOP on long-term maintenance plans, because we believe that in working towards some kind of congruence, and some kind of compromise, and trying to make it as feasible and workable as possible, that is the best solution moving forward. But none the less, we retain those fears that there are still some unworkable provisions that we had hoped would have been addressed in the Government’s SOP with access to those officials, but, none the less, we continue to push ahead because we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the better.

I finally just want to speak to the issue of body corporate managers and professionalism, which is my final SOP, Mr Chair, if I may take another call. On the issue of body corporate managers, this is one which I think the Greens and I stand alone on—it is a bit of a hobby horse, I know, for some who are engaged in this sector and know it quite well. So body corporate managers are not currently required to belong to any kind of professional body. This was something which was originally required in the original draft of the bill, as put forward by the Hon Judith Collins and the Hon Nikki Kaye, my forebear in Auckland Central, and as progressed and put forward by the member Nicola Willis. However, it was taken out at the select committee stage, based on the advice of officials, and a number of submissions which spoke to the lack of an identifiable problem presently existing.

To that effect, I’d like to just ask our Parliament to reflect on how frequently it is the case that select committee processes are not only incredibly daunting but also something which is not necessarily particularly accessible to the average Joe. They are therefore quite self-selecting in the people who end up coming forward: those who have the time and obviously the specific interest in the issues that are before our Parliament, and therefore also have these issues on their radar. It is the case that those who are currently engaged and involved in these kinds of conflicts around their body corporate tables, who have come to me as their local MP, have raised that there are still some substantial issues with that lack of consistency in professionalism and standards for body corporate managers—some of whom, I might add, are dealing with budgets that are in excess of millions and millions of dollars. The arguments that we’ve heard around there not being an identifiable problem, and therefore there’s not necessarily something that we have to fix, I would say is the opportunity for us to proactively prevent further problems popping up further down the track.

I’ll just allude to a really similar situation that we saw in this Parliament and through select committees—the Justice Committee in particular—in 2008 when the Justice Committee identified that there was a gap in the updated legislation to the Real Estate Agents Act, whereby property managers should be included. This is back in 2008. We then had the incoming National Government’s Associate Minister of Justice, Nathan Guy, turn around and say, “Don’t worry, guys, this can all be sorted in Tenancy Tribunals, because none of the cases seem to largely be in excess of $15,000. So nothing to see here; don’t worry about it.” Nearly 15 years down the track, we’re now going back and looking to regulate property managers with a report from the Minister’s office, which reflects on the fact that 15 years later, we don’t know if there’s 2,000 or 7,000 property managers in the country. I’d say that there was a relatively analogous situation when it comes to body corporate managers, and the opportunity here to prevent these issues appearing in the future.

I, however, also want to acknowledge the concerns that have been raised by members both from the Labour Party, and from the National Party, who I understand might not necessarily be in support of this being reinstated, their reasons being that there is currently not a high-quality, well-established potential entity for which these body corporate managers could belong. To that extent, I just say that’s a matter of creating that entity and creating those professional standards—again, these things can be done, and they should be done to prevent future issues arising.

So, in summation, I want to acknowledge the member Nicola Willis for the immense amount of work that she’s done, and for being incredibly receptive to my late-night phone calls over the past few months, and the Minister, as well, for keeping me privy to that correspondence. I also think it is really important to acknowledge the dogged work of, particularly, Tim Jones, who has been available for us whenever we’ve needed to check in with him about whether something was feasible or workable, and he in turn tapping in to his networks. Also Noelene, in particular, from CCRG, who I have had on the blower as recently as yesterday too, just double-checking that these are really important things that we should continue to press. Because, at the very least, if we cannot make these improvements right now, then they serve as a trail of breadcrumbs for future legislators to do the right thing and to get this right in the future—hopefully, not 15 years down the track, as we’re now doing with property managers, but in a time period far sooner than that, noting that the Minister, in her correspondence with the member in charge, has indicated that she intends to do a fulsome review of this area of the law.

So the Greens will be voting in favour of the two SOPs as put forward by the National Party, we will be voting in favour of the SOP as put forward by the Minister and the Government, and, of course, we will be voting in favour of the two SOPs in my name. Kia ora.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): Firstly, can I say to the member, congratulations for getting the bill to this stage. It’s often said that members’ bills are the children of many parents, and this is no exception to that, and in that regard I do want to acknowledge the Hon Nikki Kaye and her work in initially kicking this off. I think this is a great outcome. We’ve been able to work together across the House and come to some solutions, because, as the member Chlöe Swarbrick says, it is actually about getting this across the line.

I’m sure many of us would have liked to have crafted the perfect bill, but I think we’ve got this to a place where we can all agree and have significantly advanced this particular issue. I’m really happy that we’ve been able to do it in such a way that we’ve got broad support across this House.

Can I thank officials for the work they have done on this. It has been complex and difficult and not an area I particularly want to go back and traverse again, because I can tell you there were some technical details within this bill that did keep me awake at night, and then sometimes made me sleep. So thank you very much for your work.

To the select committee, thank you for your examination. It hasn’t been easy. I know that for many of you it touches directly to the heart of your constituencies, and I’m so pleased that we are in the process of progressing this particular bill.

It’s great for us as the Government to have the opportunity to submit our Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 144. The SOP proposes several things: firstly, to pay all costs for legal costs for unit titles disputes at the Tenancy Tribunal. Tribunals are intended to be an efficient and low-cost means for dispute resolution. The current provisions in the Act may encourage legal costs to be incurred for levy recovery cases where these costs might not be needed. The SOP proposes that a cost scale may be set in regulations, similar to those used in the District Court and the High Court. This would apply to any unit title dispute at the tribunal. Clause 21B of the SOP proposes to insert section 176AAA, which allows regulations to be set a scale for legal costs for unit titles disputes at the Tenancy Tribunal. Clause 16AAA and clause 21AA propose to require the tribunal to use the scale cost regime once regulations are made. The SOP does not set out the scale itself. The scale will be developed in consultation with the sector and provided for in regulations.

The SOP proposes to extend the current protections for service contracts in the Act to signage agreements. Signage agreements set out the terms for a third party to display advertising on a building. The Act requires developers to ensure that service contracts balance the interests of the contractor and the body corporate. Developers may also ensure the contract terms are appropriate for the development. If a developer has not met these requirements, service contracts can be terminated or compensation can be ordered by the tribunal or courts. Some developers enter into long-term signage agreements that benefit the developer. These arrangements can prevent unit owners from receiving the market value of advertising on the building. The SOP proposes amendments to clause 17 and inserts clause 17AAA, which amends sections 139 and 140. These amendments mean the unit owners can apply for compensation for unfair signage agreements or to terminate a harsh or unconscionable signage agreement.

The SOP also proposes to amend Schedule 1, which sets out the transitional provisions for this change. The tribunal or courts will not be able to order compensation for signage agreements entered into before these provisions commence, but the tribunal or courts will be able to terminate the signage agreement if it is harsh or unconscionable.

The SOP proposes clause 11A, to amend section 108. This proposed amendment would prevent matters which require a special resolution under the Act from being delegated to a body corporate committee. Most decisions made by bodies corporate can be made by simple majority. However, the Act requires that some decisions be made by special resolution which requires a 75 percent majority. Currently, a body corporate can delegate a matter requiring special resolution to a body corporate committee. A body corporate committee only requires a 50 percent majority. If a matter needs to meet the 75 percent threshold, it should not be delegated to a subset of owners who decide matters on a 50 percent basis.

The Act allows a body corporate to meter the use of a service to the owner of a principal unit. This allows an owner to pay for the unit’s electricity or water usage, but the provision does not allow the body corporate to charge owners for services provided to accessory units—for example, to garages, carparks, or storage units. A particular issue is that bodies corporate cannot meter electricity used to charge electric cars in carparks or garages. The SOP proposes clause 16AAB, to amend section 125, to remove this legal barrier. The Government supports the uptake of electric vehicles as a low-emissions form of transport, and this amendment will support that goal.

The SOP proposes in clause 21 to amend section 171 to confirm that the Tenancy Tribunal jurisdiction for unit titles disputes is subject to the Limitation Act 2010. This amendment is addressing an apparent gap in the Act. Limitations apply to unit titles disputes heard in the District Court and the High Court. Limitations also apply to other matters heard in the Tenancy Tribunal. The SOP tidies up this issue for unit titles disputes in the Tenancy Tribunal for the avoidance of doubt.

The SOP proposes a number of technical amendments to improve the bill. The most significant change is the redrafting of clauses 18B and 19 which set out where buyer can cancel the contract or delay settlement because disclosure has not met the Act’s requirement. I understand there was concern from some conveyancing professionals that the provisions were confusing. The proposed drafting separates the clauses out into separate provisions—sections 149, 149A, 151, and 151A. This makes it much clearer where provisions relate to pre-contract disclosure and which provisions relate to pre-settlement disclosure. The new drafting also includes simpler language. The SOP proposes some technical amendments to clarify minor points of policy or align drafting with the Act and some transitional provisions.

I do just want to reiterate my thanks to all concerned, particularly the member Nicola Willis for her willingness to work with us on this and allow us to, hopefully, contribute positively to this bill. I thank all those involved, and I commend this to the committee.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you for letting me take a call on this bill. It’s close to my heart because I’m based in Auckland Central, and have watched the environment change. Really, my reason for supporting the adoption of this bill, and its progression, is that I see the apartments that are being built in Auckland Central as, really, key to the solution for affordable housing, which is not only in reach of people but it’s also something which is going to be much more environmentally friendly. We need a city that’s livable and we need the options that people have for affordable housing to be ones that are rock solid investments, because this is the first money that people spend. They spend it because they need security of tenure, and there’s a whole lot of reasons for that. One is that rentals are very difficult and have been very insecure in New Zealand’s culture, and we need to make sure that it becomes much more secure.

The Labour Government has done a lot towards that, but another part of the puzzle, these kinds of structures, bodies corporate—what being involved in this did for me was make me see that there were a whole lot of pieces of the puzzle missing. It is a bit of a can of worms, this stuff, because there aren’t just body corporate structures; there are other forms of community living popping up, often as a consequence of a need for people to live in affordable situations, but also because they desire to live communally, and I think that’s a really important part of things—I think this is a really good way to live if it’s got right, but it’s been insecure and it’s been pretty scary for people going in, because they haven’t had appropriate disclosure of situations, they haven’t known what they’re buying, and they’ve often bitten off more than they can chew.

When I saw this, I was very pleased, and I don’t think it’s an accident that this started with Nikki Kaye, who was based in Auckland Central. I know Grant Robertson was very supportive of it at the beginning of its inception, for the same reasons. He’s another person based in a large city.

I’d like to thank the Minister for allowing the progression of this in so many ways—supporting it with her staff. I know your staff have got their fingers in many pies, trying to reform the area so that there are lots of pieces of that puzzle put together, and this took considerable resource. What we started with, really, was “stone soup”, because we started with our set of proposals, and it was explored, and we’ve ended up with a very different bill, with the cooperation of everybody. It’s really because there’s an evolving culture, because the first reports about this were coming out a decade ago, so this is almost an apolitical move, I think, where we all needed to get on board, and we recognised that and we did. But we ended up with a quite different bill. It involves the development of much more disclosures, and it involves remote voting, which is a major component of the reason that we haven’t gone into the issue of proxies, because that may actually solve the problem.

I suspect what people will do is they will take their role more seriously when they buy an apartment, and they will get involved in a way that perhaps they didn’t in the past, and they won’t be giving their vote as frequently to somebody else in a proxy farming situation, because we’re all becoming much more savvy, and it’s possible under this regime, because you can actually remotely vote. So, hopefully, that means the direct engagement in the situation by people. But, you know, we’ll see; this is an evolving space. There’s a lot of people coming in, particularly to central Auckland, from migrant cultures where there’s been a long tradition of community living. So there’ll be new ways of operating, and, hopefully, that will feed into this, but I certainly see this as a beginning of a real understanding of a broader issue of community living.

The code of conduct is also a really important thing, because we’re starting to understand how we should behave in those spaces, and the other really important piece of the puzzle is dispute resolution, because, as a lawyer, that’s one of my big concerns, just the cost of things and how intimidating they are for people. So that has to be dealt with, and it has been here. There’s been a practical way of looking at that area.

So I thank the member for supporting this, Nicola Willis. I think it’s really great that she took it on. I think it’s great that we’ve managed to cooperatively deal with this piece of legislation, which is so important to people needing an affordable income. Thank you.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just really want to speak to some of these Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), and in particular the proxy voting SOPs. To be honest I’m perplexed as to why the members have these SOPs around proxies. The first point I would make is that it undermines the right of a body corporate owner to participate in decision making, because they may well be absentee or for any other reason not be able to participate in the voting process in the way they’d normally like to. But to say you can’t give your proxy to a person you choose and trust is to deny them a vote. So I’m really perplexed by that.

I’m also perplexed that notwithstanding a very, very robust select committee process and good advice that we got from officials, they insist that there is a problem. Now, I’ll tell you that there may be a problem in that some people don’t like the outcome of a body corporate if they’re imposing levies or remediation or whatever, and certainly I’ve seen that firsthand. But that is at the very heart of how a body corporate works—that the collective can decide the direction and not be thwarted by a minority unless there’s a pressure. All of that is already set out in the Unit Titles Act. So I’m really actually confused, and I’m concerned that there’s been pressure brought to bear on these members by small groups of disgruntled unit title holders, and they’ve cast aside the careful consideration of select committees in favour of what are, essentially, lobbyists.

The other thing is that all of the arguments—and I’m really surprised by our not-boomer Green MP saying Zoom and audiovisual or electronic voting doesn’t work, because this Parliament’s shown that it’s a very effective way to participate. What we have now in the amendment is a much updated and upgraded way in which people can vote by being present in person or by audio link or audiovisual link or other remote access facility, or by proxy or by voting electronically—that is to say, by email—at the meeting or in advance of the meeting.

So there is absolutely no reason to suggest there’s going to be this proxy farming out there. The evidence for it is anecdotal at best. The advice of officials is that it’s not a significant problem. Yet what we get is the ability of some people to block the decision making of the widest and broadest number of unit title holders.

Look, there is another SOP I’ll speak to—I want to focus on that as well. But I would invite both members—the drafting of Chlöe Swarbrick’s SOP is missing an “and” or an “or”, but other than that, I still don’t understand exactly the thinking behind it, given the excellent amendments there. Kia ora.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): I wasn’t going to take another call, but, of course, the member that’s just resumed his seat has goaded me into it. Frankly, that’s really gutting, Dr Duncan Webb, and hugely disappointing and, frankly, an embarrassing contribution that completely undermines what I thought was a really robust and really sensible—and really mature—discussion throughout the select committee process.

I put forward, in my contribution earlier, exactly why it is the case that we’re progressing with this proxies issue: because it continues to be an issue. I would think that members on the Labour side of the House would reflect on the fact that the member who is progressing the bill also has put forward her own Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—rather more nuanced than mine, I totally appreciate, but none the less, it remains an outstanding issue.

So if I could just reiterate it, for the sake of Hansard and for anybody who might be listening in at home—those unfortunate people who tune into Parliament TV—legislators can get it wrong. Officials can get it wrong. That is why we continue to work through the process in Parliament to continually update legislation.

Again, if I may, I would like to reiterate the very clear example, the very similar example, of what occurred in 2008, when there was an opportunity to include property managers and real estate agents licensing and professionalisation, and that ended up being something dropped that we’re now picking up 15 years down the track because it was not identified that it was an issue at the time by the officials that were advising Government.

Here, there is a really clear issue that continues to flood my inbox as the local MP for Auckland Central. It also, for the member based in Wellington Central, Nicola Willis, continues to be an issue. And I’d say, for the member in Christchurch Central, Dr Duncan Webb, I’m sure there’s some people who have raised this issue with him.

None the less, when it comes to this issue of minorities, when it comes to this issue of the power imbalance, I made it really clear in my contributions at select committee—and, also, just before in my contribution—there is currently no standard method for contributing to a body corporate meeting online; for doing that via e-methods. We enable it in the legislation, but there is not standardised way to do it. Reflecting even on my own experiences, where I spoke to having a hybrid instance for my body corporate in my apartment, those of us who were contributing and present online were not able to hear those who were in the room. There are teething issues with this. There continues to be issues that we need to address in terms of limitations to access to those proxies.

The other point that I would make is that when we’re talking about access to information—again, this is something which I put forward at select committee in our discussions—those who have the incumbency bias of sitting on the body corporate at present have access to information to be able to email out those who have those unit titles and ask for their proxies to progress the position that they would like to put forward. Those who may hold an opposing view who do not have that incumbency, do not have the opportunity to farm or to solicit those proxy votes. That imbalance of power is something that needs to be addressed, and that is why—myself and the member in charge of this, Nicola Willis, are not saying that you should not be able to pass along your proxy to somebody else. That is not in any of the SOPs. What we’re saying is that there needs to be some form of limitation.

I just ask members, particularly those who are based in central cities around our country, to reflect on some of the concerns that they have heard from their constituents. These are peoples’ very real lives, and peoples’ lives have been ruined through some of the kinds of aggressive corporate-type takeovers that have occurred on some of these bodies corporate. I ask those members to really reflect on the things that they are saying right now, because they will be recorded in perpetuity in Hansard and I guarantee you they will be coming up at election time.

NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): I just want to acknowledge the contribution of the Minister Poto Williams and of member Chlöe Swarbrick, in particular, for their constructive additions to this debate, and to note that I was remiss in not earlier acknowledging Tim Jones, the president of the Body Corporate Chairs’ Group, who has been very helpful in contributing to the further amendments to this bill.

I wanted to quickly respond, both on the issue of body corporate managers raised by the member Chlöe Swarbrick and on the contribution from Dr Duncan Webb. Look, I just want to say it’s disappointing that in the context of such a constructive and collaborative process on this bill that Dr Webb has chosen to reduce himself to criticising the highly engaged member Chlöe Swarbrick for her use of “and” and “or” in the drafting of her Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). I just ask members opposite to reflect a little on the tenor of this debate and what it is that New Zealanders would wish them to be focused on. I’d put to Dr Webb that Chlöe Swarbrick’s engagement with those living in apartments and affected by the misuse of proxy voting is a more substantive contribution to this debate than pernicketing about “ands” and “ors”.

To the substance of the issues raised by Dr Webb in terms of the undermining of rights, look, I do wish to draw him to look at SOP 147, which is quite specific in that it does allow unit title holders to cast a proxy. What it also does is ensures that if they specifically direct how they wish their proxy to be cast, then it doesn’t count towards the limit of proxies. It also ensures that entities can’t demean the democratic process by harvesting proxies in a way that allows non-democratic outcomes to occur. So, look, I stand by that SOP, and I acknowledge Chlöe Swarbrick’s arguments in favour of it.

I just want to deal with the issue of body corporate managers, because I know that this is something that has been raised in good faith by a number of people. There had been originally in the bill a proposal for a requirement for body corporate managers to join an industry association, and this has been removed from the bill subsequent to the select committee process. The reason for that is somewhat practical in that we heard that there were actually very limited options in terms of any industry body that might actually be able to fulfil that role, and therefore the potential for some monopoly effects. We also reflected carefully on the fact that officials advised that the costs associated with joining that industry body would be likely passed quite directly on to unit owners. I acknowledge the balance we need to strike here between ensuring that we have more professionalism in unit title management but also not ensuring it becomes so bureaucratic and costly that it’s a problem.

I just want to highlight that we have an alternative, which is allowing body corporate managers to be subject to code of conduct requirements, and that is what the bill provides. It also provides that body corporate managers can be party to disputes brought to the Tenancy Tribunal on matters relating to the Unit Titles Act. So I’m satisfied that those two provisions in the bill will actually provide a lot of the professionalism that we are seeking to see from body corporate managers in that they’ll require them to disclose conflicts of interest, require them to act in the best interests of the body corporate, and require them to have knowledge of and adherence to the Unit Titles Act. So I respectfully submit that National will not be supporting Chlöe Swarbrick’s SOP in this regard, and can I just acknowledge once again the constructive contributions of many, and I hope that that will continue in this debate.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Mr Chair. I stand as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and also as the local member of Parliament for Tukituki. A lot of what has been talked about on bodies corporate has been for those dwellings several stories high where they’re mainly in the cities. But, as we look to the regions, we see that there is a lot of challenge around housing and where to build—not out but up—in our regions, particularly those regions where, like in Hastings, we have productive plains land. Because of that, we don’t want to see our productive plains land being built on, and so we need to look at ways that we can ensure that we are building a lot more condensed housing within our city structures.

It’s also important when talking about the unit titles bill to recognise those submitters who did contribute from the regions like the Frimley Lifestyle Village complex. The Frimley Lifestyle Village complex wanted to make sure that they still had choices when it came to whether they needed to employ a professional to run their body corporate. Now, I think this was a very important change that we made to this bill where we strongly encourage bodies corporate, especially large bodies corporate, to employ a body corporate manager. However, we believe this change would also allow flexibility for bodies corporate to manage their own affairs as they see fit. And it’s those things that can make a big difference when you have people living together, running the bodies corporate together.

I just wanted to talk about the ability to be able to Zoom into meetings. Just because you’re not in the room, as we have learnt through this pandemic, you can Zoom and you can be seen in the room, and we have screens these days just like Zooming in to the House. I would say that bodies corporate, in managing the affairs, the important affairs that they have, are now able—through this change that we’re making through this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), the Minister’s recommended changes, they can now vote electronically. I think that enables people, even if they can’t be in the room, to be able to vote, to be able to have their say. And that, again, is something that shows how together we’ve worked to make sure we have a better bill, better legislation.

Now, we don’t need in legislation that you can meet via Zoom. I’m pretty sure that you should be able to organise that yourselves in a body corporate. And that’s why I thought when reading the SOP from the Green Party member that I have to agree with my colleague Duncan Webb. I absolutely have to agree with you, Duncan, that we don’t need to be able to—we have the way to vote electronically. And so that’s simple, it’s effective, and don’t forget about Zoom, Chlöe. That way, people can see in the room and out of the room.

Anyway, apart from that, we’ve had a very good contribution from every select committee member in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I’ve absolutely enjoyed working with everybody and I thank everyone’s contributions. And, again, I thank the Frimley Lifestyle Village for their submission, from Hastings, in the heart of the Tukituki electorate.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I wanted to contribute something that was a little bit different from what has been raised before, just to clarify and settle people about the issue over proxies and over some of those concerns that I think are addressed by the explicit focus that has been had in this this bill on conflict of interest issues, so that there’s a much clearer position.

The stories that I heard from constituents were often about people who—in terms of proxy farming—actually had a role in the building and were a dominant personality. What they would do often was they would use that position to bring in someone like their partner to do the maintenance in the building, and they would actually be getting an income from this work, while they would suppress information from people because it suited them—so suppress maintenance of leaky-building issues that needed to happen. Those all now fit well within this legislation in terms of the code of conduct and the conflicts sections, and it’s very, very clearly set out.

That really settled me down about this, because that’s actually the mischief that we are really concerned with—people exploiting those positions, people in conflict, people making money out of these things and dominating others. I really do genuinely believe that there will be a change of culture out there with regard to this. I think this is a very key part—I actually think that conflict of interest is something that, throughout our careers as legislators, we look much more carefully at in lots of areas; it’s a developed area now. And this is the kind of thing that I think stands out in the legislation as a real plus. So, with that, I’ll finish my contribution. Thank you.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Chair. Some pretty good debates in the Chamber today. I do actually have some technical questions that I’d like the member to clarify. One of them is in relation to the pre-disclosure requirements. I note the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 149 by the member Chris Bishop is moving the following amendments in clause 4—an appropriate alphabetical order of clause 4 is the regulations around including remediation reports prepared by suitably qualified building professional reviews and reports. So, as set out earlier in the debate in the previous stages and also through the select committee, the select committee absolutely understood the reason why a prospective buyer should have the opportunity to access additional information in pre-disclosure requirements. That’s why the select committee recommended in the report-back to bring it back into the bill. And the regulations—I think it’s Schedule 33—sets out the different types of pre-disclosure settlement requirements.

One of my questions that I’d like to ask the member is—I’m just looking at I think it is Part 2, clause 37. I’m actually going through the list. So the pre-contract disclosure settlement, it asks where the body corporate committee has weathertightness issues. Turning the page, it also goes into whether the body corporate is involved in any proceedings, in any court or tribunal. It asks for financial statements and audit reports of the previous three years; notices and minutes of general meetings of the body corporate and the body corporate committee for the previous three years; the name and contact details of the body corporate manager; the 12-month period comprising the current financial year for the purposes of the financial statements of the body corporate; the body corporate levies; details of the maintenance the body corporate proposes to carry out; the balance of every fund, bank account, long-term maintenance plan; and the actual list continues all the way down.

Subclause (2A), again, talks to weathertightness, and then it carries on around regulation 34: any court proceedings initiated by the body corporate. I’d just like to ask the member—and it’s good to see officials on the bench there—is this just a pick-up from the previous Act and put straight into the new Act, so the previous regulations or regulation I think is Schedule 33? And then just a couple of other questions around that. What would entail a suitably qualified building professional? What sort of industry? I mean, do they have to be a certified builder, a master builder? Are there particular criteria that would meet that sort of definition? And the other question that I’d like to ask is—looking at the schedule, I went through the list and there’s quite a few things that are needed in there, both financial and to the actual state of the building. What other type of defects? Because we do have weathertightness, which I think would be a really important issue. Earthquake-prone, the financial statements—what is the mischief that that particular SOP is trying to address around remediation reports? So I’d just like to hear from the member what sorts of examples that a remediation report would bring to the surface for a person who was looking at the pre-disclosure. Thank you.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to turn to those questions from the member shortly. I just want to first do something which I didn’t do earlier which is really important, and that is to acknowledge Nikki Kaye. She was the member for Auckland Central who brought this legislation into being, and I am really the adopting mother of it, and I want to acknowledge her.

Look, the member has asked two or three questions, the first in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) about remediation reports. Look, can I just be clear that what a remediation report is is a report that has been delivered by a building professional to a unit title building that has investigated defects within that development, and that then is the report on what they’ve found about those defects and potentially what remediation would be required to address them.

Now, reading the bill as it currently stands and as the SOP put forward by the Minister would have it, some will read that to say, well, that should include remediation reports that would be included in the definition. But there is some ambiguity there, and I have been persuaded by the submissions of those involved with bodies corporate who have said, “Let’s just make it crystal clear that if a remediation report has been furnished in any way, that would, as of right, be included in the pre-disclosure requirements.” So that is why that is there.

Look, the other questions that the member has asked about how the section of the bill put together on what should be there for pre-disclosure purposes—the balance that has been attempted to strike there is to be prescriptive so as not to require bodies corporate to go on extensive document collection exercises. I was quite convinced, as I’m sure other members were at the select committee, by those who came and said, “Look, you can’t make this such a cover-all that the effect is that the record keeping required for bodies corporate becomes incredibly onerous and that also down the track they could face litigation because page 4 of a submission wasn’t included.” So, by providing some specificity in the bill, what we allow for is for bodies corporate to have clear direction about the sort of documents that should be provided in the pre-disclosure process, and that is the way that that section of the bill has been put together.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you to the member, again, for answering a number of those questions. So, just to clarify, the lists that we have within that schedule that was provided, again, is that a reflection of what was in the previous regulations? Is that just an uplift and then a put in?

Again, I thank the member for—my concerns are around just the compliance costs for the pre-disclosure. But if the member can confirm from officials that in fact it has been just uplifted from the previous Act and put back into this bill, that would be good to know because obviously with the Unit Titles Act being about a decade old, the industry as well as bodies corporate will be quite used to what was done before. So, therefore, we’re just taking it back to the status quo. So if the member could just clarify if that’s the case. Thank you.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I thank the member for her questions. So to be crystal clear: that part of the bill is new. The reason it is there is because one of the things the bill sets out to do is to be much clearer and more deliberate about pre-disclosure requirements, and that’s why that new section has been put in rather than being picked up from existing legislation.

The second question that the member asked previously was around the definition of a “suitably qualified building professional”. I just want to acknowledge that that phrase is also used in other parts of the bill, particularly the long-term plan part of the bill, and to acknowledge that that is quite a wide phrase, and that is intentional. Because the balance we’re trying to strike here is to acknowledge that there are a broad range of potential professionals who could put forward remediation reports or professional opinions on building quality: engineers, architects, seismic specialists. There are a range of professions, and what we didn’t want to do was to create a definition so narrow that it would, therefore, exclude input from professionals who were suited to that task.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Madam Chair. I just want to speak briefly to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 142—it’s Chlöe Swarbrick’s SOP—and just explain why I think it’s a little problematic. Now, again, this was an issue that was addressed in committee, and this is relating to body corporate managers being compulsory members of industry organisations. I guess there’s always a reluctance to make people belong to an organisation. Obviously, it’s important in some areas, and a professional organisation and professional body can be a really important part of the regulatory framework.

There’s, essentially, two reasons, I think. Firstly, you’ve got to show a real need and no feasible alternative, and that was addressed in the bill by imposing a compulsory code of conduct in the bill, and I think that does go a long way. The other problem was that whilst there are industry organisations out there, there’s always a risk of, essentially, endorsing one industry organisation or one or two industry organisations over others. The industry organisations that are out there really weren’t seen to be quite capable—whilst they’re advocacy organisations, they weren’t quite up to scratch, if you like, for stepping up to becoming what was, effectively, a regulatory body.

Of course, this SOP requires members of an industry organisation to abide by a code of conduct, and that also would become duplicative, because we now have a code of conduct in the Act as well. Of course, if you’ve got multiple organisations, you’d then have multiple codes of conduct—two, three, four—and whilst they might have some similarities, we don’t see that as a useful step.

So, whilst the kind of professionalisation of body corporate managers may be something that happens down the road—and it may be that a kind of professional regulatory body that sits outside of Government but is endorsed by it does happen—we didn’t think we were there yet, so that’s why this SOP won’t be supported.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Poto Williams’ amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 144 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

hat Chris Bishop’s amendments to clause 4 and clause 37 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 149 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 108

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is t

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Chlöe Swarbrick’s amendment to insert new clause 9A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 141 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

New Zealand Labour 65; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Chris Bishop’s amendment to insert new clause 9B set out on Supplementary Order Paper 147 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

New Zealand Labour 65; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Chlöe Swarbrick’s amendment to clause 35 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 142 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 108

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Register of members’ pecuniary interests

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to the consideration in committee of the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill. Part 1 of this debate is on clause 4, “Register of members’ pecuniary interests”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Point of order, Madam Chair. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The motion to discuss this as one has been put forward. All those in favour? We will take it as one.

Parts 1 and 2, and clauses 1 to 3

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I, firstly, commend the Governance and Administration Committee for the process that they’ve undertaken in preparing what has come before the House to this point. This was a bill that saw cross-party support, which is pleasing to see, and is about transparency and accountability for publicly elected decision-makers within the local government setting.

I again acknowledge the select committee and its leadership for their diligence. The changes that have come through that process, I think, have been well thought through. I also want to acknowledge the staff that have been involved throughout this process as well.

I know that there are two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) on the table, one of which is in my name, which I will come to shortly. But before I do that, I want to briefly go through some of the key changes that are outlined in Part 1. The committee, in its wisdom, sought to renumber the new sections in clause 4 as new sections 54A through to 54I, which I think is a tidy approach, given the number of changes that were suggested. When we turn to new section 54A(1), that confirms the application of this bill to a wider range of elected members, not just those around district council and city council tables but also through regional councils and the extension also to local board members in the Auckland community and community boards where they exist throughout Aotearoa New Zealand.

This is not intended to apply to those who are appointed to committees or councils themselves, and I note that that’s outlined in our SOP 146. This clause also confirms some of the changes that the select committee turned its mind to in the privacy section. It also seeks to maintain the register, but that it’s appropriate for an accurate summary to be publicly available.

New section 54D indicates that the onus remains on elected members to ensure the information is accurate and that it’s also able to be corrected where some of that information is incorrect and it’s done in a timely manner.

New section 54E outlines what’s required in a particular return. The select committee identified a change to the company threshold for directors in that voting capacity would shift from 5 percent to 10 percent, which is consistent with other legislation, and also that property in the description would be general rather than specific. What that means is instead of saying that an elected member lives at 123 ABC Street in Westbrook, Palmerston North, it would be sufficient to say that they held property in Westbrook in Palmerston North.

New section 54F keeps the gifts threshold at $500. But a change that the committee did suggest, which I think is probably a good one, actually, is ensuring that that’s a cumulative threshold as well, that if there was one donor who had made a number of contributions, as soon as it ticked over that $500 mark or threshold, they would be required to disclose that and also a helpful definition in terms of who a “family member” is.

If I now turn to the SOP in my name, which is SOP 146—and I want to thank Parliamentary Counsel Office for their assistance in drafting, and they were obviously aware of what was being sought by the select committee. The SOP, effectively, identifies two particular clauses well, well, subparts to the clause, so that there is an avoidance of doubt. The first actually, new section 54H(3)(a), is a repetition of what is currently in the bill. The amendment is new section 54H(3)(b), which gives some responsibility to the view of the select committee, and it was raised in the second reading contribution as well. It relates to the interaction of obligations under this bill, alongside members’ obligations under LAMIA, or the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act, and it makes it very clear that any interests that are declared under this subpart are not automatically or necessarily captured as a pecuniary interest under LAMIA. The rationale for that, is to ensure there is no automatic contention for the purposes of LAMIA to remove decision makers from around the decision-making table and that they are two stand-alone separate pieces of legislation which each carry their own obligations.

If I can turn to SOP 150 in the name of the ACT member Mr Simon Court, what that would do, as I understand it, is it would seek to extend the coverage of the bill to include council-controlled organisations (CCOs) and other council organisations within the scope of the bill. That is defined in the member’s SOP, but it includes a number of things, and if I reflect on my own community, it would bring into the scope of this bill organisations like the Regent Theatre Trust Board, the Palmerston North Airport Company, Te Manawa Museums Trust, and the Globe Theatre Trust, and these are entities that already have disclosure requirements. Councils do have a due diligence process around the appointment of individuals to those boards and entities. It’s not something that was dominantly raised within the select committee process, and I would suggest that it’s already provided for. Those internal processes, alongside LAMIA, are appropriate for those appointees. This is about publicly elected decision-makers and it’s intended to cover all of those individuals, and that’s why the select committee had suggested the change to extend it to local boards and community boards. Again, I’m very comfortable with the changes.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, may I just begin, as a member of the Governance and Administration Committee that considered this bill, by congratulating the member in charge, my colleague Tangi Utikere, on what has been a comprehensive process that the select committee has followed. As the member noted in the second reading of this bill, there were a significant number of changes that the select committee made. I just want to put on record my thanks to fellow members of that committee and officials who provided a lot of diligent support to us.

I’ve got a few questions for the member in charge that I would value having a bit more information provided, particularly in relation to Supplementary Order Paper 146 that he has tabled today. That one of the challenges, I guess, for members in the local government area and, I guess, for members of the public is that we do essentially have two Acts that cover off interests and conflicts. There has been some discussion through the select committee process and through the second reading around how those Acts interrelate. So they are the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, which, as other members have noted, is the Act that covers local government members’ conflicts when they’re in the decision-making process, and also the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act. I’d be quite interested in hearing from the member about how his Supplementary Order Paper 146 will acknowledge both his bill, but also how those two Acts interact, because it can cause confusion for members in councils. We’ve certainly seen that in some of my own councils where, at times, there’s been misunderstandings around how those conflicts interact.

I’m quite interested in finding out a bit more from the member about how he sees the provision of the summary of information, and about where we’ve struck the balance, and where that balance lies around how much information is provided for. One of the matters that came up in the select committee, and that does come up from time to time in local government, is that many local government elected members are often working in other roles because actually the wages—sometimes they’re only earning $20,000 or $30,000 or $40,000 a year for their local government role, which means that it’s actually a part-time role. They’ll often hold other roles. Sometimes they’ll be working, for example, as a consultant or as a doctor or as a lawyer, and they’ll have a large number of clients. Sometimes those clients will then present to local government, to their council, either requesting funds or a change in policy, and this is where, I guess, there’s, at times, a need for transparency. But there’s also a need to ensure we’re not ruling people out of standing for local government and putting up too many barriers to them putting their name forward. That was a matter that we heard during the select committee process.

I’d be quite interested just in the member’s thoughts on how we strike that balance and the work that we’ve done, that he’s done, to ensure that we strike that balance in this bill. So, on that note, I may have some more questions for the member as we proceed, but I’m hoping we may hear from other members of the select committee who are part of what was a very comprehensive process. Thank you, Madam Chair.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member and the deputy chair of the Governance and Administration Committee for her questions. She is quite right in that there are two separate pieces of legislation. I acknowledge Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act (LAMIA) as a stand-alone piece of legislation. That is largely based on financial pecuniary interests. It concerns matters where people around decision-making tables are making those decisions that align with that. The point of difference with the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill that’s currently before the committee of the whole House in my name is that it’s much broader in those non-financial aspects. So, for example, I point out for the member, which she no doubt will be familiar with, aspects around contributions to international travel and international accommodation, but also where they interface with or include and capture family members, which are defined. Thank you to the select committee for their definition in that particular respect.

So it is about disclosure requirements, but the two are quite different. That’s, I think, why the select committee went to some pains in their select committee report to ensure that there was a Supplementary Order Paper opportunity to distinguish between the two approaches.

In relation or response to her second question, yes, it is important that the information is publicly available, but more so, it’s important that the information is publicly available in a balanced way, a balanced way that supports the ideals of transparency and accountability but also maintains, I think, what is a sensible threshold of privacy. In small communities where, for example, someone might undertake some employment—as I think this was referenced in the second reading contributions—as an accountant or a lawyer or something, I do think it is unrealistic to expect someone in that position to identify line by line, ledger by ledger each of the contractual obligations and matters that they have at hand. So, I think the select committee coming through that process has struck a very good balance between accountability and transparency but also making appropriate level of detail available to the public.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 150 that I have tabled. I think it’s absolutely vital that New Zealanders trust and have confidence in their local government and that its operation is restored. We know that in recent local government elections in some cities like Auckland, the turnout has been in the low 30 percent of eligible voters. What that tells us is that ratepayers and people who live in large cities like Auckland in particular have lost the confidence that their councils represent them and that they can actually deliver on the basic services that people need councils to deliver. More importantly, they’ve lost confidence that when they speak up about the failings of council-controlled organisations and councils involved in procurement and entering into long-term and short-term contracts for works and services—where they raise concerns not just about the performance of those contracts and the delivery of those services but they raise concerns about the potential for corrupt practices and unlawful dealings.

My Supplementary Order Paper extends the requirement to declare interests in companies and other employment by council chief executives, their executive team, boards, and chairs so that we know if they have an interest in companies or organisations that are benefiting from council contracts for works and services. The reason I’ve tabled this amendment is because it’s become clear there is now a pattern of deeply ingrained corruption in the procurement and delivery of local government services. There are a number of very serious cases that the Serious Fraud Office has investigated and found people guilty of indulging in corrupt practices and receiving benefits in their roles as senior managers in local government organisations.

That includes council-controlled organisations like Auckland Transport, where senior managers were involved in, actually, employment in companies that they were signing off invoices for. Now, it seems remarkable that an activity like that, involving employees at Auckland Transport, would contract the services of a consultant that they also worked for and would then be signing off the invoices of that consultant. Well, those practices went on for over six years and cost Auckland ratepayers millions and millions of dollars. They also cost other private sector competitors who could have bid for that work in an open market but were excluded from it because of the corrupt dealings and practices of some very, very shameful behaviours from those council managers.

But the problem is that because there is no register of pecuniary interests for people at executive and senior management level and for boards and chairs, it means this behaviour went undetected for over half a decade, at a cost of millions and millions of dollars to ratepayers and to other competitors, other consultants, who could also have offered these works and services, potentially at a much cheaper rate. In fact, many of these works and services weren’t actually works and services delivered it all; they were just an exchange of invoices, and that money went into people’s bank accounts in a corrupt way.

We have another case right now before the courts, also involving Auckland Transport. We have a case involving an Auckland Council employee in a senior procurement role for IT services. It wasn’t that long ago that a manager at a council on the West Coast of the South Island procured a local cake shop owner to undertake water and waste-water consulting services on behalf of the council.

So it’s absolutely vital that we extend the requirement for transparency in the pecuniary interests to not just elected members but to those members of council-controlled organisations and those senior executives and people in the leadership team who are involved in signing off procurements for works and services to the tune, in some cases, of tens of millions of dollars. Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I give the member further speaking in terms of the debate today, can I just remind the member that matters that are subject to judicial decision that are still before the court—Standing Order 116. There are limits to what it is that you can refer to that are still under consideration, so please tread carefully.

SIMON COURT: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I do appreciate your guidance in that matter.

However, let’s come back to the real issue here. The real issue here is that New Zealanders have lost trust and confidence in local government to deliver basic works and services. Now, there are a number of reasons for that. One of them is that councils are trying to do too much stuff that they just don’t know how to do, and they’re ignoring their responsibilities to deliver basic services like roads, like waste management, and like delivering on clean water and stopping waste water getting into our rivers and on to our beaches. They are wasting money and they are not delivering, and there is nothing that this Labour Government has done that will help that. All of the proposals around three waters and around actually making people pay for roads that they’re actually not getting—I mean, this Government’s only planning to spend 23 percent of the National Land Transport Fund on roads. All the money it takes off motorists—only 23 percent of it going on roads. That is why we need to restore trust and confidence in local government.

My SOP, my proposed amendment, to the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill will require not just elected members but will also require boards, chairs, chief executives, and their senior leadership team to declare an interest in businesses, to declare alternative employment, to declare what assets they own, in a way that means when those individuals are making decisions about procuring works and services, not just the auditor, not just the accountant, but actually ratepayers and the people who live in these towns and cities can be confident, firstly, that they’re not getting ripped off; secondly, that, actually, the money that is being spent on works and services is being spent wisely, that there’s no fattening of the invoices, that there’s no secret handshakes or secret agreements to inflate the value of works and services.

I mean, it’s true that there is significant inflation right now in the input costs of construction materials and labour, and so much of that has got to do with other aspects of very poor Government policy, like the Resource Management Act, stopping quarry operators from doing the earthworks to get to the blue rock because they can’t get consents. It’s got issues to do with ports like Port of Tauranga, which can’t get consents to build their new wharf, even though there’s a fast-track consenting process. They’ve been kicked out of that. They’ve been booted out of the fast-track consenting process and sent back to the Environment Court to beg for permission to be able to build a wharf.

But what we could do to restore trust and confidence in local democracy is to incorporate the amendments that I propose to make sure that when council-controlled organisations are procuring works and services, they are doing so in a way that is transparent so that their competitors in the private sector know that they’re not being excluded by shady deals, by backroom agreements between people who work in senior roles and should know better and businesses that are getting an unfair advantage because the relationship between those businesses and council executives is not clear. So that is the purpose of my Supplementary Order Paper.

I’ll read this—clause 4, new section 54A: “For the purposes … in relation to a council-controlled organisation or council organisation, means the chairperson, directors, the chief executive, and executives who report directly to the chief executive … of the organisation.” The purpose of that is so we can be clear that people involved in procuring long-term contracts for works and services know that if they think they’re going to be doing side deals and they think they’re going to be taking advantage of ratepayers and taking advantage of the goodwill that we have for local government—whatever remains; in Auckland only 30 percent of people turned out to vote. The ACT Party believes that this is one way to restore trust and confidence.

We ask the Government and we ask the member to support this amendment if they really want to restore trust and confidence in local government. We ask the Labour Party, we ask the member, we ask the Government to support this amendment. And if they don’t, then the people of New Zealand will have to ask themselves, does the Government really care about stopping corruption and making sure ratepayers’ money isn’t wasted, or do they not care? Thank you, Madam Chair.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to make a brief contribution to what we’ve heard—three points, if I may.

Firstly, thanks to the member Tangi Utikere for bringing Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 146 up. National will be supporting this, it’s sensible, no issues around that. So there we go.

A quick question, if I may, for the member around new section 54A(1)(a), which covers members of the local authority. I just want a little bit of clarification that that includes—well does it or does it not?—appointed and elected members, because subsequently to that, paragraph (b) refers directly around members that have been elected, so just a little bit of clarification on that one—section 54A(1)(a).

And just in reference to the member Simon Court’s point there, look, I think it would be fair to say where we would share concerns is around areas of local government across this country which are not performing and not delivering the outcomes that their communities need and require, and the concerns in terms of why that is the case.

I think anything in regards to increasing and enhancing transparency to remove the risk around conflict of interest in principle sounds sensible, but I am aware that the select committee did discuss this briefly in terms of their points. I think this stage of the process, of the bill, is not the appropriate point at which we should be trying to introduce something like this. I think we should be seeking that through the select committee process in which we can get submissions and aspects such as that. So while in principle, the concept which you’re raising around transparency and that is something that we would agree with, we won’t be supporting this SOP on the Table today—SOP 150.

That’s all I’ve got to contribute, and I’ll leave it there. Thank you.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I thank the members for their questions. In response to Mr Watt’s question, I thank him for indicating support for my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP).

On the second point, which is in relation to section 54A(1)(a) and the clarity, this, as currently drafted, would not apply to appointed members; it would only apply to elected members. This is something that the select committee did turn its mind to, and the parent legislation, as I understand it, specifically identifies who is captured. It was a good point, though, that the select committee was able to ensure that what was captured were those local boards and community boards. But for clarity, it does not extend to appointed members, and I might touch on that in a moment.

Can I just respond to the member from the ACT Party Simon Court. I have to say, you know, it’s a bit rich hearing from a member of a party that professes to be the stalwarts of cutting red tape and bureaucracy, but when it comes to doing something about housing, on a bipartisan and cross-Parliament approach, they’re far from it. For the member, it’s a big call that he’s made—it’s a very big call that he’s made—to suggest that, you know, carte blanche confidence in restoration is required within the sector. That is an absolute slight to the many, many community representatives who are elected by our communities who do hard, hard work, Mr Court—a huge slight. And to suggest that there is this huge level of corruption—that is not what this bill is about. This bill is about accountability and transparency.

But I will respond to the member’s SOP, because a lot of the premise in approaching this bill is to ensure that there is some consistency with the approach for elected members of Parliament and the approach that’s taken for parliamentarians. When we draw parallels between our own parliamentary approach and what is proposed for the local government sector, here in Parliament, the requirement to disclose is only for elected members of Parliament. We are the ones who are elected to this House. We are the ones that are required to disclose accordingly.

Local government—the intention of this bill is also that it would apply only to publicly elected officials. They are the decision makers, they are the individuals who have been elected on behalf of their communities via a public electoral process.

In terms of the appointed members concept, that was something that the select committee did think about. They did receive some specific advice on that particular point; however, they didn’t promote that as a change, because they believed that the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act—“LAMIA”—still applied to appointed members.

My final point for Mr Court is I draw his attention to section 54C(2)(a) in the bill, because even if this were to extend to members of council-controlled organisations or council organisations, under the provisions, actually, because they are extra individuals who are not actually elected—they are non-elected members—which actually means they don’t really fit into the schema of the premise of this bill, it means that they wouldn’t actually be able to submit a return, because they are not captured by section 54C(2), specifically, paragraph (a), which references the Local Electoral Act in that they’re required to submit 128 days after the date. So even if they were captured—well, included—there would not be, as I understand it, based on advice from Parliamentary Counsel Office, an opportunity for them to actually file one. So it’s pointless, in that sense.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill. The Governance and Administration Committee has spent a lot of time mulling over the details and having a lot of input from not only the officials but also from the member who sponsored the bill, Tangi Utikere. I want to congratulate him for getting his bill to this stage, and I thank him for all his involvement in the whole legislative process. His own personal experience has really helped guide us through this whole process. Obviously, I just want to recognise all the work that Ian McKelvie, the chair of the select committee, has done.

I just wanted to make a contribution on two things, and one is the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of the member from the ACT Party. During the select committee process we had actually already traversed this issue. We had not only received submissions but we had discussed them with officials, and I think the answer, already given by the member who sponsors this bill, is extremely adequate and thorough and why we’re not going to support that SOP.

I just wanted to make a reflection on the time that I was—my colleague Vanushi Walters sat on a community trust board. We had this practice—which I want to encourage for all organisations, whether they’re governed by a board, a council, executors—whereby at the beginning of every single board meeting we would pass around the room a clipboard with our names and our pecuniary interests or our conflicts of interest, because we were looking at granting funding. Those practices, as recommended by organisations such as the Institute of Directors of New Zealand and Governance New Zealand, I would recommend to every single organisation—that we do have internal systems set up to make sure that we rid ourselves of, or at least are transparent, in terms of our conflicts of interest or particular interests when we are sitting at a decision-making table.

But putting it in this legislation is not appropriate. It’s not that we don’t support transparency—far from it. We want to make sure that the public sector in New Zealand is being transparent in the jobs we do and the other influences that we have in our decision making. But there are other means to do it, and so I would encourage all of the council-controlled organisations and other organisations to look at their internal practices and ways of doing this.

There was another issue that was raised during the select committee process that I wanted to particularly give awareness to, and I think the member who sponsors this bill would like to comment on it as well. It’s about the fact that the responsibility of declaring your interest and removing yourself from situations where there is a conflict of interest would solely fall on the person with that conflict of interest. It is not a chance for particular, I guess, bullies, for want of a better word, to use this as a way of making a vicious and malicious attack on council colleagues around the table. This would solely be like the way we do some things here in Parliament, for instance in the select committee process where the sole responsibility would be on the person with that perceived conflict of interest. So I will leave that to the member.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for her question. Clearly, she is someone who is connected and aware of her own local community—a good hard-working member of Parliament, and also a member of the Governance and Administration Committee. Thank you too Ms Chen for confirmation that the select committee had actually traversed this issue. It’s always good, I think, to remind some members who perhaps hadn’t heard it first, second, or fifth time of that fact.

She is quite right in that this is an opportunity to explore what is good practice in terms of internal systems, and that’s why councils will be expected to apply that as a particular regime or approach for council-controlled organisations, for council organisations and for council-controlled trading organisations as well. There are other means to capture that, and the member has outlined that.

On her second point she is also correct that the responsibility does lie with the individual elected member, and there are two things that I would like to draw to the committee’s attention on that. The first is that it is not the responsibility of other elected members to draw to an elected member’s attention the nature of a pecuniary interest. The legislation is quite clear and that is the premise behind the select committee’s intent in including that in its report to the House. That’s why the Supplementary Order Paper in my name is seeking to distinguish that—that they are two separate pieces of legislation and the declaration under this bill cannot be held over the head of an elected member under the guise of LAMIA, the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act to force them from the decision-making table.

The second point I wish to make on that—and it does also touch on something that I know the Green Party had referred to in first and second reading contributions—is the role of the registrar. The role of the registrar is to collate the information and to make the information publicly available by way of the amended accurate summary. It is not the responsibility of the registrar to check the details and the accuracy of the information that is disclosed. That responsibility, that onus, still rests with the member, which is very similar to the approach taken here in Parliament.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I acknowledge the work Tangi Utikere has done on this bill and also the work of the Governance and Administration Committee. The Green Party will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper in Tangi Utikere’s name; it’s a quite sensible clarification.

But just on that point about the role of the registrar, I wonder if I could ask the member—and it is something I’ve raised in previous speeches on the bill. Given that Parliament has an independent registrar, but my understanding about the way this bill will work is that the chief executive of each council would simply designate someone in the council to act in that role of registrar, just whether he sees the opportunity for any registrar to operate nationally or for councils to come together to provide an independent person of standing, in the same way that the registrar for pecuniary interests operates at Parliament, to have more capacity to provide advice to members—specifically new members—just because the work of collating the material around members’ declarations can take some time. The interplay that the registrar of pecuniary interests has at Parliament with MPs, checking with MPs that that is accurate before it’s published—there is still work in that. So whether the member thinks that there is potentially in future some opportunity for this to be done in a more collective way nationally.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I just wish to raise a couple of points in respect of this bill and the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). I’m going to address the SOP from Simon Court first. Perhaps Mr Court will answer this himself; perhaps Mr Utikere might have something to say in respect of it. It is the distinction between elected members and employees. I think my colleague Ms Chen referred to this earlier as well. I just wish to check if Mr Court understands that elected members—elected representatives—are responsible to those who elected them, and, that is, the people who you might declare your pecuniary interests to—

Simon Court: Well, they’re disappointed now, aren’t they? I mean, clearly, they’d be disappointed in who they’ve elected.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —to the people who elect them. However, employees of an organisation are actually—I’m sorry about the yammering from the seats over there. The people to whom employees are responsible—the employees of council-controlled organisations and the like—are, in fact, the elected members. It is up to the elected members to hold employees of council-controlled organisations to account. So perhaps Mr Court might like to address that at some stage and clarify his understanding of what the relationship is between employees and elected members and the public who elect the elected members. So I think, from his SOP, he quite clearly doesn’t understand that, and, of course, we won’t be supporting that SOP.

I wish to address a question as well to the member who brought this excellent, excellent bill to the House, Mr Utikere. Again, it follows on a little from what Ms Chen has been saying. It’s particularly to do with the extent to which elected members are placed at risk because they declare their pecuniary interests. What concerns me, in particular, is in amongst the pecuniary interests is the fact that, as we do here in Parliament, an elected member must declare any real property they own, which is going to be likely to be if they own their own home. Now, we all know that all politics is local, but local politics can get particularly personal at times. I have seen this in my own community, that my own local elected representatives sometimes face questioning from their constituencies that perhaps I am not quite so subject to, because an MP is a little more removed—down in Wellington half the time. But our local elected members often get some quite personal contact from people; people who want a footpath, or they want some bollards at the beach, or they want some funding for their community organisation—all quite reasonable things to ask of an elected member. But now we’re asking that elected member also, more or less, to say where they live. I think, on the whole, it is the right thing for people to declare their real property. It will just be the degree of specificity that we expect when people declare their real property.

If this does place our elected members, well, at a degree of risk from an aggrieved constituent—as it turns out, I have found that, despite all the turmoil of recent times, that, on the whole, my constituents are really good to me. They are delighted to see me down at the shops and around the place. Plenty of my constituents do actually happen to know where I live, not because I advertise it; because they just happen to know. It’s a community. I’ve had people drive past saying, “Hey, Deb.”, as they drive past. That’s kind of cool, but there can be some risk in this as well. On the whole, I accept that risk. On the whole, I know I can do things to protect myself. We possibly have greater resources in Parliament to do that than our local elected members do. So it is an issue that I think we need to consider carefully. I think we’ve got the balance right in the Governance and Administration Committee that it is something that we should be declaring, but I would be keen to hear from Mr Utikere whether he thinks we’ve got the balance right as well, and, on the whole, whether we’ve got the balance right in terms of declaring interests to our constituents so they know where we come from and what might or might not be influencing us.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to members for their questions. Can I start with Dr Russell and thank her for firstly actually pointing out that distinction between elected members and employees. Because, you know, as a former council elected member, all councillors know they have one employee. Willow-Jean Prime, your previous experience in local government, you’ll know that as well, that it’s the chief executive, and then you have the rest that follow there. What concerns me now with the ACT member’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) is that ACT now seem to be seeking to politicise that employee relationship between employees and the chief executive.

Simon Court: What a load of rubbish.

TANGI UTIKERE: Well, it’s not a lot of rubbish, Mr Court. It’s come from your SOP—come from your SOP. So that does concern me even more now that the member has raised that for the committee.

In terms of the extent to which the risk exists for elected members, one of the, I think, balanced changes that the Governance and Administration Committee obviously turned its mind to was around the need for elected public officials to disclose the extent of real property, but also to balance that with what are expected standards or norms around your own privacy. I think where the select committee landed is actually a very nuanced but balanced approach where the requirement now is not to say, “I live at this specific address.”, but simply that “I hold property interests in this particular city or suburb.” I think that is a very wise approach from the select committee. The other point I’d make on that, Dr Russell, is that, you know, councils are very supportive of elected members, even if elected members perhaps have different views than the council organisational staff may wish, but they no doubt will be supporting them through this process as well.

Can I turn to the questions that the Hon Eugenie Sage raised, and can I thank her for raising these points in the first and second reading as well. I have to say, it didn’t seem to be an issue that the select committee had a number of issues of that ilk before it. But I do note that Auckland, Christchurch, and Dunedin councils were submitting in support, generally, of the bill, with a few tweaks that the select committee have taken up. The parliamentary approach, which this is looking to align itself with, is slightly different in that the registrar is appointed by different means. Currently, there is no entity or organisation where you could nationally appoint someone to that role. What does give me some confidence is that the officials, through the select committee process, did indicate that if this bill was successful, they would be looking to work alongside two specific sector organisations. The first is Local Government New Zealand, in terms of that governance arm, which the member will be familiar with. The other is dealing with the operational, which is Taituarā, previously known as the NZ Society of Local Government Managers. They will work alongside those two organisations to ensure that there are some minimum standards and that there is some consistency. So my response to the member is I think it’s, perhaps, a little bit too early or premature to think about how this might be rolled out on a national level or domestically, but the approach of trying to address this in a way that’s not going to put more pressure on local government is really important. That’s something that was discussed by the select committee, and I think at this stage they’ve got the balance right.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just congratulate the member Tangi Utikere for this bill and doing a great job in bringing this before the House.

Look, I’m just interested in the comments the member made earlier about the distinction between appointed members and elected members, and the member indicated that he may return to address that more fully later. He said it was a matter considered by the Governance and Administration Committee, so I’d be interested in the member just explaining why there was a decision to make a distinction between appointed members and elected members in terms of the pecuniary register.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, very briefly, in response to Mr Mooney, it’s because the focus on this is on publicly elected officials and bringing it into line with local boards, community boards, regional councils, and other local territorial authorities. There are already processes in place for appointed members. Members who are appointed to roles have to go through a process, and, as I’ve said earlier, the due diligence and expectations that councils as part of that appointment process would undertake or adopt mitigates that concern. So this is about capturing those who are, effectively, elected by the public.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I do appreciate the opportunity to explain to Dr Russell and to the member Tangi Utikere sponsoring this bill, exactly what the relationships are between elected members, officers, and employees of councils and council-controlled organisations, and why it’s so important that, in fact, we understand the pecuniary interests of people spending ratepayer money on works and services entering into long-term agreements for contracts worth tens of millions of dollars, where there is a risk that if the relationships are not understood, as was the case at Auckland Transport for many, many years, over six years of individuals engaging in corrupt practices—the Serious Fraud Office took them to court. They said if there’d been a way to detect it earlier, we could have saved ratepayers millions of dollars, but we never knew what the interests were that these people held and that’s why they got away with it. That’s what my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 150 is designed to do. It’s designed to make sure that people involved in procurement and making decisions about ratepayers’ money are held to account.

The member Tangi Utikere claims that the ACT Party was seeking to politicise the debate through my tabled amendment. The ACT Party is seeking to politicise the debate. So let me educate the members opposite where the word “political” comes from: the Greek word, which is the origin of “policy”, public policy. And what we’re advocating for is better public policy to actually restore confidence and trust that people should have in local government. But they’ve lost it, and they’ve lost it because for decades and decades, rather than local government focusing on the basics—rubbish, rats, roads—they’ve veered off into all kinds of cultural pursuits, wasting money on things that ratepayers don’t want them to spend money on and failing to deliver basic services.

The other problem that’s caused a loss of trust in confidence in local government is that many, many organisations—dare I say, large ones like Auckland Council—have council-controlled organisations that compete with the private sector, whether it’s in the events area, hiring out venues and event spaces in competition with the private sector; whether it’s councils like Christchurch, which operate road maintenance and facilities management companies in direct competition with the private sector. All of these council-controlled organisations competing with the private sector, undertaking business activities, are far from the scrutiny of ratepayers, far from the scrutiny of elected members, making decisions which not just affect ratepayers and the way that their precious funds are used.

And, remember, a lot of ratepayers are people on fixed and low incomes who actually depend on council delivering basic services, making sure that the potholes are fixed, making sure that the street lights are on at night so that they can walk safely around their communities. They depend on councils engaging in contracts for works and services for the basics like road maintenance, collecting the rubbish, making sure the lights stay on in their streets and not engaging in corrupt practices by awarding contracts to favourites and having council-appointed executives in senior management personally benefiting from contracting. That is what this amendment that I have tabled is designed to do.

So, yes, ACT is politicising it because ACT believes that the current public policy settings are wrong and that they need to be improved. That is why we challenge the Government to put petty political differences aside and to support this amendment. This amendment is one of the few things brought to the committee this year that will actually make an improvement in the lives of people who live in towns and cities. This means transparency. This brings back confidence. That’s the purpose of the bill, according to the member, Tangi Utikere. The ACT Party just wants to make it better, and we think that we’ve found the way to do it.

Now, the member pointed out that, in fact, there is another clause of the Local Government Act 2002, the amendment 54C, that members are to make a pecuniary interest return. And, look, it’s correct that in my Supplementary Order Paper, I talk about boards, shares, board members—[Time expired]

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take another call on the bill. Look, I just want to respond to a few comments from the member opposite, because—particularly around the process we’ve taken to get here—sitting on the Governance and Administration Committee, one of the things that we value around that committee is that we’re a very collegial committee. At times we have our disagreements, as we should, but through the select committee process, the committee actually took a real deep dive into a lot of the issues that members opposite have raised and actually discussed these in detail.

My understanding is that members of other parties can attend that select committee and actually contribute into that debate. My disappointment, in the comments from the member opposite, is that—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Name the member!

RACHEL BOYACK: Yes, I will name him, Mr Woodhouse, because my collegial member of the committee Mr Woodhouse is right to point out that—I will name the member, Simon Court. My disappointment in the comments from the member Simon Court, from the ACT Party, is that the committee spent a detailed, long amount of time looking at these issues. I want to point out that specific differences that we actually have talked about. Some of this commentary came through in the second reading as well.

Mr Court’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) clause 4 inserting new Section 54A(1) after paragraph (c) wants to insert “(d) members of a—(i) council-controlled organisation: [or] (ii) council organisation.” The difference, where we discussed this, was around the difference between a council-controlled organisation and appointees to standing committees or subcommittees of a council. An area where there could still be an opportunity to make some changes in the future to this area very much could be around appointees to subcommittees and standing committees of council.

For example, at Nelson City Council, the Audit, Risk, and Finance and governance committees do have independent appointees. That could be—and say, could because all of these matters need to be traversed properly with advice from officials, advice from Parliamentary Counsel Office around the enforceability of those types of changes actually has to come through the select committee process. This is not the point in the process to introduce an SOP that would fundamentally change elements of the bill, is not enforceable as my colleague Tangi Utikere has already pointed out because it doesn’t cover elected members who need to make their disclosures after they’ve been elected. It actually would become unenforceable. So the member Simon Court hasn’t actually been through and looked at other amendments he would need to make to the bill in order to make his SOP actually workable and enforceable.

I just want to make a couple of responses around the role of local government and the work of local government, in particular the hard work of a number a staff and elected officials at a number of territorial authorities across the country who have worked for, in very difficult circumstances, for a very long time, doing their best for their communities. It is disappointing for them essentially to be brought into disrepute today for a bill that is actually designed to do some alignment between local government and central government.

Our committee took our responsibilities to make this bill as good as it could be very seriously, we worked very hard, we worked very collegially. I would encourage members of the ACT Party, if they do wish to contribute to further select committee discussions on bills that come through, if they have interest in local government, to please contribute at that stage. We are very willing to have these conversations and to come up with practical, pragmatic responses that work for the sector, but to suggest that somehow we’re ignoring the needs of local government by not voting for the member’s Supplementary Order Paper today is just quite wrong. So thank you, and I appreciate the call.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I move, That the question be now put.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to make another comment on this bill, which has been a really fascinating one. Look, I really did want to have this further call because I want to address something that Mr Simon Court said in his last speech in support of his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 150. It struck me as a very odd thing to say. He seemed to imply—and I can’t remember the exact words, but let me just get the gist of what he was saying—that it was a concern that, I think it was, Christchurch City Council conducted its own road repairs. I was gobsmacked by that—that Christchurch City Council somehow should not have employees that conducted their own road repairs. I don’t know, perhaps I shouldn’t paint my own house—who knows?

But it did seem an absurd thing to me, and it became clear a little while later in Mr Court’s speech when he asserted, without evidence—and this is an empirical question—that we’d get a better result if we employed private firms to do so. Now, that is actually an empirical question; it’s not an ideological one. The assumption from Mr Court, I think, underpinning his speech was that private firms were necessarily better in terms of completing work, and so he was very concerned that the Christchurch City Council had its own organisations that would repair their own roads.

Now, I don’t see the problem with the city council deciding that it is more effective to have its own organisations that repair their own roads, instead of contracting it out to the private sector, and, actually, the question could go either way. Perhaps it would be better going to the private sector, or perhaps it would be better being done in-house. But whatever else it is, it is not an ideological question. There is no obvious right answer here. It is an empirical question, and Mr Court has not presented the evidence to show that private firms are necessarily better. Show us the empirical evidence, please, Mr Court—empirical.

It goes to his SOP, when he took great care to explain to me—oh, thank you, Mr Court—the difference between an elected representative and a CEO and an employee, because, apparently, I didn’t know, and I thought it was actually quite precious of him to explain it in detail to Mr Utikere, who has been a very senior member of a city council. He’s been a deputy mayor, so he actually has the experience of being an elected member versus a CEO versus an employee. So, Mr Court, I’m sure Mr Utikere is terribly grateful for that explanation.

But, in all seriousness—and I think it was something that Ms Boyack pointed out very well—there was ample opportunity for the ACT Party to attend the Governance and Administration Committee hearings. Now, they don’t have a member on that select committee—that’s fine; that’s not a problem—but any member of Parliament is entitled to attend any select committee meeting and is entitled to ask to speak and be heard at that select committee meeting, or, in fact, a member of Parliament can even put in their own submission to a select committee and ask to be heard at the select committee. So all those procedures could have been followed, rather than this business of coming to the Chamber with a tiny little SOP with very little explanation attached to it, very little argument attached to it, and very little understanding attached to it of the difference between elected members and CEOs and employees.

So I am going to invite Mr Utikere perhaps to have just a final word on that matter. I would be interested to hear how he feels about the explanations from Mr Court. I know that I was perhaps not as appreciative of him as Mr Court thought I ought to be.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I am happy to take up that opportunity to share my own reflections on Mr Court’s explanation. But before I do, I just want to reflect on some of the contributions that have been made to date. I do echo the sentiments around the way in which the Governance and Administration Committee is able to function. I was able to spend a short period of time as a member of that select committee and was able to witness that myself. I think it’s worth noting that the chair of the select committee was someone who has had previous experience within the local government sector himself. Mr McKelvie spent a number of years as the neighbouring Manawatū district mayor, so he gets it. Perhaps Mr Court would like to explain it to Mr McKelvie so that everyone is purely clear around what the distinction is.

I’m really disappointed that the ACT Party value transparency, accountability, opportunities to see where the council-controlled organisations and council organisations fit within this process so much that they didn’t even bother to participate in the select committee process for this bill—didn’t even bother. For something that was in front of the select committee for—how long?—six months, actually right up to the last moment before the report was due back in the House, the ACT Party did not send a single member of the caucus to talk about, to tease out, to share some of the concerns that they clearly are in touch with! Yet as part of that select committee process, the committee was able to be more informed through the submissions of Christchurch, of Auckland, of Dunedin and others that are keen in this game, yet they did not even bother. Perhaps it’s reflective of the fact that we need to continue to tell or mention things five, six, seven times before they get it. Maybe they needed the invitation to attend the select committee meetings or more than one occasion.

But what I would say in response to Mr Court, I am not suggesting that debates should not be politicised. Again, if the member was actually listening to what I had said—

Hon Peeni Henare: Oh, no. That’s a rarity, that’s right.

TANGI UTIKERE: There we go; that’s right, Minister Henare, that’s right. But if the member listened, what I was saying is that my assessment is that the ACT Party are seeking to politicise the employment relationship between an employee of a council and the body of individuals who are elected by their community to make decisions. And that is a very, very, very dangerous path that the ACT Party seem to be advocating for the future of local government, that employees who are holding “Go”, “Stop” signs, employees who are working in our community libraries, who are working in our community swimming pools would be subject to the political whim of those people who are around the table. That’s what the member’s SOP is all about, and that’s why we will have no part of that, on this side of the House.

I want to finish my contribution just by indicating that members have talked about the ongoing piece of work that’s happening. And I think it is important to signal that this is an ongoing conversation that the issues that the Green Party and the Hon Eugenie Sage raised will be considered, no doubt, as we embark upon the future of local government. I mean, there’s a sense of clarity around that. But when we get back to what the premise and the understanding of this particular bill is about, it is about ensuring that there is consistency throughout Aotearoa New Zealand as to what the expectations are for individuals who are elected to public office, not those who are seeking election, those who are elected to public office who are already in the seats around the decision-making table, that there is consistency around what they are required to declare, the extent and nature of those declarations, and the timeframes within which those declarations should be, or must be, made.

I welcome the feedback from members this morning, and I know that when we think about the premise of the legislation, there is much to be gained from the parallels alongside the parliamentary approach. But I think that this is a piece of legislation that came out of the select committee, as I said at my second reading contribution, in a much better shape than when it went in, and I think anyone around this Parliament will suggest that that is the exact role of a select committee and a good one.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Tangi Utikere’s amendment to clause 4 replacing section 54H(3) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Simon Court’s tabled amendment and amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 150 are out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. The question is that Part 1 and Part 2 and clauses 1 to 3 as amended stand part.

Part 1 and Part 2, and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I will report this bill with amendment.

House resumed.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE

REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has considered the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. Mr Speaker, I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

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

First Reading

Debate resumed from 6 April.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): I rise on behalf of ACT to speak to the Public Finance (Prohibition on Providing Public Funds to Gangs) Amendment Bill. The bill arises as a result of the Government giving a gang $2.7 million towards a drug rehabilitation programme. It all sounds pretty reasonable—to make sure Government agencies don’t go off on a whim and fund criminal organisations to provide a service that in anyone’s books would seem to be a conflict of interest.

The president of the Police Association at the time said, “It is difficult to understand how those who promote the need for drug rehabilitation seem blind to the dreadful optics of this … scenario, let alone have faith in this multi-million-dollar scheme to do anything but line the pockets of key gang leaders.” You wouldn’t give a dodgy publican almost $3 million to fix the alcoholics coming through his door. It’s not in his best interests. He needs them to drink and spend their money in his establishment.

I was really disappointed—actually, I was disgusted—at the speeches from the Government and the Green Party, who all showed that if you don’t agree with them, you’re nasty, full of venom, and only representing a small part of the community, the taxpayer being one part of that community. And, of course, the go-to if you don’t agree with everything this Government says and does—you’re racist. It never ceases to amaze me how fixated this Government is with race. This is a bill about gangs—gangs, drugs, and taxpayers’ money: simple. Lectures about gangs from chardonnay socialists who haven’t been in a public bar let alone experienced the violence and trauma that the members of this part of society cause mean nothing. I have seen it: families torn apart, kids left to fend for themselves, dealing with the women’s refuge, victim support, and scene-guarding at shootings and outside hospital rooms. That’s the reality of what we’re dealing with in this bill.

But what rhetoric did we hear from the Labour-led experts? “They are us.” We heard that “they are my family”. If that’s the case, if they’re not peddling drugs and causing harm in the community, then it doesn’t concern you. If they are, I hope you’re doing something about it. And somehow, not giving money to criminal organisations means taking education, food away from the kids, even vaccinations—it’s just nuts. We heard what we need to say to the gangs. We need to ask them, “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?” Just bizarre. Get out of your office, go for a walk down Courtney Place or Queen Street and see whether this approach is working. They’re just pathetic words that show us how out of touch this Government is.

It reminds me of when I was a policeman in Wellington and we caught a serial thief who stole $28,000 worth of stuff from various department stores around Wellington. We actually had to hire a hall in Kilbirnie to put it all in. When the thief was identifying to me which store she had stolen things from, I didn’t look too impressed. She looked at me and said, “Why are you looking at me like I’m a thief?” She really didn’t get it. It wasn’t her fault. She had absolutely zero personal responsibility. This is an attitude that is not only condoned by this Government when dealing with gangs but encouraged.

But the diatribe that sunk to new lows in my 18 months of experience in this place came from, in the immortal words of Gerry Rafferty, the clowns to my left; the despicable but absolutely predictable reference to race from start to finish must make the public of New Zealand wonder what actually goes on inside the heads of some politicians in this House. As comedian Billy Connolly once said, “If your greatest claim to fame is your ethnicity, you’re in deep trouble.” Unfortunately, ethnicity is all this Government and its allies see. It is so sad.

This bill is common sense. Government agencies should not give taxpayers’ money to criminal organisations. Scrutiny must be impeccable, and in this case it wasn’t. ACT fully supports this bill.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): There’s a great Dr Seuss book that my kids love. It’s all about making noise and we all know it well. It’s a celebration of what Mr Brown can do, or really all the noise that Mr Brown can make. But the joy of that book is the disappointment of this bill, because this bill is all about making noise. It’s not about public funds. It’s most assuredly not about public safety. It’s about making noise.

But let’s assume for a moment that Mr Brown does want to do more than make noise, that he intends this bill to impact certain organisations. So who are these organisations that he’d like to take a hard-line approach to? What’s his grand plan for public safety? Well, he proposes inserting a section into the Public Finance Act that says “This Bill would prohibit the Crown and its agencies from providing funds directly and indirectly to organisations that are run, administered or associated to gangs.” Hmm. Preventing Government agencies from providing funds indirectly to organisations associated to gangs.

Now, if you’re reading the story, I mean the bill, at this stage, Mr Brown has painted a villain: it’s organisations associated to gangs. So if you’re reading the bill, you try at this stage to find this key definition “organisations associated to gangs”, but it’s not there. It’s not in the principal Act, either. But that’s OK. There are several definitions that tell us that association means “connected to or related to”. And we have noise—I mean tweets from Mr Brown that shed some light on who isn’t associated to gangs. Mid - last year, Mr Brown tweeted in part: “… helping people get off meth is the right thing to do, but shouldn’t the money be going to the Salvation Army rather than the Mongrel Mob?”

So who are these dubious associations associated to gangs? And what could their intentions be? Well, it turns out they’re organisations like the Salvation Army. Perhaps as a lesson for what values-based services looks like for some in the room, here’s what one of the Salvation Army editors wrote in part about gangs, published on their website: “we must remember that New Zealand gangs have their origin in urban poverty and disconnection … the greatest danger of prejudice is that it excludes people, pushing them to the margins. Once situated there, it becomes even easier for us to treat them as outcasts. But plenty of those who grew up in gangs don’t want that for their children. As Pat of the Wellington Black Power says in this edition, ‘Most of our whanau are born into [the gang], and my role is to improve our kids’ way of thinking and steer them away from the gang scene. This is the change I’m trying to make.’”

In March 2019, the Sallies published an article talking about the Hauora Programme, a partnership that they had with the notorious chapter of the Mongrel Mob and highlighted the story of one of the participants whose life was transformed by the programme, Tracey, who spoke about hers and her kids’ experience. She said, in part, “The boys were adamantly opposed to getting treatment. It was only because this programme was being run in connection with the Mongrel Mob—their bros—that they became willing to give it a try.” The Salvation Army article concludes, “Treatment in this safe and secure setting made it possible for Tracey and her whānau to focus on getting well without distractions.”

It is possible to have meaningful community programmes that are based on values of understanding, care, and respect that connect people where they are, that also embed systems of responsible and accountable spending. Anyone who has been in a management role knows this. So this is really where the story gets confusing. Does Mr Brown want the Salvation Army to continue to do this good work? Or does he not? Who knows! I’m quite convinced he doesn’t know, and it’s because I don’t think that he actually cares about the analysis here or the actual change to make communities safer. Mr Brown can make noise, that’s for sure, but he can’t make change. I strongly oppose this bill.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. To just take up my colleague Vanushi Walters’ point, well of course it’s all about making noise. This little bill is nothing but noise. It is clickbait. It is simply a social media bit of window dressing to make Mr Brown and his party look like they continue to be tough on crime while doing absolutely nothing.

You can tell it’s clickbait, because the substance of the bill is so entirely lacking. It is utterly unworkable. What are we going to do with these indirect benefits that we’re going to stop gangs having? Well, I’m looking at school lunches. Are we going to take the lunches out of the mouths of children because that’s indirectly benefiting those children who have the misfortune to be born into whānau where gangs are seen as the option? What else are we going to do? Are we perhaps going to remove benefits? I think we should—that’s an indirect benefit. We should go with that one.

You can tell that there is nothing serious about this ridiculous bill, because it is written in such a way that there’s no way it works. Why is that? Because he knows it’s not going to pass. He has no intention of it passing. He has no intention of actually producing work that might do the business of reducing gang crime. All he’s after are the clicks on social media. I’m sorry, that’s not what this side of the House came in to do. We came in to do the hard work.

So let’s talk about some of the hard work that’s actually being done. Why don’t we start with Operation Tauwhiro? Why don’t we talk about 1,531 firearms, 1,255 arrests? Why don’t we talk about 53.74 kilograms of meth? Why don’t we talk about hitting the gangs where it really hurts? Why don’t we talk about taking away $500 million worth of cash and assets—that is $1.6 billion of operating cash in the black market? That’s how you do it. You hit them where it hurts. We over here are doing the hard work rather than the clickbaity media stunts over on the opposite side.

Let’s talk about something else. Why don’t we talk about resourcing the police properly so they can do their job and get those results that Operation Tauwhiro is having? Let’s talk about 3,000 more cops on the beat since October 2017, enabling a focus on organised crime that this country has never seen. Let’s talk about—and I want to really celebrate, because I am the electorate MP for Whangārei. Let’s talk about the Whangārei police and their contribution yesterday to Operation Tauwhiro. Let’s talk about taking $10,000 out of gang pockets. Let’s talk about a large amount of meth that they seized, adding to that 53.74 kilograms. Let’s talk about two unlawful firearms and ammo that was seized. Let’s talk about four arrests of young men in the wrong profession. Let’s talk about how we’re convincing those young men and other gang associates that it’s just not worth the candle.

That’s what you do when you’re really trying to do it. You do the hard yards. Treating the causes of crime, treating those things that encourage people to get involved with these appalling organisations—that’s the hard work. That’s the other hard work we’re doing, and that’s the hard work we do with operations like the drug addiction programmes that appear to have prompted this silly piece of unworkable legislation.

Let’s talk about, though—because this is the ultimate hypocrisy, not just wasting the House’s time on this nonsense, but also, guess where the programme that he’s so incensed about came from? It’s a National Party programme. Mr Key, or Sir John Key, as he now is—Wakatika Ora in 2016 got just under a million dollars. Oh, shock, horror! Hauora rehab had eight years of National Government funding. As Mr Shaw pointed out last week, the first Ministers to be photographed with gang leaders were, in fact—oh, take a deep breath, everyone—Sir Rob Muldoon and Sir John Key. Maybe we need to stop thinking about clickbait and start thinking about making actual change in gangs, and that’s what we’re doing on this side of the House—

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

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I don’t know where to start. I’ll start with the last contributor. Emily Henderson gets up and does a tub-thumping speech on law and order. I’d ask the member: when was the last time you went and spoke to or visited your local police station and your local members, because you want to know what the reality of what they’re facing is?

Dr Emily Henderson: By Zoom two weeks ago and had a good chat with Superintendent Tony Hill—excellent.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: By Zoom two weeks ago. So she’s well and truly in touch with what’s happening up in her electorate of Whangārei. Well, let me give you some real feedback in terms of what’s happening up in your electorate. Number one, your police are stretched to almost breaking point. Number two, they try to police under a new pursuit policy, which means that in your electorate “failing to stops” are going through the roof. Number three, Operation Tauwhiro is a Clayton’s operation. It hasn’t got any new resources, it hasn’t got any new personnel, and actually all it is it’s a name and they’ve asked officers—and Police National Headquarters went out this week and said, “Give us as many good news stories as you can to try and support because the Minister keeps standing in this House, and keep talking about how good Operation Tauwhiro is.”

I’m telling you now I get a flood of correspondence from front-line police officers saying that it’s smoke and mirrors. They don’t like it. It’s deceptive. They don’t like the way the public have been deceived, and they don’t like the way the Labour Party and Labour Party MPs keep standing in this House and spouting Tauwhiro as if some big new operation has been launched where they’re getting more support, more resources, and the ability to tackle gangs. It’s business as usual. They’ve quite simply been asked to record any—oh, she’s yawning. She thinks this is boring. It’s boring her, what her own staff in her own area—actually the feedback that she’s providing. It’s a disgrace. It’s a complete and utter total disgrace.

I listened to Chris Baillie stand and make a speech, an impassioned speech, because, actually, you know what? As part of his public service, he actually served in our New Zealand Police Force. Do you know what happened? The Opposition parties were laughing and mocking him the whole time he delivered that speech. That’s what we’re dealing with in terms of trying to deal with this bill. Let’s go back to the heart of the bill.

So the heart of the bill is quite simply this: the genesis for it was that the whole of New Zealand saw taxpayers’ money given to the Mongrel Mob in the Hawke’s Bay to run a meth programme. I don’t think any sensible Kiwi in this country felt that the right use of taxpayers’ money was to fund a criminal organisation to deliver a programme—oh, by the way, I was in the Hawke’s Bay on Friday and I met with the Police Association and the results on that programme have shown that it has completely, totally failed, and no one in this House or in the Opposition will actually stand up and tell us how successful it was or what the numbers are on it because they don’t have the facts. They don’t actually have the facts.

But I can tell you this—and we heard the Dr Seuss stories and the tone and the mocking, and like Chris Baillie said, as one of their best political tools it’s not a very effective tool but they do deploy it all the time; it’s to try and label people: racist, misogynist, whatever you like. If you say something they don’t like and you want to engage in a debate they try to shout you down with silly comments like Dr Seuss books. It’s embarrassing when you try to have a proper debate.

What I’d say is this to the members: go down to Hawke’s Bay and meet with the police down there, and just ask them and say, “How do you feel about the $2.5 million that we gave to a local chapter of your Mongrel Mob?”—the guys that you’re turning out every day and every night to go and deal with the crime because—shock, horror—the Mongrel Mob is a criminal group. They commit crimes. They wear patches. Do you know how they get that patch? They don’t get a patch by being the best at tiddlywinks or winning the local pétanque competition. They get a patch because they’ve gone out and they’ve proven that they’re good at crime and they’re good at violence. And if they’ve proven that they’re good enough at crime and good enough at violence, they get a patch.

What this Government’s done is it’s given a group in Hawke’s Bay that the police are constantly having to deal with, a group that’s peddling drugs, a group that’s behind thefts and burglaries, a group that’s behind armed robberies, a group that fails to stop when the police try to stop them, a group that’s willing to use violence on a weekly basis in the community—and our police, who don’t get paid a lot, who need more resources, that are stretched, are having to go out there and deal with a group that this Government felt was a good idea to give them $2.5 million. So I’d challenge all the Labour MPs and the Green MPs and whoever else is getting up and trying to defend it and will not vote for this bill, because this bill is try to stop it, to go down to Hawke’s Bay. Talk to the local police down there. Talk to the local community and see what they think.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. It’s been quite difficult to sit through this debate this afternoon and listen to the contributions from the other side. I was told to get out of my office and go for a walk down Courtenay Place. I challenge the other side to get out of your office and go for a walk through Moeroa and Kaikohe. I challenge the other side to get out of your office—not go to the Hawke’s Bay but come to Te Tai Tokerau, come to Northland, come to the communities, come to the people with lived experience who are trying to change the futures for their whānau and for our communities. I challenge you to come and meet with some of those people who are doing it without funding—doing it without funding—who I have been trying to find funding for and have successfully gotten funding for, those with lived experience from methamphetamine addictions who are doing wonderful work in our communities to change the futures for their whānau and for our communities. So I challenge you: come to Kaikohe, come to Moeroa, come to the Tai Tokerau.

I challenge you over there who say you’re here to represent the taxpayers. Do you know it costs a lot more money to keep people in prisons than what we have committed to and contributed to here to try to change the status quo, to change lives, to change communities?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Not write them off.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: That’s right—not write them off. And so I have found it very difficult to sit through the debate this afternoon and to hear that this is about race, that this is racism. It just shows me that you have absolutely no understanding of people’s experiences—intergenerational issues that we have here. Do you know any of these people? You criticised us on the other side that we happen to be related to some of these people, and somehow it’s our failing that we have not been able to change something that is intergenerational, like it’s a quick fix. And, actually, to the other side, I would like to quote your former Minister who actually supported these initiatives and gave funding, because what the former Minister for Social Development Anne Tolley said in reference to those initiatives in 2016, which you all supported, was that these trials are working on the ground with gang families, who are actually willing to change because that is the first step to get through. And she rightly went on to say, “You cannot change overnight what has taken generations to produce.” So let’s not make this a race-based argument; let’s look at the facts. Who are the people that are suffering because of this and why is it that they are disproportionately represented in this particular issue? This is not about racism or race-baited debates in the House this afternoon. Look at the facts and address the issue.

Now that I’ve got that off my chest, I am really passionate about this. You know, the Minister for Corrections, MP for Te Tai Tokerau, Kelvin Davis, and I have sat amongst groups in our communities who would fit this category that you’re talking about, Mr Brown, who you don’t want to fund, who many are nervous of or have this perception about them. But it wasn’t until I sat with them that I heard their stories, their testimonies, first hand; that I saw the work that they are doing to connect to other people in their situation with addictions and with long histories of gang affiliation, trying to break that cycle, trying to turn it around. It is not easy, and I can see that. But when I sat amongst those people, I was so moved, because what I saw is that these people with lived experience were able to connect with others who are struggling with addiction, who are struggling to break the cycle of whānau violence, of trauma, of this intergenerational issue that we have. I was moved by it. I was convinced that they have to be given this opportunity to be able to try and change the status quo and that we have to find it within ourselves to look to how we might be able to support that and not continue to just write them off and basically say, “For you and yours to come, this is your future.” I do not support this bill.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As much as the member in charge of this bill wants to make it such, this is not a debate on whether gangs are good or bad. No one in this House is saying that gangs are good. Everyone is recognising that gangs do behaviour and cause harm in our communities, and nobody supports that. We recognise that there are many people, over various generations, for decades in this country, who have suffered under the behaviour of gangs. The question is: how do we stop that?

We don’t stop that by making cynical political moves that are trying to dog-whistle to people to say and position one party against another as soft on crime and tough on crime. No party in this House is soft on crime. But what this side of the House recognises is that we can take a punitive approach, like we have over decades in this country, and nothing will change. What was it Einstein said? The definition of stupidity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Take a look at the United States and see how high incarceration rates and high penalties—as high as the death penalty—are stopping crime over there. It makes no difference. The approach that we need to take in this country is to understand what drives people into gangs and to invest in programmes that stop people entering and stop people staying in gangs.

Now, I say this as the member of Parliament for the Wairarapa electorate, and in the northern part of that electorate is Central Hawke’s Bay, where there was a programme funded by Government departments targeting gangs, getting people off drugs, and getting them out of the cycle of anti-social and criminal behaviour. There are strict conditions upon that funding. There are regular audits and regular reviews, and a key condition of that funding is that if it is not delivered, then the next quarter’s funding of that, I believe, two years of funding will not be delivered. They have to report back to Government departments.

Now, I’ll admit, when I first found out about it, because I had no context—it was a local journalist that rung up and said, “What do you think of the $2.85 million that was given to a gang?” I said, “I’m not in a position to comment on that because I don’t know anything about it.” But I’ll admit, in the absence of any context or any information, it seemed a bit unusual. However, when I realised and when I was informed that this was a programme that was based on one that the previous National Government implemented in conjunction with the Salvation Army, focused on gangs, that was effective, that worked, I thought, actually, this makes sense, because here we have an opportunity to support a programme that clearly—or one might think—has bipartisan support, that is based on a programme that worked, that targets those that are in gangs, that has proven results. Why wouldn’t we want to support that? Why wouldn’t we want to support a programme that the Police support, that Corrections support, and that the Ministry of Education, I believe, support? There’s a long list of Government departments that actually know what they’re talking about, that aren’t interested in dog-whistling and aren’t interested in petty politics and trying to position people on people’s lives and livelihoods. They’re actually interested in results, and that is what this Government is interested in.

If this bill was to focus on rehabilitation, I think we’d support it, but it doesn’t. It focuses on judgment and it focuses on spitefulness and pettiness. What it says is, “We’re going to teach the gangs a lesson. We’re going to tell them that they’re naughty and we’re not going to talk to them, and we’re just going to make them more ostracised and more isolated in society. That’ll teach them. Because then they’ll stop what they’re doing. They’ll take a look in the mirror and they’ll say, ‘They’ve stopped recognising us. I’m going to go get a degree.’” It’s not how it works. It’s absolute nonsense. It is based on judgment, and I think, frankly, it is based on hatred. They are judging people for entering into circumstances that they don’t understand. They don’t take the time to appreciate the fact that there are vulnerable people in our communities that see no hope. They don’t think they’ll get a job, they don’t think they’ll get education, and here we have a vulnerable person being lured in by the promise of prestige and money. They are parasites on our most vulnerable. I do not condone in any way what gangs do in our community, but let’s be pragmatic. Let’s focus on what needs to be done and vote this bill out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Simeon Brown—five minutes in response.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What an absolutely awful speech from the whip of the Labour Party there in regard to my bill, which is about prohibiting taxpayer funding for gangs. The mixed messages that we heard from the other side of the House: “Oh, no party’s soft on gangs. No party in this House is soft on gangs.”, but then we see the actions. It’s one thing to stand up and say we’re going to be tough on crime and tough on gangs; it’s another thing to then put your vote somewhere differently, and in a few minutes’ time, that party will be voting against this piece of legislation.

The very principle of this piece of legislation is about saying that hard-working taxpayers’ money, should not be going towards funding gangs. What we’ve seen under this Government is an absolute explosion in gang numbers, a 40 percent increase in gang membership, and New Zealanders see every single day the impact of that increased gang membership on their daily lives. We see the crime which is getting committed on our streets, the drug dealing which is taking place, the firearm offences which keep increasing and increasing, the drive-by shootings. This is something which New Zealanders are seeing, and this Government’s response, or their response, is “Well, we’ll just give $2.75 million to the Mongrel Mob.” I’ve got some news for the Government. Guess what! The Salvation Army ain’t the Mongrel Mob, and the Mongrel Mob ain’t the Salvation Army; I’m not sure if they’ve quite realised that. This Government is prepared to try to mix what is actually happening here to try to justify a decision whereby $2.75 million from the proceeds of crime fund went to Harry Tam, a lifetime member of the Mongrel Mob—something which the vast majority of New Zealanders think is completely unacceptable.

We’ve heard what the Police Association have said about this. They’ve said this appears to be one of the most lucrative or successful money-laundering operations. Just last year, the police took $2 million in Operation Dusk off the Mongrel Mob in the Hawke’s Bay, and only a couple of months later, $2.75 million was given back through this fund to the Mongrel Mob. It’s almost like the money was given back with interest. The money was taken with one hand and given back with the other. And the reality is we know this is not going to make a difference.

I’ve run through the numbers in my initial speech. The amount of money—$250,000 per participant—is $250,000 per participant in this programme, while Victim Support get only two or three hundred bucks per person that they help. If this Government’s truly wanting to actually help victims of crime, then they should be putting their money where their mouth is, rather than putting millions of dollars towards a programme which we know isn’t going to make a difference.

And you know what? There’s one thing which actually says to me about the other side of the House that they’re not very comfortable with their position—because typically on a bill like this, the first person to get up and take a call when it comes to law and order would be Greg O’Connor, but where was Greg O’Connor, the former Police Association president, during this debate? He didn’t take a call at all.

Hon Mark Mitchell: They’ve parked him up.

SIMEON BROWN: They’ve parked him up; that’s right, Mr Mitchell. They’ve parked him up. The reality is, they know, deep down, this was the wrong decision to make. They knew this was the wrong decision to make. They know it wasn’t what New Zealanders wanted, and they know that public money shouldn’t be going to gangs. But they’ve bought into the narrative that they want to work with gangs, despite the fact that they know the harm that they are causing in our community, and New Zealanders will not forget what they are doing.

If they were truly actually wanting to make a difference, they would have sent this bill to a select committee, rather than come up with all sorts of random creative arguments to say that this bill wasn’t fit for purpose. I mean, one of the pathetic arguments was it doesn’t define what a gang member is. It actually does define what a gang member is. It says very clearly that gangs are defined through section 4 of the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Act. I don’t know if the Government members are actually aware that the legislation already has a definition of gang membership in New Zealand. The police have a register. This information is not very hard to find, and this piece of legislation is fit for purpose and should be supported. The National Party commends it to the House.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Public Finance (Prohibition on Providing Public Funds to Gangs) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 77

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

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Improving Arrangements for Surrogacy Bill

First Reading

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) (remote): I move, That the Improving Arrangements for Surrogacy Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill.

This has been a long time coming. There are many people around Aotearoa who have been waiting for change in this little space. I want to acknowledge them as we move forward into what I believe, and many believe, is a very innovative and very refreshing step into the future when it comes to the laws around surrogacy here in New Zealand. I want to dedicate this to all of our surrogates. In te reo Māori, we call them kōpū whāngai, because they carry the children of the future and often on behalf of others that cannot carry babies for themselves.

This is not just a gay issue; it’s not just a straight issue, either. This is an issue for many New Zealanders who, for one reason or another, find it very hard, sometimes impossible, to be able to carry children themselves. Ever since I started on this journey, I’ve made sure that I’ve been telling people this journey is all about making modern laws for modern families. We’ve come a long way from the old nuclear family, the way that things used to be, or at least the way that television and the movies like to think families were portrayed, with mum, dad, and the two kids. These days, we have all kinds of families, and often when we have surrogates stepping into that role as well, the family gets extended just a little bit more.

So the goal is to create modern laws for our modern families and to make sure that this is a mana-enhancing process for our surrogates, for our intending parents, and for everybody that’s involved in this. I’d say, having had some lived experience in this area, that the law is currently not a mana-enhancing system. At the moment, we’ve got a couple of laws that have been cobbled together to try and solve the issues that we face in the world of surrogacy. They’re not fit for purpose, they are outdated, and today we start the journey of change.

When I’ve talked previously, in public settings and to anybody that wants to listen, about what surrogacy looks like and where my bill fits into this, I’m very quick to say that surrogacy issues are far and wide. In fact, I say there are this many issues [Holds hands in wide circular motion] that need to be dealt with in the area of surrogacy, and my bill deals with about this many of them [Holds hands in narrow circular motion]. But, still, it’s a start on a very long journey.

I want to talk very quickly about some of the parts of the bill that is before the House and some of the innovative changes that we’ve landed on. The first part of the bill talks about amending the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004. The way that the law is currently structured, any surrogate that decides that they want to altruistically carry for another couple are only allowed, what they call, valuable consideration. It’s a very legal term, and for people that aren’t legal beagles, they sometimes get confused by that. But let me put it this way: it’s a way that we are able to maintain the sanctity of the previously held notion that commercial surrogacies aren’t exactly what we want here in Aotearoa, but a way that we might be able to provide something for the surrogate. Because it’s been so murky in the past, it’s been up for interpretation quite a bit, but there are hefty penalties for couples for arrangements that enter into any kind of commercial surrogacy arrangement.

So, with that in mind, the offer on the table, the proposal on the table, is to ensure that the surrogate isn’t out of pocket, ensure that if they choose to go into this arrangement, that, actually, they’re not left with expenses unpaid because of the law being in the way. Therefore, I propose the change through this legislation, the term “valuable consideration” into “actual and reasonable expenses”, so that the expenses that the surrogate has to incur as a result of her choosing to do this doesn’t leave her out of pocket. I think that’s fair and I think that’s reasonable.

Also, in Part 1 of the amendment bill is the idea of a surrogacy register. At the moment, if you want to find a surrogate, you’re forced to either go cap in hand to those people around you, sometimes your family; sometimes if they say no, your friends; and sometimes if they say no as well, online Facebook groups, which purport to match people up with surrogates who would like to carry for other couples. But I’d say that this is not the best way that we could do this. The creation of a surrogacy register that’s administered through the Ministry of Health would help to be able to sort that and bring looking for a surrogate into the light and help match up intending parents with those people who choose surrogacy as a pathway to be able to start their family.

Part 2 talks about court order—the ability for all parties that are stakeholders in the arrangement for the surrogacy to be able to go to a court well in advance of baby being born, and to be able to agree to the terms and conditions of a court order: a surrogacy order, if you will. What would happen in a surrogacy order is that, provided all parties agree, then on the time of birth the legal parentage of the child moves to that of the intending parents. The way that it is at the moment is fraught with difficulty. Sometimes intending parents can wait 10 days, sometimes longer, to be able to take parentage of their child. Often, as I’ve found in my engagement with so many people that have been through the surrogacy arrangement, it’s not an easy step for a surrogate to make to go through this, so the better you can clear up those terms and conditions up front and in the eyes of our courts, the better off it is for everybody—again, a mana-enhancing process.

I’d also hazard to say that if we had surrogacy orders in place at the moment, we wouldn’t, as a House, have had to have gone through the Paige Harris Birth Registration Bill, which is now an Act. But, unfortunately, in that situation, baby Paige’s mother had died in the process, and baby Paige’s mum was unable to be recorded on the birth certificate. Because of a surrogacy order, if that had have been agreed to earlier on, there would have been no problems with that. What I do also know is that there have been other cases that have come forward because of the gaps in our current laws.

Part 3 talks about amending the Status of Children Act 1969 to make sure that if the court order is approved, from birth the intending parents become the legal parents. Part 4 talks also about that too.

Part 6 is a very interesting area, because, actually, at the moment, and anybody that’s involved in adoption knows that when it comes to the birth of children, the old way of thinking—when the Adoption Act was drawn up in 1955—was that a clear cut needed to be made between a child that was being put up for adoption and their birth family. This is absolutely at odds with how we see the world these days, here, in the future, in 2022. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child says that we need to honour the whakapapa, honour the DNA, of the children that are born, of every child that’s born. The idea of a clean cut is no longer part of the accepted thinking in this space. So it would therefore be acceptable for us to be able to record on the birth certificate in a surrogacy arrangement all of those parties that make up that surrogacy arrangement.

I believe that it’s for the good of our tamariki and our mokopuna to know exactly where they come from, and this is a really Te Ao Māori perspective on this as well. The ability to know your whakapapa, to be able to connect into your blood and your history, is everything, and every child that is born deserves the right to know that. This bill will also amend it so that birth certificates can be recorded appropriately for those people in surrogacy arrangements—again, creating a mana-enhancing process.

The thing that makes this bill slightly different is that the Law Commission have been undertaking a review. It was a Government intention to be able to do a review into the area of surrogacy, to be able to do a deep dive into all of the issues that we face in this area. I’d like to congratulate the New Zealand Law Commission for undertaking that work. They haven’t yet reported their work back, though, so as this goes to select committee, it goes knowing that the New Zealand Law Commission will very soon report their findings back, and there may be a will of the Government to be able to turn that into legislation.

As I said before, there are a lot of issues in the world of surrogacy, and this bill fixes just a few of them. I’m very open to the findings of the Law Commission report and look forward to seeing where they land and listening to some of their recommendations and whether or not we might be able to turn that into legislation—in which case, I’m open to the idea of my member’s bill being absolutely superseded by a strong piece of legislation informed by the work of the New Zealand Law Commission. That, of course, can be discussed in the Health Committee as we progress through this.

I want to finish with some acknowledgments—some acknowledgments to the people that helped this bill—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here on the Improving Arrangements for Surrogacy Bill. National supports this bill going through to its first reading—to go through to select committee. I’m a little bit surprised that the member has sent it to the Health Committee; we would have thought the Justice Committee would have been more appropriate. I encourage him to think about that—we’re obviously not going to have a chance to finish the first reading today—because, ultimately, it’s dealing with questions of law that I think are more appropriate in the justice area, but that’s a debate we can have.

So what we’re looking at here, obviously, is, I think, a widespread conclusion that our surrogacy laws are antiquated and not up to speed with modern practices and technology and the way that the world works. So the proposal here from Mr Coffey—particularly in relation to the development of a surrogacy order through the courts and then enabling that arrangement, that the intending parents automatically become the parents of the child and the surrogate ceases to be a parent of the child from the birth without going through the very complicated hoops that currently are under way. Then Part 4, providing that a person who is named as intending parent as a surrogacy order is also the parent for the purposes of the Care of Children Act—and therefore potentially liable for support if they change their mind. All these things are broadly sensible and worth the consideration of the select committee.

The issue, I suppose, that we have, and I was very glad to hear Mr Coffey at the end of his speech refer to the Law Commission report and the fact that the Government has asked for a thorough deep dive on what is an incredibly complicated issue from the Law Commission. It may well be—I’m not entirely sure that a member’s bill is the appropriate vehicle for dealing with the issue, given the complexity of it.

This bill has 32 clauses, it’s quite complicated, and requires very significant work from ministry officials and Government officials to look at all the cross-currents and permutations of every little change that is made, and a lot of resources being involved. The normal course of events with members’ bills is that a huge amount of resource isn’t necessarily thrown at it, and the risk is that we get something that is not well-thought-through.

So you’ve got the Law Commission going out there, looking at the issue, looking at the complexity of it—all these things such as when does guardianship crossover to parents? What is an appropriate financial arrangement? We’re certainly not in favour of commercialisation of surrogacy now that the member is talking about reasonable expenses. That is a very easy thing to say and a much more difficult thing to legislate in a way that doesn’t, in effect, lead to commercialisation; so exactly how that is handled is a quite delicate task. Then are the implications of all sorts of complications that occur in the natural course of life: of people changing minds, of the different aspects of surrogacy. The only point I’d make is that the logical thing to do would be—given that the Law Commission is in the middle of this work, and will be reporting back sometime soon this year, but we don’t know exactly when, it may well be that the sensible thing to do is to put this bill through the select committee, but make sure that the time for consideration and submissions is substantially extended so that it includes the Law Commission report and we’re not put in a situation where we have to put this bill through before the Law Commission report has come out, and we’ve had the ability to look at what it has to say and have the benefit of that advice. And it may well be that when that comes through, the Government itself decides that, actually, this is something that it wants to pick up and come up with Government legislation in the normal process, and that may well lead to a better outcome.

So it’s a fluid sort of situation. We certainly recognise that the current laws aren’t adequate and that they are over-burdensome and complicated for intending parents. So, you know, we have a huge empathy, I suppose, for the challenges that many New Zealanders who, for all manner of reasons, are not able to carry their own children and the desire to come up with arrangements that work for everybody. So there’s definitely a problem to be solved here. The question is how best to do it and to recognise just the incredible complication in this area, and let’s just go about this in a careful and considered way. When we do get the opportunity to see what the Law Commission has proposed and unearthed, we then can make a judgment as to whether this bill is one that could be tidied sufficiently to do the job or whether Mr Coffey, as he suggested, steps back and the Government itself steps into the breach. Either way, the National Party is very keen and concerned to work constructively on this bill for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

Like I say, I do think, just in conclusion—I don’t need to sort of extend it forever—I would call upon the member to reconsider, or at least perhaps engage with other members across the House as to the appropriateness of the select committee involved. We think it’s probably better suited for the Justice Committee to consider. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, this debate is interrupted and set down for further consideration next members’ day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m.

The House adjourned at 12.59 p.m. (Thursday)