Wednesday, 27 July 2022

WEDNESDAY, 27 JULY 2022

WEDNESDAY, 27 JULY 2022

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

Ministerial Statement

Myanmar—Executions by Military Regime

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I wish to make a ministerial statement on the execution of activists in Myanmar. On Monday, 25 July Myanmar’s State-run newspaper announced the execution of four people, including political figures Phyo Zeya Thaw, Kyaw Min Yu, Hla Myo Aung, and Aung Thura Zaw. The four were tried by a military court and reportedly denied access to legal counsel. This is a horrifying act by Myanmar’s military regime. These executions are the first in Myanmar in decades and speak further to the regime’s brutality since the coup. Our sympathies and thoughts are with the families and the loved ones of the victims at this time, and with the families and loved ones of all of those who have been killed by the military regime.

In response, I issued a statement on 26 July which notes Aotearoa New Zealand’s strong and longstanding opposition to the death penalty and condemns the executions in the strongest possible terms. New Zealand has also joined a statement at Foreign Minister level with other like-minded countries condemning the executions. Prior to the executions, New Zealand made direct representations to the Myanmar embassy in Canberra. We also shared our concerns via a statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and also at the UN Human Rights Council.

In the aftermath of the military coup in February 2021, New Zealand acted quickly and decisively to express our condemnation and to take measures to place pressure on the regime towards a return to civilian government. Immediate actions included suspending high-level political and military bilateral engagement; travel bans on those responsible for the coup and/or ongoing human rights abuses; and ensuring our Government-funded cooperation activities are not channelled through or benefit the military. Since this time, we have consistently called on the military regime to immediately end the violence, adhere to ASEAN’s Five-Point Consensus and release all political prisoners including foreign nationals. We have made numerous public statements including in regional and multilateral fora, such as ASEAN ministerial meetings and UN bodies, which have made clear New Zealand’s position and condemnation of the coup.

On 1 February this year, New Zealand announced further travel bans on those with direct responsibility for the coup and/or ongoing human rights violations in Myanmar. New Zealand has also taken a position that the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership will not enter into force between New Zealand and Myanmar until such time as New Zealand considers a valid instrument has been deposited by Myanmar, and the requisite timeframe under the agreement has elapsed.

Throughout this difficult time we have continued to support the people of Myanmar, who face growing humanitarian needs as the coup’s impact damages the economy and forces high levels of displacement. New Zealand has stepped up its humanitarian and resilience-building assistance since the coup to support the people of Myanmar. We have provided over $17 million to support Myanmar’s internally displaced people; agricultural livelihoods and food security assistance; COVID-19 control and mitigation; protection and advocacy for international humanitarian law; and increasing the resilience of at-risk populations.

New Zealand has been in close contact with our international partners and New Zealand community groups to understand their views on the situation in Myanmar and how we can work together to place pressure on the military regime. This includes regular contact with the Association of South-east Asian Nations (ASEAN) member States. New Zealand is strongly supportive of ASEAN efforts and leadership on the situation in Myanmar. In April 2021, ASEAN leaders agreed a Five-Point Consensus on Myanmar—ending violence, inclusive dialogue, appointment of a special envoy, visit of the special envoy, and humanitarian assistance—and New Zealand has been engaging with ASEAN to support this process. The ASEAN chair has made clear ASEAN’s condemnation of the executions and the damage that this has on regional efforts to resolve the situation in Myanmar.

I will be engaging with my ASEAN counterparts, and other like-minded partners, on what more can be done to support ASEAN’s Five-Point Consensus to help end the violence and return Myanmar to civilian rule. The first opportunity to do this will be at the ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ meetings in Phnom Penh, Cambodia on 4 to 5 August, which I will attend in person. ASEAN has a practice of not inviting political level participation from Myanmar in the current circumstances, and we anticipate that this will be the case for these meetings. I will be using statements during these meetings to once again reiterate New Zealand’s condemnation of the coup and these executions.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): The New Zealand National Party joins the Government in condemnation of the executions of the four pro-democracy prisoners in Myanmar, Burma. History records that Burma has long, as a country, been beset by the sort of strife that ensures far too much human misery. It’s a country that has been an international concern for many years. Post-independence, in 1948, saw a period where democracy was developing—until 1962, when the coup occurred. First, that prevailed until democracy was partially restored in 2010. But, after the elections of 2020, a military coup again took over the country, and it is objection to that junta that has led to the four being executed.

There has been—and can be expected—much condemnation of the executions from all around the world. Since most of the recent condemnation has also been directed at the coup, with a strong recommendation for the restoration of democracy, the coming meetings will be all the more important. The question now has to be: what more can be done, and what can New Zealand particularly do, to work alongside other nations that have similar concerns, particularly the Association of South-east Asian Nations (ASEAN), as mentioned by the Minister, so that the 55 million Burmese who want to return to democracy can live freely in their own country?

While we condemn these actions of the Myanmar junta, for allowing and defending the executions, we recognise that those four people—Kyaw Min Yu, Phyo Zeya Thaw, Hla Myo Aung, and Aung Thura Zaw—have given their lives for a cause dear to so many Burmese people. I’m sure that history will not see their lives lost in vain. So my question to the Minister is: what additional support will the Minister propose in support of the five-point plan when she’s at the ASEAN meeting next week?

SPEAKER: The way that ministerial statements work now is that they are interactive. When a question is asked of the Minister, the Minister replies at this point. Mr Brownlee still has some more time to go when he gets a response.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My apologies to the member; I misunderstood the rules. Can I thank the endorsement of the National Party for the decisions that the Government’s taken. In my statement I reiterated that New Zealand was quick to support ASEAN’s leadership and the development of the Five-Point Consensus. We’ve been absolutely consistent in terms of endorsing an ASEAN-led solution and made that very clear from the time that the consensus has been revealed. I’ll also refer the member to my statement and that we’re mindful of the humanitarian needs within Myanmar, and also the way in which we’ve been providing support direct to organisations that can support the humanitarian needs in Myanmar.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Can the Minister tell the House why she thinks greater isolation of those who are running that country at the present time will be useful in trying to persuade them to change their ways, given that diplomacy seems to be the only likely way out of the situation in Myanmar/Burma?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Just in response to that question, that is not what I said. We continue to engage with ASEAN, and we believe that the centrality of ASEAN’s leadership is very important. While we do not engage at a diplomatic or defence level with leaders of the military, in terms of ASEAN and the infrastructure of ASEAN at a government-officials level, it has been a useful forum to be able to convey our concerns in relation to what’s happening in Myanmar.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): What are the assurances the Minister has that the $70 million provided so far for humanitarian assistance in Myanmar is being spent appropriately to make people’s lives better and not contribute to the activities of the junta?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): This is a significant decision that the Government took when we ceased high-level diplomatic, political engagement and started to channel our humanitarian funds through organisations that were servicing communities and people on the ground, and we have sought assurances through our humanitarian aid networks to maintain the support that is required but also maintain the integrity of that support to assure us that it is getting to where it needs to go. There are far too many people suffering. We want to make sure that those organisations are enabled to be able to support them.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Yes, the question was about what the assurance is that there’s no particular gain to the junta by making that assistance available.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): As I say, the support that the Government provides is not through the military regime; it is direct to the organisations that are able to provide the humanitarian support that we’ve identified is required and needed.

SPEAKER: Clearly, the member is not remote—Golriz Ghahraman.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s good to be here in person, though it is in no joyous mood that I stand, firstly, to recognise the courage and humanity of the people of Myanmar as they face yet another bout of violence in an ongoing, harrowing atrocity being committed by the junta.

We do join with the Minister of Foreign Affairs to condemn in the strongest terms the murder by execution—and masked by a military court—of Kyaw Min Yu, who was better known as Ko Jimmy, Phyo Zeya Thaw, Hla Myo Aung, and Aung Thura Zaw. This is a chilling act being faced by this brave nation, who have continued to fight for democracy, and I want to recognise also the Myanmari community here in New Zealand. I know firsthand the heartbreak of being far away from home as you know that a repressive so-called regime is committing acts of violence against your countrymen. We stand with you here in Aotearoa, and we send aroha to your whānau and community back at home.

Of course, this is nothing new, as others have said. The junta has been a force of atrocity in Myanmar for decades, and I want to recognise the minority communities like the Rohingya community, who have already faced a genocide committed by this military force, both in and out of power. I do want to commend our Minister for taking very swift action when the coup first happened, both in diplomatic terms, and in increasing humanitarian aid, and in public condemnation of the coup.

My question is one of three, but the first to the Minister is whether the Government will take immediate action to seize or prevent any investment or trade that may directly or indirectly contribute to the acts of the junta. I do want to note that we found out last year that even our Superannuation Fund may be involved in continued investments in building companies, for example, that continue to build for the junta. I want to note as well and ask the Minister to let us know the ongoing work that’s being done as a result of the independent review of our export controls regime, which found that, actually, trade or exports that were being approved by her ministry weren’t being done in a systematic way to uphold our human rights obligations, and ask whether she’s seeking to introduce legislation, as was recommended by that review.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): In the immediate aftermath of the coup on 1 February 2021, New Zealand acted quickly and decisively—as the member points out—to express our condemnation and to take measures to place pressure on the regime towards a return to civilian government. Immediate actions included suspending high-level political and military bilateral engagement, travel bans on those responsible for the coup and/or ongoing human rights abuses, and ensuring our Government-funded cooperation activities are not channelled through or benefit the military. In relation to the direct question that was asked by the member, can I say that progress has been made to ensure—in relation to the Superannuation Fund—that a responsible investment framework is in place and we continue to monitor that framework.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you. My second question is: will she set the minds of Myanmarese in New Zealand to rest, in particular those who might be on temporary visas, by assuring them that they will not be made to return at any point while it’s still unsafe to do so, and to provide safe and timely pathways to residency for those who wish to avail themselves of that right?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Many in this House will recall that this was a matter that was raised with regards to students studying here, and were concerned that they wouldn’t have the ability to have their visas extended. At the time, the undertaking was that those matters would be dealt with. We have not since had any representation from any of those students that were impacted that they are dissatisfied with the approach that we’ve taken.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you. And finally, I do commend the Minister in noting that in international forums we won’t participate or be trading with the junta as the Government of Myanmar, but I would ask whether our Government can undertake now to call upon all our allies and trading partners to desist from and to refuse to recognise the junta as the official Government of Myanmar, continuing to recognise the Unity Government of Myanmar as the elected and legitimate Government of Myanmar.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): We will certainly use our voice to highlight the concerns that we have with the military regime—and in relation to the executions that take place—that are entirely consistent with New Zealand’s position on the death penalty. How they choose to exercise their decisions around their interests are a matter for them. But we believe that the best opportunity to do that is to support both regional and international architecture and fora, to be able to ensure that we are acting with like-mindeds. Can I just note that the ASEAN leadership of the Five-Point Consensus is one avenue that we can continue to affirm a way forward to seek a resolution, and we’ll continue to do that as well as in other fora.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): On behalf of the ACT Party, I wish to share our condolences with the family members and loved ones of the four political prisoners and democracy activists executed in Myanmar by the military regime. We condemn these violent actions that violate human rights and the rule of law. They are barbaric. Nobody in any country should be persecuted for their political beliefs. No matter our beliefs, we all share in a common humanity.

These political prisoners were persecuted for their belief in democracy, for wanting their country to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement, and property rights. These are values that ACT and this Parliament seek to uphold, but it’s saddening to anyone who believes in democracy to see it under threat around the world and to see people lose their lives for wanting freedom and democracy. We should speak up against human rights abuses when and where we see them, and so the ACT Party joins this Government in condemning the executions carried out in Myanmar.

We call on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to also condemn these executions. The CCP was unwilling to condemn the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, but will they condemn this action? Once again, we share our condolences with the family members and the loved ones of those executed for their beliefs. Our thoughts go out to you. My question is to the Minister: will this Government call on the Chinese Communist Party to condemn these executions in line with the United States?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): We will be absolutely consistent in advocating for a return to civilian Government and condemn the executions that have taken place, with all members of the ASEAN group, including strategic partners.

SPEAKER: I call on general business.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare.

SPEAKER: Well—yes, I realise they get a call, but the member never took it. I called the next matter. Unless any member objects, I will return and let the member have her call. But I do want to remind her of the obligation to take calls when they’re available. I’m not a mind reader as to whether people want a call or not.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Sorry about that, Mr Speaker, I didn’t hear. I rise on behalf of Te Paati Māori, thank you, to support the ministerial statement from Minister Mahuta this afternoon. We join with the Government in totally condemning the senseless and brutal executions of political prisoners in Myanmar. Our hearts go out to the whānau and communities who are reeling from the disgraceful act of violence. The death penalty has no place in a civilised and moral world, and using the power of the State to oppress, terrorise, and murder political prisoners is the kind of disgusting behaviour we see from dictators and despots around the world. The Myanmar Government is being run by a totalitarian military junta, who have rightly been condemned across the world for suppression of human rights and attacks on ethnic minorities. The four men who were executed were campaigners for democracy and human rights. They put themselves on the line in the fight for liberation and freedom.

The United Nations has warned of a deepening humanitarian crisis in Myanmar with an intensification of violence and a rapid rise in poverty. We are disappointed to see the comments of the Government of China and their refusal to condemn these actions. The innocent lives of ordinary people are continually being sacrificed in the power games of imperial powers. We have seen it with Myanmar and Tibet, we’ve seen it in the Ukraine and Eastern Europe, and we’ve seen it in the Middle East. Aotearoa must strengthen our commitments to human rights and denounce these acts, whoever they are committed by. We can be an example of the world leader nation with an independent foreign policy that reflects our place in the South Pacific. That is what Te Paati Māori will support and continue to fight for. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

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

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

SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced. Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Greenpeace Aotearoa requesting that the House ban unnecessary single-use plastic bottles in New Zealand

petition of Yulian Varbanov requesting that the House pass legislation to ban gangs from wearing their patches in public

petition of Migrants United Council Inc. requesting that the House urge the Government to automatically reinstate the visas of migrants whose visas expired while our borders were closed due to COVID-19 restrictions

petition of Victor Wellington requesting that the House urge the Minister of Immigration to vary re-entry/travel conditions to “indefinite” for people who now have residence visas who had their skilled migrant category visa processing delayed due to Immigration New Zealand’s internal criteria.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. A paper has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Electricity Authority statement of performance expectations 2022-23.

SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, entitled Matters arising from our audits of 2021-31 long-term plans. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select Committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Reports of the Justice Committee on the 2022/23 Estimates

for Vote Attorney-General and Vote Parliamentary Counsel

for Vote Corrections, and

for Vote Courts, and

reports of the Justice Committee on the 2022/23 Estimates

for Vote Forestry, and

for Vote Lands.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the Government’s support for New Zealanders during the current volatile and uncertain environment. This has enabled us to boost the incomes of seniors and students and low-income families, while a million New Zealanders are receiving the winter energy payment. From next Monday, the targeted cost of living payment will deliver around $27 a week for roughly 2 million low and middle income New Zealanders, and will be paid in three instalments. In response to high fuel prices, we’ve cut the fuel excise duty and road-user charges and have halved the public transport cost until the end of January next year. These measures are temporary and targeted to those who are finding it toughest, and will seek to mitigate the underlying drivers of high inflation, such as global energy volatility. New Zealand is in a strong position to support households and businesses. Unemployment is low, exports are growing, and Government debt is substantially below many other nations we would compare ourselves to. There is no single or easy solution, but we’ll continue to provide targeted support to New Zealanders in these challenging times.

Christopher Luxon: Why are fewer than one in two children in New Zealand attending school regularly, and what has her Government done other than announce a strategy to actually turn things around?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’d note that, actually, school attendance we have seen decline in since 2015. I note that a select committee in Parliament recently had a look at some of the contributing factors to that decline, and the significant changes in the way that we manage truancy as a result of the National Government’s reforms in 2013 have been seen to be a contributing factor. That is not to say the fact that we have had a decline since 2015—COVID has made it worse.

Chris Bishop: No.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Apparently, COVID is not a contributing factor to attendance issues or illness—I find that striking. I would point to the fact that the member is drawing the numbers that he is referring to from a Ministry of Education report that shows that in the first week of term 1, around 90 percent of students were attending school in person nationally. It does point to the impact that COVID and absences have had, but that has not stopped Government investment to turn around attendance issues.

Christopher Luxon: How can she say that this is COVID-driven when the data shows that only half of the increase in non-attendance between term 4 last year and term 1 is driven by sickness, and children isolating at home are marked as attending?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I point, again, to the fact that if you look right at the beginning of term 1, we had up to 90 percent attendance. You can see the impact that isolation, illness, fear of COVID and the spread of COVID has had on decision making by families. We have not stood still in the face of that: $50 million in the Urgent Response Fund in 2020, $20 million for the Attendance Service in Budget 2021, $15 million on an Auckland re-engagement package post-Delta, and the $88 million attendance package in Budget 2022. I would point out that on top of that, we have an aspiration—we’ve set our targets to get attendance back up to pre-2015 levels, when, I note, the decline under the National Government began.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm that an individual student would only need to miss more than five days in a school term in order to be regarded, under the official statistics that the Opposition leader just quoted, as “not regularly attending”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, regular attendance is defined as 90 percent, or nine out of 10 days. Given the season that we’re in at present, with some of the worst seasonal illnesses that we have seen in decades, there is no question that it has had an impact on attendance. That is on top of the decline we’ve seen since 2015, and I would ask for a little self-reflection around the impacts of the changes to attendance services, which took away from the ability of schools and communities to work on attendance issues, to a national model which obviously did not help. We have invested in turning around those services, and are committed to seeing attendance—regular attendance—return to those pre-2015 levels. [Interruption]

Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Minister for Pacific Peoples will stand and apologise. It’s bad enough that he interjected, but to take his mask off in order to interject was outrageous.

Hon Aupito William Sio: I apologise.

SPEAKER: And I think, while we’ve got this, we had some experience yesterday of what happened when members did not come to order when asked. Clearly, it will be more serious if the same thing happens when the Leader of the Opposition is asking a question.

Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that having 100,000 children chronically absent from school, missing at least three days in every 10, is a social and economic disaster in the making?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We wouldn’t have set our targets to return attendance levels to pre-2015 levels unless we were deeply concerned about what we are seeing. As I’ve said, there’s been an issue since then. COVID has made it worse, and we’ve put the funding in to turn it around. I’d be very interested to hear the proposals the member’s had, because if he is concerned about equality issues, then clearly he would support the significant investment we have made to try and reduce child poverty and inequality in New Zealand as one of many contributing factors to attendance issues.

Christopher Luxon: Why did the Government wait five years to release an attendance strategy?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I have already read out in this House, you can see we’ve been investing in attendance initiatives for some time as a Government. I would also point out that he cannot underestimate the impact of issues like removing school donations to try and reduce any barriers to participation; healthy food in schools, which, anecdotally, staff and principals report to us they see as encouraging attendance; period products in schools, so again, because we hear often from schools a concern that that can be a barrier to attendance; making sure our curriculum is keeping our young people stimulated and engaged; and access to digital devices. There is not one single thing that we must be doing; there are many. On top of that, we have recently attached significant ambitious goals to return attendance levels to where they should be.

Christopher Luxon: Does she agree with Ministry of Social Development Bay of Plenty regional commissioner Mike Bryant, who told the Bay of Plenty Times that some of the children not attending school were simply waiting until they turn 18 so they can sign up for the benefit?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Look, I cannot directly reflect on any claims by a member about what someone may or may not have said, but what I reject is casting aspersions across those families who, from time to time, may require the support of Government for different circumstances in their lives—that that means that they lack ambition for their kids. I can tell you, in my many years of working across these issues, I see, consistently, parents who always want better for their children.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Sorry, I’m going to let the member go, but I do want to just make it clear to the Prime Minister that unless there is evidence to the contrary, where a member does make a statement in the House, as the Leader of the Opposition did, it should be accepted.

Christopher Luxon: Does she believe there is any connection between the increase in truancy and the increase in young people going on to a benefit that’s happened since she became Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I note the member doesn’t think that there’s any connection between COVID and attendance issues, which I find surprising. I, again, look at the statistics that we have that show, as a percentage of the working-age population, we have a lower percentage of New Zealanders in the working-age population drawing down benefits now than we did in the same period in the aftermath of the global financial crisis (GFC). So that demonstrates to me that when we see an economic shock—and, in fact, I would argue this is worse—you’re actually seeing lower rates relative to that period.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Government recently received advice suggesting that a small decline in the number of students achieving NCEA at the most senior levels has been driven by senior secondary school students leaving school early to take up paid employment because of low unemployment rates?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, and, of course, you would expect that. In these periods you do see, for instance, fewer, often, taking up skills and trade training, because they have employment opportunities. That has not stopped us from seeing, since we came into Government, 190,000 people taking up free apprenticeships and targeted trade training—a 55 percent increase in the number of apprentices since the pandemic—and I know that, given the member is very outcomes-focused, 3,100 young people are in employment or training because of He Poutama Rangatahi, and 4,700 in employment because of Mana in Mahi. These are young people taking the opportunities available to them in meaningful training and education.

Christopher Luxon: Can she explain why, with staff shortages in almost every sector, the number of Kiwis under 25 on jobseeker support for longer than a year has doubled under this Government?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: You look at the unemployment rates, for instance, in areas where we’ve traditionally seen a greater burden in an economic crisis on Māori and Pacific—something like half the rate of the unemployment levels we saw post-GFC. Do we have work to do as a nation for disparities for young people who are NEETs? For Pasifika and Māori we do, but relative to previous economic crises, you can see the difference that a specific focus in investment, as this Government has made, has made on those outcomes.

Christopher Luxon: Isn’t it the case that with widespread labour shortages, job seeker numbers should be at record lows, not 50,000 higher than when she became Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I come back to the point of comparison that makes the most sense in these times—even though I would argue the COVID economic recovery is far more difficult in scale and quantum, and you see that globally, than, necessarily, the GFC—and we still have record numbers of people coming off benefits and into work, and we still see a lower percentage of the working-age population on Government support. At the same time, we are working very hard to reform our skills and trade training sector to make sure that they are meeting the needs of employers and our young people. But given the member’s focused on outputs, I’m sure he would be interested—again, referring to the numbers of the significant increase in trades training, whereas in the GFC, we saw those sectors bottom out, and we are still paying the price.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The resilience of the New Zealand economy and the Government’s responsible financial management are reflected in the latest Crown accounts. For the 11 months to the end of May, the operating balance before gains and losses, OBEGAL, deficit was $7.7 billion, $5.5 billion below that forecast in Budget 2022 in May. Net debt was 16.6 percent of GDP, $4.3 billion higher than forecast, mainly due to weaker market conditions affecting the financial portfolio held by the New Zealand super fund and ACC derivatives. The Treasury did note that when the new debt measure was put in place, it would move around more than our previous measure, and New Zealand’s level of debt remains one of the lowest in the OECD. New Zealand is in a strong financial position to support New Zealanders as we face a number of global challenges.

Helen White: What other reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, Statistics New Zealand reported that exports rose 7.7 percent to $6.4 billion in June, compared with the same month a year ago. The main contribution came from the red meat sector, with overseas sales rising 19 percent to $964 million on the back of higher beef and sheep prices. Dairy products rose 7.1 percent to $1.7 billion—

Barbara Kuriger: Primary sector does it again.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —led by higher prices for milk powder, butter and cheese. I’m pleased Ms Kuriger’s listening! On an annual basis, exports rose 11.9 percent to $67.6 billion. The export sector is continuing to show its resilience in a volatile global environment.

Helen White: What reports has he seen on the international context for the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The IMF released updated projections for the international economy overnight, revising down its global growth forecast for 2022 and 2023 and raising its inflation estimates. The IMF have said that this reflects weaker growth in the United States, China, and the euro area due to the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and tightening financial conditions, and the IMF raise the prospect of a more pronounced slow-down. As I’ve said previously, slowing growth among our trading partners will affect New Zealand’s prospects. Economists are currently forecasting that New Zealand’s economy will slow from what we have experienced, and these forecasts will continue to be updated as new data comes in. But despite a declining outlook for the global economy, New Zealand does find itself in one of the strongest positions in the world to support New Zealanders as we navigate our way through these uncertain times.

Question No. 3—Housing

3. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister of Housing: Is she satisfied with the Government’s progress on accessible public housing?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yes. As already outlined, the Government is committed to ensuring that at least 15 percent of Kāinga Ora new-build public homes will include universal design features. We’re the first Government in New Zealand’s history to have a target for accessible public homes, and we’re delivering, building more homes that include full universal design features than ever before. The Government intends to deliver at least 1,000 fully universally designed homes by the end of the public housing plan, around half of which will be completed by the end of this financial year, with the remaining homes being delivered the following year. We’re making good progress and will continue working towards Labour’s target of 25 percent of new builds with universal design features to ensure that our public housing portfolio meets the needs of disabled people in New Zealand.

Jan Logie: What feedback, if any, has she received about disabled people’s satisfaction with accessible housing targets and progress towards them?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The feedback that I have received in my capacity as the Minister of Housing and Urban Development is that they’re pleased that there finally is a Government that has a strategy in place, that has targets, and is actually delivering homes that are meeting full universal design features.

Jan Logie: Is it true that Kāinga Ora’s full universal design standard allows for homes to be built without step-free entrances?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: That is not my understanding. I think it is important to understand the proportion of new builds that are going through in terms of the universal design feature. There are a number of homes that we do not include in the 15 percent target that meet some of the elements of universal design but cannot be deemed meeting full universal design features, nor does it include the retrofits of existing properties. So I’d have to look at the details of the particular property that the member is talking about.

Jan Logie: Is it true most international standards relating to universal design, including the New Zealand Lifemark standard, require at least one step-free entrance into the home now and not in the future, which is what is in the full universal design standard of Kāinga Ora?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I repeat to the member: the 15 percent target is meeting the full New Zealand universal design feature. As I said, there are properties that do not meet that threshold and are not included in that figure.

Jan Logie: Does she agree that it is unacceptable to deprioritise disabled people’s needs and rights in order to save Government money, and if so, will she ensure Kāinga Ora does not remove accessibility improvements from their retrofit programme?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, of course I believe that it is important that we’re providing housing for disabled peoples. That is why we are the first Government in New Zealand’s history to have a strategy and a delivery of homes that meet the needs of our disabled peoples.

Jan Logie: Will she ensure Kāinga Ora does not remove accessibility improvements from their retrofit programme?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The accessibility improvements in our retrofit programme will continue. Whether or not that meets universal design standards is something that we need to continue to consider, because, of course, the cost of doing a retrofit is much higher than actually building it into new builds. One of the challenges that we face is that for a 10-year period between 2007 and 2017, there was not a renewal programme for the 45,000 Kāinga Ora—then Housing New Zealand—houses that needed renewal. We’re on a much steeper slope of having to do those renewal costs, and I would point out to the member that the maintenance cost of a new home is $4,000 a year for Kāinga Ora as opposed to $12,000 for one that has not gone through the renewal process. This is costing Kāinga Ora about $70 million a year across our whole portfolio. So not only are we paying for the damage done in not building new houses or selling houses but not renewing the stock we had; it’s costing more in operating funding.

Question No. 4—Building and Construction

4. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What progress is being made to reduce critical shortages in the supply of plasterboard?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Building and Construction): Since forming the task force last month to help resolve the plasterboard shortage, good progress is being made. There are now four alternative plasterboard products that meet the requirements of the building code—three of which meet standards for fire, water, and, importantly, bracing. The fourth meets fire and water, and bracing will be included in the 5 August update on the guidance. This will reduce any reluctance to specify them in plans or approve their use in building consents and product substitutions. There are now also 12 importers of plasterboard—four of whom are new entrants. And about 100 containers are currently on their way to New Zealand, holding approximately 220,000 square metres of plasterboard—enough for around 440 complete homes. These containers will be arriving in the coming weeks. We know there is more work to be done, but I want to thank the members of the task force for working at pace to provide significant progress on this problem.

Jamie Strange: What actions has the Government taken to improve the availability and ability to use alternative plasterboard products?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: On Friday, a step-by-step product substitution guide for plasterboard merchants and builders is being rolled out to enable switching to alternatives. This kind of practical guidance is what is needed to provide confidence to the market. I’ve also written to building-consent authorities, today, to ensure their organisations are engaged on the issue and freely allowing product substitutions.

Jamie Strange: What else has the Government done to encourage more plasterboard alternatives to enter the New Zealand market?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We heard from the task force members that one of the challenges importers faced was having confidence that there would be demand for alternatives, given the historical dominance of Gib in New Zealand. To help provide confidence of future demand, stimulate additional imports, and take pressure of domestic supply chains, Kāinga Ora (KO) is procuring alternative plasterboard product for its retrofit programme. This means that over the next 12 months of retrofits—about 400 houses’ worth—the KO supply agreement is in place already, and the first product is expected to be going into KO homes in August, leaving more in the market for others and underpinning confidence in how easily alternative products can be substituted.

Jamie Strange: What feedback has she received on progress to date?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’ve heard about the importance of making product substitution easier from task force member and developers, like Shane Brealey of New Zealand, who is quoted in the media as saying, “As far as taskforces go, it’s already been effective in terms of what it’s charged to do. We’ve been working well with MBIE [and its] been very helpful,” and “This is about making sure territorial authorities understand what equivalent products should be accepted—not so much removing the word Gib from consent documents.” I’ve also heard positive feedback from the sector, including half of the respondents to an MBIE survey stating they were confident or very confident when making decisions on plasterboard substitutions. We want to see that number further improve.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with ANZ that “high inflation is likely to remain with us for some time yet”; if so, does he still stand by his May statement that “the short term challenge of inflation is significant”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The context of ANZ’s comment was in a note that said that the 7.3 percent Consumers Price Index (CPI) reading for the June quarter would be the peak in inflation and that the annual CPI would fall back to within the 1 to 3 percent target band in the December 2023 quarter. I do agree that this is generally where various forecasters, including ANZ, currently sit. In response to the second part of the member’s question, I repeat what I said to her when she asked that question of me previously: “The challenge of inflation is particularly harsh in the short term because we are seeing a spike that is decades high. The Treasury forecast that the spike will come off in the second half of 2022, and then, as the member states, go back to the 1 to 3 percent band by 2025. None of that takes away from the pressure that puts on households now and into the future, and that is why the Government is supporting them.”, and I do stand by that. It is worth noting that we can take away from these two statements that ANZ’s latest CPI forecast has inflation coming back into the 1 to 3 percent band a year earlier than the Treasury was forecasting in May.

Nicola Willis: Does he agree with the Governor of the Reserve Bank that the Monetary Policy Committee’s decisions over recent years have influenced a 32-year high in New Zealand’s inflation rate, and will he endorse calls by MPs across Parliament for a select committee inquiry into the economic response to COVID-19?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is not my practice to comment particularly on the specific statements of the Reserve Bank Governor. Obviously, he is a member of that Monetary Policy Committee and he is speaking on behalf of them.

Nicola Willis: Does he stand by his statement in September last year that a more comprehensive evaluation of the economic response to COVID-19 should be considered, and, if so, why won’t he support an inquiry into the response?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I do stand by that statement, and as the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, there will be a time and a place for a comprehensive overview of the Government’s response. Right now, however, is not that time and place. What I would, however, note to the member is the many, many occasions on which the Reserve Bank and others have been in front of both her on the Finance and Expenditure Committee and also the Epidemic Response Committee. There are many occasions—perhaps more than a dozen occasions—when that has happened, so it’s not that the response has been without scrutiny. At some point, an overview will be warranted.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Minister stand by his statement in December 2021, in response to my questions at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, that a review of the COVID economic response is “an ongoing process”, and, if so, does he think that that process could benefit from being transparent and open in, say, a parliamentary inquiry in front of a select committee with representation from all parties?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I do stand by that statement. There are a number of organisations and entities that have looked at the Government’s response both from an economic and a fiscal point of view. As I noted, the Finance and Expenditure Committee has had many opportunities to do that over recent times and will have more. There will be a time for an overview of the whole approach, and that time will come soon, I’m sure.

Nicola Willis: When will it be the right time and place for a full evaluation of the economic response, and can he confirm that he intends to kick for touch until after the election?

SPEAKER: Order! The member had at least four questions in there.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I’ve already said, I’m sure that time will come, but the committee that the member is part of has had numerous opportunities. If she doesn’t feel that she’s been able to get across the points that she wanted to on, for instance, 9 December 2020, 10 February 2021, 25 February 2021, 27 May 2021, 19 August 2021, 3 November 2021, 25 November 2021, 15 December 2021, 24 February 2022, 5 May 2022, or 26 May 2022, the member will have other opportunities.

Nicola Willis: Doesn’t the Minister think it’s a little disingenuous to say that a 45-minute session with the Reserve Bank Governor, dominated by questions from Government members, is a full evaluation of the Reserve Bank’s response, and when will he kick off a full evaluation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have full confidence in the Finance and Expenditure Committee to do their job.

SPEAKER: Order! This member has at least another three supplementaries on this—two extras—as a result of the noise from the Government backbench.

Nicola Willis: Does he agree with Treasury’s assessment in March that while there are one-off elements to inflation, there is also a widespread inflation dynamic that risks becoming persistent, and what is he doing to stop it becoming persistent?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I certainly agree that the way that inflation has been playing out over the course of this year does bear the scrutiny that the Reserve Bank is giving it. The member knows that monetary policy is the main tool by which any administration looks after inflation. From a fiscal policy point of view, we stand by the responses we made to COVID and we stand by the fact that as we move forward from here, Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP will return to the long-run average of 30 percent. We had to do what we had to do during COVID, and the member and members opposite asked us to do that and, on occasion, asked us to do significantly more than that.

Nicola Willis: Does he agree with Treasury that inflation accelerates the process of fiscal drag, where workers are dragged into higher tax brackets even if their real incomes haven’t increased, and will he take action to stop Kiwis being fleeced twice by inflation—once by high prices and again by the tax department?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What we will do is ensure that Government spending continues to support New Zealanders through a very difficult and challenging time, and balance that about making sure that we keep levels of net debt as they are—among the lowest in the developed world—and that we return the books to surplus in 2024-25 year, a year ahead of when National did that after the global financial crisis, and that Government spending will return to 30 percent of GDP. These things need to be balanced out.

Hon David Parker: Point of order, Mr Speaker. You awarded the National Party three extra supplementaries. Given that there were five legs to that last supplementary, could you provide guidance as to whether they’ve been used?

SPEAKER: I’m living in hope that members will work out that supplementary questions should only have two legs and that Ministers only need to answer one of those two legs. I think in an earlier five-legged question, the Minister managed to give a very full answer to one of them, so I’ll leave it to him. The member has one more supplementary. I would just love it if she could get it in order.

Nicola Willis: Has he seen a recent survey of New Zealand business owners which found that 70 percent said they had no confidence in the current Government and its ability to steer the country through the economic downturn, and will he listen to those businesses or will he continue to reject their concerns?

SPEAKER: Again, three at least.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t believe I’ve seen that particular survey. What I have, however, done over the course of the last 2½ years is work very closely with New Zealand businesses to make sure that we as a Government supported them to get through one of the most difficult times in New Zealand’s economic history. I know that that has been appreciated. I know that they have been hard through that period—they’ve been tough—and we’ve supported them to do that. They definitely haven’t been soft, Mr Luxon.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Finance: Why did the Crown provide an indemnity to the Reserve Bank against losses from the Large-Scale Asset Purchase programme, and what is the Crown’s maximum liability that it could be forced to pay the bank as a result of the programme?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Large Scale Asset Purchase (LSAP) programme was part of a range of measures that the Reserve Bank took in the early stages of 2020. This was done as part of a coordinated fiscal and monetary policy response to the pressing economic conditions that New Zealand and the global economy was facing at the time. The steps that we took to support the economy in the teeth of that crisis were crucial to New Zealand’s strong economic recovery from COVID-19. The indemnity was recommended by Treasury because the policy was seen to be in the public interest and to ensure that the policy could be implemented. Interest rates have shifted since that time and, as with our fiscal response, there are costs associated with the measures that the Reserve Bank took. The latest estimates from Treasury of this cost are around $8.46 billion. However, the economic and social costs of not providing that support at the time is something that the member might want to reflect on. The specifics of the indemnity are not set in dollar terms; rather, the limits of the indemnity are set by the percentage of bonds on issue in the period of time in which purchases can be made. With the benefit of hindsight, the member may disagree with decisions that were taken in 2020, but that is a privilege of those who did not have to make those decisions at the time.

David Seymour: With the benefit of hindsight, does the Minister, who did make the decision, regret putting taxpayers on the hook for nearly $5,000 per household, making good the indemnity he gave the Reserve Bank to buy $54 billion of Government bonds, which he then spent?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I do not regret the decision that we made. We made the decision because the economic and social costs of not making that decision looked to be things like a 10 percent unemployment rate and more than $100 billion going out of the New Zealand economy. The member may have 2020 hindsight or be Nostradamus and be able to predict what interest rates might have been two years from March 2020. We weren’t in that position. I back the decisions we took.

David Seymour: Does the Minister agree with the Reserve Bank that “New Zealand Government bond yields were at least 0.5 percent and potentially more than 1 percent lower than they would have been without the LSAP programme.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in answer to an earlier question, I don’t tend to comment on the Reserve Bank forecasts in that regard. They are in a position to make those forecasts. I’d want to contrast them with other economic commentators before I made any specific comment on that.

David Seymour: Did the Minister receive advice on the cost of Government borrowing without the Large Scale Asset Purchase programme, and, if so, was it the case that he promised the taxpayer would indemnify the Reserve Bank against any losses to reduce the interest costs of his Government’s spending?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, in answer to the second part of the question, because the reason that we did put the indemnity in place was to make sure that a policy that was regarded as being important to ensure the New Zealand economy withstood a one-in-100-year economic shock was able to be implemented.

David Seymour: Has the finance Minister had any advice on how much money was made by brokers who bought Government bonds off the Government’s Debt Management Office and then sold them to the Reserve Bank under the Large Scale Asset Purchase programme, and, if so, can he confirm it was over $200 million in profit and that many of the transactions were bought and sold in the same week?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the question, I do not recall any such advice, but I would have to go back and check. What I would say to the member is that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand was not alone in undertaking alternative monetary policy responses to this crisis—the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the Bank of Canada. In the case of the latter two, they also had indemnities from Government.

Question No. 7—Immigration

7. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Immigration: What recent reports has he seen about critical workforce support for Kiwi businesses?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): I continue to receive updates across the range of initiatives the Government has under way to address the immediate skill shortages in New Zealand and speed up our economic recovery. Since April 2020, through the critical purpose work visa, we’ve approved visas for nearly 38,000 people across a range of critical workforces. Through this visa, nearly 6,000 critical health workers have entered the country to bolster the health workforce and support our COVID response. Through the residency 2021 programme, a total of 73,291 people currently onshore have been approved for residency and, from Monday next week, New Zealand will fully reopen to tourist, visitor and student visas from around the world, marking the final step in our process of reconnecting New Zealand with the world. The Government’s doing the work to make sure that New Zealand is well positioned to speed up our economic recovery, address worker shortages, and set up our immigration system for a sustainable future.

Marja Lubeck: How do these measures address global workforce challenges?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: There’s no doubt that New Zealand, like other countries, is facing challenges in filling skill gaps in some key industries, brought about as a result of the global pandemic and low unemployment, and also as a result of past under-investment in skills training and an overreliance on low-paid migrant labour over recent decades. Through the immigration rebalance, we’ve carefully designed a system that provides pathways to residence for a range of critical roles, while simplifying and streamlining settings, and ensuring that wages and working conditions for migrant workers are decent and fair. This is a Government that’s focused on lifting wages and conditions for all workers and, in doing so, making New Zealand a more attractive destination to live and work.

Marja Lubeck: How is the Government supporting the New Zealand workforce through the high quality investment for migrants?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Last week, the Government announced changes to New Zealand’s investor visa settings to attract experienced, high-value investors, and bring growth opportunities to domestic businesses by incentivising active investment into New Zealand. Active investment generates more high-skill jobs and economic growth, compared to passive investment under the previous settings. This new visa category will also leverage the skills, experience and networks of migrants, who will bring their access to global networks and global markets to help Kiwi companies grow faster and smarter, and create jobs for New Zealanders.

Erica Stanford: Can the Minister confirm that only one nurse has applied for a visa under the new green list settings since the announcement in May?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I can update the member and the House that, under the job check settings, under the Accredited Employer Work Visa, there have been a total of 1,064 applications for health workers received and, over the last week or so, 137 of them have been approved including—I’m advised as of today—one batch of 50 nurses.

Question No. 8—Health

8. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: How many people, if any, waited longer than four months to see a specialist, and how many, if any, waited longer than four months for surgery, in the 12 months to June 30 this year?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I’ve been advised that as at 31 May this year, 35,522 are recorded as waiting longer than four months for a first specialist appointment, and 27,356 people are recorded as waiting longer than four months for treatment. For completeness, over the last three years, there have been increases and decreases in the planned-care waiting lists because of the way COVID-19 has affected the country. For example, after the response to the initial outbreak in 2020, we saw waiting times increase because of lockdowns. Then, as restrictions eased, waiting times reduced. Then, following the Delta and Omicron and outbreaks, waiting times increased. As hospitals have responded to the worst flu season in living memory this winter, waiting times have continued to increase. To address this issue, the planned-care task force, set up earlier this year, has provided initial advice on steps hospitals can take to reduce waiting lists. That initial advice is now reflected in a directive from the Chief Executive of Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand to district and regional directors last week, requiring immediate action to, amongst other things, identify the patients waiting longer than 12 months for their first specialist appointment; to make sure that they receive an appointment, in order of clinical priority, by 30 September this year; create significant capacity by eliminating unnecessary follow ups; actively use outsourced and out-placed theatre, endoscopy, and radiology capacity to maximise care over the winter period; and, where practical, offering patients the opportunity to receive their care outside their local district.

Dr Shane Reti: Does he stand by his answer to written questions showing the wait list for surgery had already increased by thousands, or over 600 percent, in this Government’s first two years in office, before COVID-19 even arrived?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I refer the member to my answer to his primary question which is that waiting times have fluctuated over the last few years. But there is no question that COVID-19 has had a hugely detrimental impact on the ability of our hospital system to schedule people their planned care as they would wish to have it.

Dr Shane Reti: Does he believe he’s doing a good job in health when revelations from the New Zealand Nurses Organisation today said that, in an overall effort to manage wait lists, Dunedin Hospital called in student nurses who “were unlikely to have been on a hospital ward before.”, and then paid for their work with supermarket vouchers?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Two points on that. Once upon a time, 20 or so years ago, all student nurses spent most of their time working in a hospital—that’s how we trained our nurses. We spend more time training nurses in polytechs now, but, actually, the critical element of their learning is to spend time in a hospital while they qualify to get their registration. The second point is, and I’ve made it clear, if anybody is employed in a hospital to do the work of a healthcare assistant, and we have many of them in our hospital system, they should be paid as a healthcare assistant.

Dr Shane Reti: How, then, can New Zealanders have any confidence in his leadership of their healthcare system when one of these students was quoted as saying, “Honestly, I felt very unprepared for this shift—I had no idea what I was doing.”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I refer the member to my previous answer, in that, once upon a time, all nurses, all people training to be nurses, before they got their registration, worked in hospitals and did extensive hours in hospital—that’s the way we trained nurses. And, in fact, that is the way we continue to train some nurses, too. Probably one of the most common comments I get from a lot of people, including registered nurses, is: why we can’t get more enrolled nurses? And I think that’s a very important suggestion that we can pick up on. But, if the member is asking what I am pleased about in the time that I’ve been Minister of Health, I am very pleased to have led reforms in a system that means that we can now do what we could never do before, which was coordinate and get in behind the hospital management to actually address the longstanding problems, which, right now, includes growing waiting lists.

Dr Shane Reti: Is the President of the New Zealand Orthopaedic Association correct when he states “The number of people waiting for elective surgery [is] much worse than the numbers released by the Government”, or is he speaking with the same forked tongue that the Minister accused the Nurses Organisation—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will now apologise.

Dr Shane Reti: I apologise.

Question No. 9—Justice

9. Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) to the Minister of Justice: What legislation is the Government progressing to reduce delays in the Family Court?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): The Government is committed to improving access to justice. It’s one of our primary objectives. The Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill was introduced in the House on 5 July 2022, and it establishes a new role in the Family Court to help free up judge time to enable judges to focus on progressing case work and progressing substantive matters more quickly. The bill is based on one of the recommendations made in the 2019 report Te Korowai Ture ā-Whānau, which found that judges’ high administrative workload was a contributor to delays in the Family Court. So we want Family Court judges to be able to concentrate on progressing cases through the court instead of on time-consuming administrative matters, and the Family Court Associate roles will help them to do just that.

Dr Emily Henderson: What will these changes mean for those going through the Family Court process?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Delay in the Family Court can have negative effects on parents and their tamariki, including uncertainty, stress, and deepening parental conflict that can have long-term mental health impacts on children. The Family Court Associate will take on work at the early stages of proceedings in administrative work known as “box work”—for example, appointing a lawyer for child or a lawyer to assist the court in various interlocutory matters. By taking on some of the judges’ workload, this new role will help reduce delay and its harmful effects, with the Ministry of Justice estimating that the Family Court Associate role will save up to 25 percent of judicial time.

Dr Emily Henderson: What other work is under way to improve the Family Court system?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Work on the Government response to Te Korowai Ture ā-Whānau report is well advanced, including the reinstatement of legal representation in the early stages of a Care of Children Act 2004 proceeding in the Family Court, establishing the Kaiārahi - Family Court Navigator role to help parents and whānau to navigate the family justice system, increasing lawyer for child remuneration to support the retention of skilled practitioners, giving children and young people better opportunities to participate in decision making which affects them, and a multi-year work programme to improve the court experience for people affected by family violence and sexual violence. Budget 2022 also provided a significant and transformative investment of $148.7 million over four years into the legal aid system to improve access to justice, including the Family Court.

Question No. 10—Education

10. PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement regarding the Te Pūkenga forecast deficit of $110 million, “I’ve also been clear the projected deficit was too high and that more work needed to be done there”; if so, what work has been done to reduce the deficit?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes, I stand by the quote in the full context in which it was made, which included me going on to say that the approach that we inherited would lock in deficits and not fix underlying issues. Under the old model, long-term deficits were projected. My concern about Te Pūkenga’s projected deficit is shared by the leadership of the organisation. They’ve already taken the following actions to reduce the deficit: hiring restrictions have been put in place across the group, a directive has been put in place for subsidiaries to put in place cost mitigation strategies and prudent cost control measures, a central review of procurement is being undertaken to establish what additional savings can be achieved, and further work is being undertaken to improve the financial reporting and the accuracy of the forecasts that are produced to identify further areas of savings. The acting chief executive is keeping me regularly informed, and I’m encouraged by the conversations we’ve had so far.

Penny Simmonds: Does the Minister consider a nationwide launch of Te Pūkenga branding at a cost of over $20 million would be a good use of taxpayer money?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member’s figures include regular marketing that would have taken place regardless of which brand it was undertaken under.

Penny Simmonds: Does the Minister consider Te Pūkenga’s contract with ad agency Clemenger BBDO of between $3.3 and $4.5 million is a good use of taxpayer money?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, I think the member raises a really good illustration of the kind of efficiencies that Te Pūkenga can gain by operating nationally. Each individual polytech used to do its own marketing, going and contracting its own marketing agencies; now they can actually get better value for money by doing it across the country.

Penny Simmonds: Will the Minister rule out hundreds of redundancies in the polytechnics as a means of realising Te Pūkenga’s acting chief executive Peter Winder’s comment, “The organisation is identifying significant savings.”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I fully expect the organisation to be identifying significant savings that can be made. And we do need to acknowledge the fact that there has been a significant downturn in the number of students that are enrolled in the provider-based arm of Te Pūkenga at the moment. There have, however, been increases in the number of students who have been enrolled in work-based training, so there will be probably additional employment opportunities in that area. I do expect Te Pūkenga will be making changes in that regard to reflect the changing enrolment patterns that they’re seeing.

Penny Simmonds: What is the Minister’s response to comments from former deputy chief executive of Te Pūkenga Merran Davis, “I have no confidence in the current leadership to fix problems given where things are at.”, and, “It’s like everyone is in Disneyland.”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The individual concerned is one who I have a lot of respect for. I think she did a very good job at Unitec when she picked up the reins after a massive financial crisis was left behind there by the outgoing National Government.

Simeon Brown: It’s a Mickey Mouse outfit.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think the member might reflect on what he just called a Mickey Mouse outfit.

Question No. 11—Police

11. NICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Minister of Police: Is he satisfied with the Police’s firearms administration ability, given there were over 3,000 licensed firearms owners waiting at least four months for their licence renewals in June 2022, and does he believe that licensed firearms owners should be satisfied with these wait times too?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): While I’ve got confidence in the Police’s ability to manage the current wait list, I acknowledge that for some law-abiding firearms licence holders, the delays they’re currently experiencing are frustrating and they shouldn’t have to be satisfied with that. We do need to get our licensing regime to one that’s timely, fair, and, frankly, that’s operating in a 21st century manner, and there is still more work to do. I acknowledge that there is also an important job to be done in clearing the current backlog before we see a significant increase in demand over the coming years as a result of the move to 10-year licensing some time ago.

Nicole McKee: Is he aware that some pistol owners are prevented from fulfilling their legal requirement to attend a pistol club 12 times a year, because they are having to wait so long for Police to renew their endorsement?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I thank the member for her question. I am aware that there are some issues with the delays. That is something that I’ve been in conversations with the Police about, particularly around how they can better triage licence applications so that where there’s a pressing need—for example, where it is difficult for people to comply where there’s an employment-related reason—for the firearms renewal to be fast tracked, they are doing that. I’ve certainly been having those conversations with the Police.

Nicole McKee: Is he comfortable with the idea of licensed firearms owners taking their guns out of their safes, placing them in the boot of their car, and having them drive around the country to store them in the safes of other licensed firearms owners, to avoid breaking the law because the expiry means they’re no longer allowed to store them themselves?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That is an issue that I’m concerned about and it is one that I’ve been having conversations with the Police about.

Nicole McKee: Does he accept that these delays are causing a significant number of licensed firearms owners to unwillingly break the law and may well increase the chances of firearms falling into criminal hands?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do accept that at the moment the Police are under a lot of pressure when it comes to firearms licence renewals and new applications as well, and that is a result of the decisions that this Parliament has made to make it more difficult for people to get firearms licences and to have their licences renewed. We did that for some very, very good reasons, but we also have to get the balance right, and I acknowledge that at the moment the current delays that people are experiencing are not something that we should be willing to accept and that we should be striving to ensure that the delays are cleared as quickly as we can and that we get the system to one where licence applications and renewals are processed in a timely manner so that people don’t experience those sorts of delays in the future.

Nicole McKee: Will he consider issuing firearms licence extensions, as the Government did previously because of delays due to COVID-19?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I wouldn’t rule those sorts of measures out at this point.

Question No. 12—Emergency Management

12. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister for Emergency Management: How is NEMA (National Emergency Management Agency) helping to build a safe and resilient New Zealand which is ready to respond to emergencies?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): May I begin by acknowledging the emergency management professionals and volunteers that have been working hard to support communities through the severe weather events of the past week. I must also acknowledge the impact that this severe weather has had on individuals, businesses, and farming communities. I’ve been in contact with the mayors of the affected districts, who are reporting that their local emergency management operations are responding well. Our emergency management system has been strengthened in recent years, with the National Emergency Management Agency leading the work to put people and communities at the heart of our system and decision making. The Government has substantially increased NEMA’s ability to support New Zealand communities in the event of natural disasters and other emergencies.

Tāmati Coffey: What steps has the Government taken to protect New Zealand from significant emergency events?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: In addition to establishing the National Geohazards Monitoring Centre, deploying a network of Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis buoys to provide early warning of tsunamis and storm surges, establishing emergency management assistant teams who can be flown around the country to provide support to local responses, rolling out the Emergency Mobile Alerts system, and opening NEMA’s 24/7 Monitoring, Alerting and Reporting Centre. We are also improving Kiwis’ preparedness in the event of a tsunami with the launch of Aotearoa’s first nationwide tsunami evacuation map. This map enables Kiwis to enter their address to find out if they are in a tsunami evacuation zone, and where to go to stay safe. It then provides in-depth local evacuation information. This is the first time we’ve had a single map of this kind for the whole country.

Tāmati Coffey: What feedback has the Minister received from rural and provincial councils on the emergency management system?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I’ve recently made visits to 22 rural and provincial councils and will have met with all 55 by early October. A consistent message I’ve been hearing is that emergency resilience is top of mind for rural communities, particularly in the face of increasingly frequent severe weather events. Mayors and councillors have emphasised how much they value the strong working relationship they have with NEMA and with their locally-based teams. It is important to note that when emergencies occur the Government is quick to respond through support to the mayoral relief fund. This supports communities with rapid access to funding for their immediate needs. And we continue to monitor, even after the weather event passes, so that we can be aware of the full extent of the impact on communities. It is critical that we continue to build up NEMA’s capability to support people and communities through these emergencies.

General Debate

General Debate

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

In 1996, the co-president of the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations (NZUSA) stood by tertiary students performing sham marriages so that they could access student allowances. He said—and I quote—“We do not encourage these marriages for allowances, but for many it is the only viable option that they have.”, going on to say, “Only 37 percent of full-time students get any kind of allowance. The main culprit here is the National Government’s absurd means-testing programme.” That student president, of course, grew up to become the Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson. In 1996, he was worried that just 37 percent of full-time students were getting any kind of allowance, and, in 2021, under his Government, it’s even fewer, at 27 percent. He was concerned specifically about students being means tested on their parents’ combined gross income until they were 25 years old. His historic Labour Government majority keeps that rule in place to this day.

Minister Robertson, however, is not alone in once arguing that the Government was forcing and keeping students in poverty. In mid-2001, then Victoria University of Wellington Students’ Association president Chris Hipkins sent out a press release titled “Student Debt Sets to Cripple New Zealand”. Figures had been released under the Official Information Act showing Government estimates for student loans had nearly doubled from a 1999 projection of hitting $11.6 billion in 2020 to $19.4 billion. In fact, in 2020, student debt landed between those projections, at $16.1 billion. That student advocate would go on to become our Minister of Education. But, at the time, he lamented—and I quote—“The current generation of politicians are mortgaging the future of our country. The burden of this will not only be felt by students who graduate with large debts, but also by the future taxpayers of New Zealand who will be left to clean up the mess … If we are to get this debt under control fees must come down and access to living allowances will have to increase”. Yet in the final Budget of his first ministerial term, Labour would break their election promise of reinstating post-graduate student allowance and extending fees-free, citing the need to tighten the fiscal belt; the Government, at the same time, signing off an historic Budget, nearly 10 times larger and tens of billions of dollars more than they had anticipated pre - COVID-19.

Once upon a time in a galaxy not all too far, far away, tertiary education was recognised as a public good. Students were supported to study because their education was our education; their success was the progress of this country. Those who ended up making more money, on the other side, paid it back through higher tax settings; in turn, investing in education and support for those who came afterwards to flourish. All of this, of course, changed in the 1980s and 1990s, an era of slash-and-burn economic reforms intent on instilling corporate sensibility and cost cutting in our supposedly public institutions. These were political decisions. Political decisions keep these rules in place and political decisions can change these rules once again.

Last week, the Greens, NZUSA, Te Mana Ākonga, Tauira Pasifika, and the National Disabled Students’ Association released the findings of our People’s Inquiry into Student Wellbeing, along with 30 other student associations across Aotearoa. It’s grim. Two-thirds of students regularly do not have enough money to buy food, clothing, pay bills, buy groceries, access healthcare, or other basics. They are spending nearly 60 percent of their weekly income on rent—double the accepted affordable housing ballpark of 30 percent. These are the strained learning conditions of the New Zealanders that we so desperately need to become our teachers, our social workers, our health professionals, our researchers, and more.

As VUWSA president Andrew Little put it, back in his 1996 op-ed for Salient—and I quote—“Neither the Labour Party nor the National Party have yet made decisions about the future of tertiary education and education funding, and it’s important to maintain the pressure on both sides to influence their decisions.” As Otago University student president Ayesha Verrall stated in 2001, “This [Labour] government [has] a mandate to remedy a tertiary sector education in crisis. Instead the barriers to education continue to mount”. Or as VUWSA president Chris Hipkins warned that same year, “We’ve had enough of broken promises by politicians. It’s time for the Labour Government to put their money where their mouth was before the election. Ministers, the buck stops here, and 400,000 students are standing by.”

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister): Mahalo, aloha, talofa, and warm Te Puke greetings to you all. Former Labour leader Mike Moore used to joke that if you can fake authenticity, you’ve got it made. Sadly, Christopher Luxon didn’t realise it was a joke; he took it as an instruction. I’ve got bad news for the Leader of the Opposition: Kiwis can sniff that out a mile away. That’s why, when someone says abortion is tantamount to murder and then decides to soothe your fears by saying nothing will change, that person drops 5 percent in the preferred PM ratings. When he says that he will increase health spending by at least inflation each year, Kiwis remember what actually happened when National were last in Government, when the value of health spending went backwards. But that lack of authenticity reached new heights yesterday. It was obvious that, for whatever reason, Christopher Luxon wanted New Zealanders to think he was in Te Puke and not Hawaii. And it is true; they are easily confused.

Mr Luxon and I are both children of the 1970s and 1980s, that golden era when New Zealand had two TV channels and a ratio of sheep to people to make anyone scared. We grew up with TV shows set in exotic locations: Magnum, P.I., Hawaii Five-O, Close to Home. All these shows made rural Bay of Plenty look marvellous—no wonder Mr Luxon dreamt of holidays on the sun-drenched beaches of State Highway 33. In the morning yesterday, when confronted with his mysterious time and hemisphere bending, Mr Luxon finally said what his social media posts did not: “I went to Hawaii in July, as I tend to do.” I’m not exactly sure how relatable that is. In July, I tend to remember that I haven’t cleaned the guttering out and that’s why there’s a massive waterfall going down my property, but each to their own.

The sad thing for the National Party is that this latest outbreak of “foot in mouth” is not the first of the brief but memorable tenure of the National leader. Just to run through a few highlights: “Abortion is tantamount to murder.”, “Low-income people are bottom feeders.”, “Let’s get rid of Labour Day.”, “Sam Uffindell is bringing what’s missing from the National caucus: intellect.”, and “New Zealanders have gone soft.” The last few weeks have been a study in what is, and what is not, leadership. Leadership is not what we have seen from Mr Luxon, going overseas and telling an audience at a right-wing thinktank what he thinks they want to hear and slagging off your own country. Leadership is what the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, showed over the recess, getting out there signing free-trade agreements, leading business delegations, and getting the first positive movement in decades on the rights of New Zealanders in Australia. The contrast could not be clearer.

For me, in the recess, as I tend to do in July, I got stuck into some reading. And I can summarise this book, Blue Blood, by Andrea Vance, for the busy among you: John got bored and left, the kids started fighting, Chris Finlayson overestimated David Bennett—English, Bridges, Muller, Collins, etc.—Christopher Luxon becomes the leader. At one point, National sources tell the author that John Key’s influence on Christopher Luxon meant that, with Luxon becoming leader, it gave the feeling that daddy’s home. Now, leaving aside the weird, creepy elements of that, I think daddy is going to be sorely disappointed. A few years ago, I was in Hong Kong—or maybe it was Hamilton; it’s hard to know, in any case—someone approached me and tried to sell me a designer bag. I asked if it was fake. The person said, “No, it’s a genuine copy.”

Christopher Luxon is the genuine John Key copy: the fake Gucci bag of a leader fading in the sunlight. Under a bit of pressure, the weak stitching is fraying, the gold lettering is flaking away, but, as Andrea Vance says, it seems not to matter that, in all of this, the National Party has lost its soul. Mr Luxon wrote poetically, and a little bizarrely, of becoming leader that we should not allow the future to happen to us, but we should happen to the future. Well, I think it’s Back to the Future for the National Party, because the book ends chillingly: “Pragmatism and a desire to win may paper over cracks, but if Luxon’s momentum fails and an impatient caucus looks around for another silver bullet, they will not have to search far. Waiting in the wings is another disciple of Key in Nicola Willis. ‘Willis is there thinking about her future,’ a senior MP says. ‘She is deeply tactical.’ ”

As I tend to do in July, and in most other months, I look forward to the next chapter from the National Party. Surf’s up—the Te Puke Bypass has been built.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): There is only one person in New Zealand who will not acknowledge there is a health crisis, and that person is health Minister Andrew Little. Every other rational person can see there is clearly a health crisis, but from the Minister’s Wellington office, he cannot.

So let’s see what those at the coalface are saying. Nurses: the New Zealand Nurses Organisation surveyed its members last week, reporting it gave its members the opportunity in response to health Minister Andrew Little’s persistent assertions that there is no health crisis and that the system as a whole is coping. The 99 percent of responding members said the system was either in crisis or already beyond crisis. The New Zealand Nurses Organisation is reporting today that student nurses—some who are unlikely to have been on a hospital ward before—were paid with food vouchers. It has also reported that one of the students was hit. This is wrong on many levels. Firstly, the New Zealand Nurses Organisation reports that their students receive inadequate orientation. The Minister’s suggestion that this is what enrolled nursing is like shows how out of touch he is. Enrolled nursing is vastly different to this. Second, is it now a Government policy that nurses will not be paid wages and salary but instead will be paid with food vouchers, and where does this cross the boundary of work for payment versus volunteering? Thirdly, it is reported that some of the work was watch duty. The question arises: were unqualified students on watch duty for people who might harm them or maybe might even harm themselves? Minister Little, this is what a health crisis looks like.

Emergency department (ED) doctors: what are they saying? Those who are actually at the coalface. Twelve ED doctors from Palmerston North Hospital recently wrote to the Minister, saying, “There are people with major trauma, waiting for more than nine hours in wheelchairs.” ED doctors at Wairarapa Hospital recently said, “It is beyond a crisis; it is a catastrophe.” ED doctors at Waikato Hospital reported a crisis, and an elderly woman at North Shore Hospital waited outside in freezing conditions in a leaky tent. Minister Little, this is what a health crisis looks like.

Orthopaedic surgeons: their surgical waiting list has doubled in the last 10 months from 14,000 to roughly 28,000 today. A large contribution to that surgical waiting list is orthopaedics, so the orthopaedic surgeon should know a lot about surgical waiting lists. The president of the New Zealand Orthopaedic Association, surgeon John McKie, stated recently in a media release called “Elective Surgery Crisis”: (1) “We can’t blame COVID for the ballooning waiting lists”; (2) “The numbers of people waiting for elective surgery is much worse than the numbers released by the government.” Minister Little, this is what a health crisis looks like.

Here are some of the features of our health crisis. ED wait times are the worst in a decade. Two-hundred people, in April, waited more than 24 hours, and sometimes with tragic consequences. First specialist assessment: those who are waiting to even see a specialist are waiting more than four months—36,000. The surgical waiting list: those who have seen a specialist have been promised their surgery will be done in four months, doubling in the last 10 months. These are people with painful hips, painful knees. They struggle to walk to the toilet. They sleep at night with a bent knee because it’s so painful. These are people with cataracts who are slowly going blind. Mr Little, this is what a health crisis looks like.

And what has been the Minister’s response? To demean and disparage the hard-working health workforce, to tell nursing organisations that they speak with “forked tongue”, to tell experienced ED doctors that their data cannot be trusted, to tell ICU doctors that they have the figures wrong. This is what we are hearing from the current Minister. We know how we got here. We got here through incompetence in the first two years. The waiting lists were going up, ED wait times were struggling in the first two years, even before COVID arrived, and then, over that period—March 2020, roughly through for a year—we failed to build ICU beds. The safety valve, or the buffer, if you like, for ICU beds is waiting lists. When you want to protect the health system, you cancel waiting lists, and that’s what happened. A year ago, a workforce warning letter from 20 DHBs was ignored, and here we are now with health reforms and the distraction and redirection of financing. That’s how we come to be here.

What we need is a plan for how to get out of here. Our first thing that we could and should do is to give nurses the day one residency pathway to allow them to bring their skills and contribute to ask them to bring their skills and to contribute to the health workforce shortage that we have. Mr Little, in Wellington, you are not seeing from your office, but I’m telling you there is a health force crisis, and so is the rest of the sector.

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired. Before the next member takes her call, I just want to remind members of the procedures when members want to speak to each other. We’re not bound to our own seats, but an incident involving Ms Grigg and me admonishing her quietly, I think, needs to be made clear to all members. If members want to speak to another member, they can shift and sit next to them. They shouldn’t stand, crouch, or similar. But the other thing is that it is very impolite to do that in between the member who is speaking and the Chair. I think if members have urgent conversations, then they should either go to the lobby or go to the backbench. I think, that way, we keep a bit more decorum in the House.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Mr Speaker, mahalo. It is a pleasure to rise in this general debate and take a call. I do want to start with a question, in that if there was ever a week for Christopher Luxon to come to this House and not grill the Prime Minister on attendance, I would have thought this would have been it. When you have been caught misleading the country over where you have been, when you have been posting on social media, pretending to be in one place and you’re actually in another, it belies belief in leadership that Mr Luxon would come to this House and front up and take that as a sign of what a leader should ask another leadership.

There’s several kind of rules that I think that we should all, as politicians, accept, and one is actually not to bend the truth about where you are—is probably one of them. What we have to do is we all accept that politicians should take a break from this place. I think nobody is disputing that. Every politician should take the time to spend time with their friends and with their family. But I think New Zealanders expect politicians to be upfront and they expect them to be straight up with them about where they are. It speaks to integrity.

So in the “What was he thinking?” file, straight off, calling New Zealand businesses “soft”, on his travels, you need to think: what actually was Christopher Luxon thinking by pretending to be in Te Puke last week? One can only assume that there had to be a method; there had to be a reason behind someone doing this. Could it be because he was looking for the international headlines that he couldn’t get on his travels? Well, he succeeded, if we take that as the measure. Let’s have a look at the Sydney Morning Herald headline: “‘A Wonderful Time’: New Zealand politician, on a Hawaiian holiday, tells Kiwis he’s hard at work.” Check; you’ve achieved that. Or what he couldn’t achieve, arriving in London, arriving in the UK amidst a Tory leadership meltdown—couldn’t get a headline in The Times. Well, he cracked one this week: “Christopher Luxon: ‘Hard at work’ politician was on holiday in Hawaii”. So that’s the kind of headlines that are being generated. I guess it’s that and calling Kiwi businesses “soft” that will get Mr Luxon the headlines where he is looking for them.

We saw my colleague the Hon Grant Robertson, in two speeches prior, waving around that great tome by Andrea Vance—a very compelling read, probably good beach reading in Hawaii, I would imagine, too. But I think Mr Luxon should probably treat it as a historical document and realise the Shipley plotters were known as the “Te Kooti bypass”. It wasn’t Te Puke, Mr Luxon. So if you’re looking to firm up your leadership and shut down the plotting coups, it’s the wrong place in the North Island. So probably—

SPEAKER: No, the member’s risking misleading the House.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: OK. Ha, ha! Mr Speaker, you would know! But, I do want to turn to some serious things.

Hon Member: Do you really mean that?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Speaker is our elder statesman of our House and holds the chronicles of what has happened. But I do want to tend to some serious material where we do expect our leaders to show leadership, and that is on the matter of climate change. I would like to inform Mr Luxon that taking climate action isn’t pretending to travel fewer air miles, to be pretending not to go on a longer plane journey than you are, and pretending to be in Te Puke. It is about showing leadership. It is about integrity. It is about having a plan for how New Zealand is going to meet its global commitments.

I am still waiting to hear about that from the National Party. I am still waiting to know what the plan is. They’ve said they’ve signed up to the carbon budget. They’ve said they’re going to resume oil and gas exploration. They’ve said they won’t help businesses decarbonise. I guess that’s because they think that helping businesses decarbonise would be because businesses are soft. On this side of the House, we know that we have to be a Government that supports our industries and our businesses to ensure that we are taking real and meaningful action on climate change and making sure we are getting results—or outcomes, as Mr Luxon likes to call them.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Mr Speaker, thank you. Today, I’m thinking of our primary sector who are out working on our behalf in extreme weather conditions in many places. The primary sector is the core foundation of our nation, and it carries us through. It’s always carried us through history, but never more has it carried us through than the pandemic of the last 2½ years. And today, again, we heard Minister Robertson mentioning the primary sector, as he does every week when he gets asked the questions about the finances of our country, and we heard it again today. So today, I want to bring attention to those who are not aware and should be, because most of New Zealand should be aware by now, that we are on alert around foot-and-mouth disease.

Now, New Zealand’s foot-and-mouth response, according to Stuart Anderson, biosecurity director at the Ministry for Primary Industries, would be swift and drastic. I know that both the Minister and the Ministry for Primary Industries are totally focused on this issue at the moment, as they should be. They’ve said today a foot-and-mouth outbreak would be a national biosecurity emergency, and the response would be swift and drastic. The word “crisis” gets used in and out of this House a lot, but what we can all reassure the public of New Zealand is that if the foot-and-mouth outbreak came to this country, it would be a crisis. So Deputy Director-General for Biosecurity Stuart Anderson said they would test herds and they would destroy diseased animals immediately. It would all happen very quickly.

Now, it may seem to some people that it would be a repeat performance of the Mycoplasma bovis outbreak that we had just a small number of years ago, but, actually, it needs to be brought to the attention of the public that it would be far worse. So while Mycoplasma bovis was a devastating event for the farmers—it was a huge devastation to many farmers’ wellbeing, watching herds get culled, and I must say, commending the Ministry for Primary Industries in that they have got this under control, because in the early days there were huge doubts. But Mycoplasma bovis has only one other country where it wasn’t present, so it never became a trade issue. Foot-and-mouth disease would become a trade issue, and even if the disease was confined to a small part of New Zealand, the entire country would be, essentially, locked down within the first three days, and we know what that’s like.

So let’s join forces to ensure that it doesn’t get here. We know that a benign sample was found in Australia recently, and while it was benign, it is still far too close to home. And the difference between the spread of Mycoplasma bovis and foot-and-mouth disease is that Mycoplasma bovis spread when cows’ noses touched each other. Foot-and-mouth can spread by wind, it can spread by water, and the wind can carry this virus up to several hundred kilometres, and it can also survive for some time without a host. So all it would take would be a few particles of the disease to walk in to New Zealand on a pair of jandals for billions of dollars to be lost. And the current estimate, if it gets into this country and affects pigs, goats, alpacas, llamas, cattle, sheep, and deer—who are all susceptible—is $16 billion over four to five years. But that was based on 2014 data when our export revenue was $38 billion, and we know that it’s over $52 billion now.

So there is a vaccine. People are asking about a vaccine, but our trade is based on foot-and-mouth disease - free, so if we start using the vaccine, we lose that status. So I’m putting out a call today for every person in New Zealand to join the team, to be vigilant, to keep foot-and-mouth out of New Zealand. It would be a crisis. It would devastate this country—all of us. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): It is a pleasure to rise in the House today, and I just want to acknowledge the comments made by my colleague Barbara Kuriger just across the aisle in respect of our friends, our families, those in our rural communities who are working out there tirelessly for our community whilst there are adverse weather events occurring up and down the country.

Just before I came into the House this afternoon, I was talking to a whole range of people from Tai Rāwhiti. We have the fourth significant adverse weather event that has absolutely impacted our critical infrastructure, our roading infrastructure. I’m watching our coastline slip into the ocean right now. Just before I came into this House, it was a privilege and a pleasure to be sitting with my colleague the Minister of Climate Change, James Shaw. I want to acknowledge the work he has done for all of us, every New Zealander, and for working tirelessly to ensure that we as a nation are playing our part in the global events that are causing climate change and the implications we are seeing every single day in our communities.

Right now, on State Highway 35, there’s a critical piece of infrastructure that connects Ōpōtiki, comes all the way up around the coast, and down through to Gisborne. There are three ways into Gisborne: the northern route, the southern route through State Highway 2, which is our other piece of roading infrastructure that connects us to the major port in Tauranga. Right now, State Highway 35 has got a block, where we can’t get heavy traffic through at Motu River bridge down by Te Kaha. We’ve got a block up in Te Puia, where we can’t get heavy traffic through; it’s on the Gisborne side. This is a consequence of geological impacts, a consequence of the changing environment that we’re having to adapt to. I have to acknowledge my colleague the Minister of Transport, Michael Wood. He and his team from Waka Kotahi are throwing down cash and doing what they can to patchwork these roads together, but what we cannot do is predict where the weather gods are going to go, and what we do know is that we are having to endure greater and greater impacts.

So what has this Government done? This Government is tackling climate change. It’s a key priority for our Government. We have made a target of zero emissions by 2050. We have introduced just this year an emissions reduction plan. That came with a big budget to help us transition and reduce the emissions that we as New Zealanders are creating. A lot of that, of course, is in transport, but it’s in a range of other reasons where there are critical emissions. We cannot afford to sit idly on our hands.

I want to come back to what is happening in Tai Rāwhiti, because my heart breaks day in and day out. I was talking to 60 people last night who are impacted—from the Crown, we had every agency that had a direct, relevant role to play. We were talking with heavy transport users of that road. That part of our economy is forestry—one in four households derives a direct benefit from forestry. Now with those two roads shut at Te Puia and shut there at Te Kaha, we can’t get our forestry products out. We can’t get our horticultural produce out, and that’s on top of the global issues that we’re contending with right now. Shanghai port has had its port doors shut for three months of this year. We’re already in pretty challenging times right now. What it’s requiring is everybody to do their little bit in the immediate patchwork stuff we have to fix up, and I acknowledge my colleagues and their counterparts and every single person that came on to that call to hear about the struggles they were enduring. The real work has been the mid- to long-term planning and how we’re adapting and building up our resilience, how we are making sure that we’re working alongside communities to adapt our behaviours.

We’ve got such a critical part of our economy dependent on infrastructure that we can’t be certain is going to be there in five or ten years’ time. Like I say, State Highway 35 has been taken out four times in a single year-long period. That is in complete contrast to what was happening a couple of years ago. It might have been taken out once or twice here and there, but this is becoming more and more frequent. Climate change is right on our doorstep, and I want to acknowledge Minister Shaw and this Government for tackling climate change on its head.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. ACT, over the last few weeks, has been travelling around New Zealand, listening to the concerns of real New Zealanders, and we’ve been hosting old-fashioned town hall meetings to hear from people in person. Over the last few weeks, we have met with over 2,500 New Zealanders at town halls up and down this country. We’ve been hearing the real stories about how New Zealanders have been affected by the cost of living crisis. People are finding it harder and harder to get ahead. But, not only that, they’re finding it harder and harder even to stand still, whether it’s just going and filling up the car to be able to get to work and drop their kids off at school or netball, whether it’s finding enough money to make sure you have enough food for your kids for their school that week, or whether it’s making sure you’ve got enough to put aside for paying the rent and the gas bills, paying for your mortgage. It is harder and harder for people to put those cents together.

Now, ACT says that it’s not OK to just survive; it’s important that we have communities that thrive. And in a healthy economy, people don’t find it hard to survive; they should be able to thrive. We don’t have a healthy economy, and that’s why the ACT Party has put forward solutions for the cost of living crisis. And that’s because the cost of living crisis is the number one issue that’s facing all of New Zealanders at the moment. ACT picked it up first, in December last year, and, one by one, every other party has come to the table to accept and acknowledge the crisis that New Zealanders are facing. But, of course, the Labour Party was the last to the table, because it takes a long time to accept that they were the ones that caused this problem in the first place.

And now their solutions are ones that will actually make it more inflationary and make it harder for people to scrimp and save and get ahead, and that’s because their policies add to inflation. You know, when you’re putting in place policies that will cut excise fuel tax and road-user charges for a very small temporary time, it sounds good, but when it’s being fuelled by borrowing and borrowed money, that is not good; it only adds to inflation.

And so instead of these inflationary measures, the ACT Party has put forward solutions that are real solutions, and we’ve launched our latest policy document on the cost of living, outlining nine proposals that we believe would get inflation under control and help these struggling Kiwis.

Firstly, we need to dump the remaining tariffs. Around $200 million per year is made up of existing tariffs on goods imported to New Zealand. You know, the ACT Party believes that if we got rid of these tariffs, we’ve estimated it would drop the cost of a school uniform by $20. That’s one very basic measure we could do.

Secondly, we need to dump the labour market test from the Accredited Employer Work Visa scheme. Currently, every employer has to prove that there is a labour shortage. Isn’t that remarkable? We’re in the middle of a labour shortage, and every employer has to prove that they are affected by a labour shortage. Let’s get rid of that bureaucracy.

Thirdly, let’s allow foreign supermarkets from OECD countries to bypass the Official Information Act and bring in real competition. It’s insane that we’re stopping this from happening.

Fourthly, let’s create a materials equivalence register; let’s force councils to accept substitutes for materials that are equivalent. That would bring down the cost of materials for new builds.

Number five: let’s incentivise councils to build by sharing GST on buildings in their areas. That would incentivise more homes to be built.

Six: let’s cut taxes. Let’s give every person, the average person, over $2,000 back in their own pockets.

Let’s replace the Resource Management Act with a fit for purpose law where only those who are directly physically affected can object to a development.

Let’s also give the Reserve Bank Governor real targets. Let’s get them back to basics.

Number nine: cut wasteful spending—so, so important. The ACT Party has found $6.8 billion of wasteful spending that we would cut.

These are the policies that the ACT Party is putting forward to help Kiwis struggling to put food on the table and petrol in their cars. These are the ideas that will help New Zealanders. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control): This weekend, I’ll be travelling to New York to head the New Zealand delegation at the Tenth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, otherwise known as the NPT. The treaty came into force in 1970, and, for the last 50 years, it has been the cornerstone of international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. It is centred around the idea of a grand bargain whereby most States gave up the opportunity to get nuclear weapons in exchange for those five that already have them—that is, the US, Russia, the UK, China, and France—agreeing to pursue disarmament.

The treaty was forged in the depths of a nuclear arms race, when the need for disarmament was frighteningly clear. The mood at the time was summed up well by John F Kennedy, speaking in 1961, when he said, “We must abolish these weapons before they abolish us.”

Now, the NPT is far from perfect, but, today, only four additional countries possess nuclear weapons—India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea—and the number of nuclear weapons in existence is less than a quarter what it was in 1985, when the figure peaked at more than 63,000. But it’s important that we think about the achievements of the NPT when we criticise its failings, not because New Zealand is not ambitious for nuclear disarmament—because we very much are—but because the best weapon against the current cynicism and pessimism about the prospects for disarmament is to remember what the NPT has achieved, often in very difficult times.

New Zealand and our like-minded friends are fighting right now against a sort of collective amnesia by the nuclear weapon States and their allies: an idea that with all of the challenges the world currently faces—a war, a pandemic, economic woes, growing geostrategic rivalries—disarmament is just too hard. In short, we’re presented with a catch-22 in that the current lack of stability and security renders us incapable of actually working towards greater security and stability.

The logic of the nuclear weapon States, frankly, does not pass the sniff test. It forgets the grave uncertainty out of which the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was born, which some in this House will still remember. The world was in the grip of the Cold War, an existential threat in the form of a nuclear arms race, and two heavily armed nuclear powers playing out their competition in real time, but none of that stood in the way of Kennedy and Khrushchev and, in another decade, of Reagan and Gorbachev taking the opportunity to lead.

Speaking to NATO last month, our Prime Minister confronted this false logic in the context of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. She said that we cannot allow the legacy of the war in Ukraine to become an arms race or an even more polarised and dangerous world, and, to this end, she urged the international community to match our solidarity with Ukraine with an equal commitment to strengthen international institutions, multilateral forums, and disarmament.

In New York, I will be making clear that the lack of action in recent years by all of the nuclear weapon States in holding up their side of the NPT’s grand bargain is totally unacceptable. In recent years, we’ve seen massive reinvestment in nuclear weapons, nuclear modernisation programmes, and a reduction in transparency by the nuclear weapon States. Add all that to the heightened international insecurity and superpower rivalries, and you can see why the risk of nuclear catastrophe is considered to be greater now than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis. The nuclear weapon States must return to the path of nuclear disarmament.

I’ll be joined in New York by a parliamentary delegation, including the Hon Jenny Salesa and the Hon Todd McClay. This is a visible demonstration of New Zealand’s cross-party commitment to nuclear disarmament. Over 50 years on from the NPT entering into force, New Zealand’s message remains clear: we must ban the bomb.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In September 2019, the words “school strike for climate” ended up scrawled across the wall next to my office. They were scrawled in chalk, and so—as they’ve been protected from the elements—I’ve decided to leave them there as an impermanent reminder of the voices of young people in our region calling for urgent action on climate change. Since then, the effects of climate change across our country have been all too clear. I think, for me, what I most vividly remember is the day of the Mataura floods, and the day that the Mataura River broke its banks and it flooded the low-lying homes in Mataura. But it also threatened the aluminium dross that had been stored in the paper mill next to the river. I also remember the hospitality of the Murihiku Marae, as they took people in who had been evacuated from their homes, and also the way that the community turned out afterwards to help people recover. But I think with the issue of climate change projecting these events happening—they’re much, much more likely.

I’m absolutely proud to be part of a Government that’s taking urgent action on climate change. In my last term, it was a real privilege to be on the Environment Committee when the zero carbon bill passed through the House. I think some of the submissions I remember most vividly were parents turning up and sitting in front of the committee with their children on their knees and saying, “Look, you need to go much, much faster for the sake of their futures”.

I am proud of the way the Government’s put in place a legislative framework that will ensure that we do our bit to keep global temperature rises below 1.5 degrees. But what I’m also proud of is the fact that our Government’s been investing to make sure that this actually happens. If I look at what’s been happening down our way in the South, what that’s meant is extra funding for Southland schools to replace their coal-fired boilers with ones that run on renewable sources. I think, you know, you can imagine how our winters get incredibly cold down there and the fact that we need to be able to keep our children warm, but we don’t want to be expanding our carbon footprint. So to be able to run those schools’ boilers on renewable sources is incredibly important. It’s the same with the Government putting in place investments so that the Invercargill Prison can replace its coal-fired boiler with one that runs on wood pellets. That’s going to save about 97.5 percent of their emissions. It also means that now that’s the last coal-fired boiler for the Department of Corrections.

A number of our local businesses and industries have also benefited from the Decarbonising Industry Fund. What that means is that they can put in place infrastructure that will be able to make sure that we can continue to grow as an economy down South, but we won’t be expanding our carbon footprint. It’s also wonderful to hear the conversations among people thinking about buying electric vehicles (EVs) or hybrids, and looking at the Clean Car Discount and also the way that the number of EV chargers has popped up around the South. So now people feel much more comfortable that they can tour the South in an electric vehicle and they’ll know that they’ve got places where they can charge their car.

So there’s a lot that’s been happening and there’s a lot, also, that we need to continue with. But I think the other issue is that for a city like Invercargill, which is only a couple of metres above sea level in many places, it’s really important that we look ahead to adaptation. And, again, it’s really great to see the Government particularly investing in our region’s flood protection. So as I drive out to the airport each week on the way to fly up here, I’ve been watching the progress on the upgrade of the Stead Street stopbank. It’s a huge stopbank that runs along in front of the airport and protects it from the estuary. Basically, over time, what we’ve seen is waves overtopping that stopbank at times with severe storm events. So the investment that’s been put in there with a big sheet pile flood wall will protect that area, not only from future sea-level rise but also from those severe storm events and the impact that has on the roads.

I think our region’s also benefited a lot from Jobs for Nature and the funding that’s been put in place to make sure that we’ve got native tree nurseries around the place, and a whole lot of other plantings, which will ensure not only that we’ve got more trees but we’re also protecting our biodiversity; we’re actually cleaning our waterways. So there’s a lot that’s been happening, and I’m really proud to be part of a Government that’s taking climate change seriously and that we’ve got a plan that ensures that every sector across transport, across waste, across food production, across building and construction, and across manufacturing, will be able to do its bit to see global temperature rises no further than 1.5 degrees. Thank you.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I think I’ve mentioned in this House before that I have teenage children. And teenage children don’t find it easy having an MP for a mum. In fact, it is a little-known secret that the battered mum-mobile I drive around town has removable magnetic posters with my name and face on them, so that they can be removed when said teenagers are in the car, as opposed to when I am driving on business.

But the thing is, it’s the kids’ fault that I’m here. There were a couple of years, just before I got asked to run, when my then early teenage youngest child began a little bit of a bedtime ritual. She would come into me and she would say, “Mum, can you tell me that the world won’t burn up by the time I grow up?” Every night, my daughter would come into me and she would say, “Will you tell me that the world will be all right when I grow up?” And I realised I couldn’t say that to her. It was a major reason for me taking the decision to stand and begin the campaign that ended with my role here. Her heart was breaking; my heart was breaking. Minister Allan has spoken of her own heart breaking when she witnesses the effect of climate change. There is a recognised phenomenon now of climate grief, where our children, our middle-aged mums, our older people are grieving for the damage done to our climate by us.

I often speak to young people. As often as I can, I get out into the community in Whangārei and I talk to the schools and I run a youth forum and I sit down with children, from the littlies to the biggest ones. And I talk to them because when I was a girl in Whangārei Intermediate, and nuclear weapons were last considered the great threat—and as Minister Twyford has said to us, that’s something we should be thinking about right now—that was the problem, I tried to take action, I reached the end of my tether on that, I knew not where to go. I do not want any of the children in Whangārei who are now in grief over climate, in anxiety over climate, not knowing how to take action. I tell them every single time, the antidote to anxiety is activism.

That is why, when I stood in this House, walked into this House for the very first time—it was the day that this Government declared a climate emergency, and it was a remarkable moment for our country; it was a remarkable moment for our Government. When I look at Whangārei now—and I look at where I live, where we’re facing, I think, the third time that Maungatapere is flooding, and our farmers are trying to dig out their paddocks, and our community is calling for volunteers to pick up shovels and go down for the third time this year—I know that it is things that this Government is doing now which are ameliorating it, not just in terms of $2.9 billion invested into climate change but in terms of the small things.

Today, I spoke to Jack Craw, who is a Northland regional councillor with a particular expertise in environmentalism. He talked about the Whangārei Urban Awa Project, where the Government has invested in the growth of trees, the cleaning of waterways, and the protection and development of new wetlands—things that he told me were “fantastic”, in his words. In fact, he asked me, when I told him about the speech, to get up here and thank Minister Parker and Jacinda Ardern. He said it has been extremely helpful. He talked about the carbon sequestration and the flooding relief that that measure is going to take.

When I look around my little area, I see Golden Bay Cement also, which has had $16 million out of $25 million of cost into waste reduction and cleaner energy. It is these measures which will assure our children gradually, slowly, one tree at a time, of a better future than my daughter fears.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a couple of days ago, there was yet another racially motivated attack on a father, a Chinese man, in our super-diverse Auckland City, outside a supermarket—Pak ’N Save in Albany—on Sunday morning. He was a software specialist, a role vitally needed in this country. There are well over 3,000 ICT job vacancies today in New Zealand. He was assaulted. To quote his daughter, who was actually reported in the New Zealand Herald, “‘He was trying to shield himself and ended up on the floor.’ ‘The other man kept on kicking him and hitting him.’ He tried to hide behind [his] shopping trolley but the man continued his attack and at one point threw eggs he had purchased at her father. One witness, also a Chinese man, called the police and stayed with her father until they arrived. By the time [the officer] arrived the attacker had fled. Her father [at] this point [was] kicked or punched in his lower back, chest, stomach, and head, and was covered in egg residue. He was taken to a nearby White Cross clinic for assessment, having suffered multiple bruises to his head.”

I commend the bravery of the Pak ’N Save Albany supermarket manager, who stepped in to protect this man, but this kind of Asian hate and attacks on Asian people has actually increased since the advent of COVID having actually come across to New Zealand and people blaming COVID on the Asian community. I’d like to commend every member of the public who steps in to say no to racism and actually just stop anti-ethnic violence and to stop Asian hate, because they certainly are doing a heck of a lot better than a Government who only gives lip service to this issue. The charge to go back to where you come from is one that echoes across this country for ethnic New Zealanders, despite many of them—actually, quite a majority of them—having actually lived here for generations, and yet they get this thing: “Go back to your country.” Especially for those who actually are born in New Zealand, where are they to go back to? They don’t have a country, apart from New Zealand.

I have personally been slandered in this very House by people who were rewarded with high office under Labour. They claim hate speech laws are needed. Maybe they should look into themselves and the deficits in law and order that have sprung up under this Labour Government, and execute and implement laws that we already have in this country.

There are dozens of stories that I could potentially tell on this particular issue, but we can look into the very electorate of the Prime Minister: Mt Albert. I have visited many shops in Sandringham, and many shops are covered up with boards, plywood. The windows haven’t actually been replaced. There are shopkeepers who are sleeping on the floor of their shop because they are worried that they will once again be ram raided. The majority of these people are Asian. One particular shop has been ram raided and broken into more than a dozen times. There was a shisha shop—not even a vape shop—that actually sells intricate shisha pipes for ethnic communities, which was reduced to one window only. The shopkeeper doesn’t even open the door wide, and he had actually been broken into many times, at least five times in as many months. The instances were caused by teenagers for this particular man. The Prime Minister cannot even bring law and order to her own electorate. She cannot even keep the streets of Mt Albert safe.

Labour are not backing New Zealand’s ethnic communities, and they cannot even keep the shops in Sandringham, and the people, safe. It is time the Government actually does something—or do all ethnic communities just wait until National returns to Government? We can certainly do the action. This Government is all about pretty conversations, huis, and lip service. They are certainly not delivering for the ethnic community.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): It’s with sadness that I first acknowledge the passing of Rotorua kuia and Māori health stalwart Inez Kingi.

Haere atu rā e te kuia. Whakaheke tonu atu ki te pō.

[To our esteemed elder, may you rest in peace. Descend to the place of departed spirits.]

During her long and celebrated health career, Inez Kingi MNZM QSO gave great service to the people of Rotorua, particularly to tamariki Māori. Her legacy is the Tipu Ora Charitable Trust, a precursor to the Whānau Ora model, and a centre that I spent many summers in, alongside my mother, a Māori GP. She joins her husband, the late Ngāti Whakaue rangatira Pihopa Kingi. My thoughts are with her whānau and with all of Ngāti Whakaue today.

Let me turn to the politics of the day. Those are the politics of climate change. That’s because we are in an era of climate emergency, and all politics are climate politics now. I say that because of all the steps that Governments of today take now and in the near future need to be grounded in our commitments to see global emissions fall to net zero by 2050. I say that because all of the politics of young people on display at this month’s Youth Parliament were grounded in those commitments, and I was struck by how it’s apolitical to them; it’s something they will all want action on. It’s personal, it’s for their whānau, and it’s local.

I think of, in my electorate of Manurewa, the Awa Rangers, who are a group of young people who have come together to protect the Puhinui stream, and the young woman who said that the health of the river is reflective of the health of the community; that, when the awa is paru, it causes her sadness and it brings everybody down together. It’s also a source of anxiety and dread for them. It’s a source of grief, a real worry about their future and the country that they will inherit. And it’s also an acknowledgment of the burden of debt that future generations will face if we don’t act now and we don’t invest in community resilience to climate change.

I say that because the trade-offs that we need to make about our decisions about climate change go to the heart of the way we see ourselves as New Zealanders. Are we as New Zealanders going to shy away from those challenges? Are we going to work together and build on our collective spirit? Are we going to lead the way on a world stage? If our neighbours don’t keep up, we all lag behind. That’s why I’m proud that this Government has seen the introduction of the first ever emissions reduction plan, and, in 2019, we passed the zero-carbon amendment to the Climate Change Response Act, which provides a framework by successive Governments that can develop and implement clear and stable climate change policies.

Those things are important to the people of Manurewa that I represent, because it’s the people without savings and options who are the most affected by the worst effects of climate change. We’re more exposed to the effects of sea-level rises in Weymouth and in Manukau, from the Manukau Harbour. We’re more exposed to tornadoes in Papatoetoe, which have already wreaked havoc on suburban streets. And we’re more vulnerable to the long-term impacts that climate change has on our communities and our local town centres and our economy.

It’s important to Manurewa that this Government’s emissions reduction plan has a plan for all of our country and all sectors. We’re on track to meet our first emissions budget, and it has targets for the energy sector, transport, waste, food, and manufacturing. And, in terms of manufacturing, may I acknowledge those Wiri businesses based in Manurewa that have embraced a circular economy, and are working with producers like Eco Stock, which recycles waste and food products produced in our local area and turns them into food products for cows and sheep, and turns them into green biomass for production uses elsewhere. And things like the Wiri tyre centre, which mulches tyres that need to be recycled and sends from up north for Golden Bay Cement to use as fuel.

It’s important to Manurewa because addressing climate change now means also bringing down the cost of living. Things like half-price public transport have made an incredible difference in my community, and that will continue for people with community services cards. The difference that I hear they’re making not only for students and working people but for parents who would never have taken the bus or the train with their kids to school in the morning, or to kōhanga—which is right next to the Puhinui train station in my electorate—is huge. This is saving people between $7 and $20 a week in the electorate of Manurewa when they use public transport on a daily basis.

The last four years have seen this Government put in place bold action on climate change. I’m proud of that change, and it’s something we can all stand behind.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into the morning of Thursday. 28 July for the second reading of the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the consideration in committee of the Data and Statistics Bill, the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill, the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill, and the Plant Variety Rights Bill.

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 42

New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2)

Third Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I present a legislative statement on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2).

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I move, That the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.

This bill continues the Government’s overall programme to reform the legislation around education and training in New Zealand. To rewind the clock back 30-plus years, to when the Education Act 1989 was passed through this House, was only one part of the equation. In fact, some of the legislation that we’ve relied on for that 30-year period dated back to prior to that time—in fact, to the 1960s. When we became the Government, we started a programme of consolidating, modernising, and updating the education legislation framework, and this bill continues that work. The most significant change that we made was the passage of the Education and Training Act 2020, which brought all of the existing legislation together under one umbrella, reorganised it, streamlined it, updated the language, and brought it into a form where we could actually start to make significant policy decisions so that we can get legislation that genuinely reflects the way our education system currently operates. Having said that, with a legislative change that is that comprehensive—and that was, frankly, done in a relatively short space of time—there will inevitably be issues that flow from that. This bill picks up some of the issues where further work needed to be done or where additional clarification was required.

So, first of all, the legislation from 2020 introduced new network planning provisions for early childhood education (ECE) that are not dissimilar—or, effectively, create a more similar process—to what we have for new schools. People can’t just simply establish new schools without going through an approvals process. This introduces an approvals process for new early childhood education services ahead of when they are established. It deals with a range of issues that we have seen with the proliferation of ECE services in recent years. We’ve seen examples where low-quality providers—who may be on a provisional licence in some of their services because there are concerns about the quality that they have been delivering—have been able to establish additional new services with very few, if any, regulatory barriers to stop them from doing that. That’s not a good outcome for the children, and the network planning provisions that we are putting in place with this legislation help us to address that issue. We’ve also seen a plethora of ECE services being established in some areas while there continues to be under-provision in other areas. So a more strategic and planned approach to ECE provision can help us to even that out so that we can ensure that all of our communities have access to the quality early childhood education that our tamariki deserve to have.

We have listened to some of the feedback that was provided during the select committee process. We’ve made changes to the bill as a result of that feedback, including making provision to allow for those centres that are currently under construction to continue to do that—so they, basically, can finish their construction before the new measures come into effect. Other changes in the bill which I think are quite significant haven’t perhaps been given as much attention as I think perhaps they deserve. One of them is the changes around police vetting requirements. Some very, very significant changes were made in this House, through the Children’s Act 2014, that changed the requirements for people working with children right the way across the public sector. They didn’t pick up every aspect of that, though, and there are aspects of our education legislation that are currently inconsistent with those changes when it comes to police vetting. So this legislation deals with that. It makes sure that we’re taking a consistent approach to police vetting of people who are working with children, and I do welcome the widespread support that we’ve received for those provisions.

The bill also deals with some issues that arose from reform of the Teaching Council back under the period of the last Government, and they were some changes which we, as an Opposition, scrutinised vigorously and, on balance, supported because we were concerned, as everybody was, that there should be a very rigorous process for dealing with issues around teacher misconduct and particularly any concerns around inappropriate behaviour by teachers. I think, on balance, on reflection, we could all agree that the pendulum swung too far and that what we created—what the House created—in passing those changes was a system that was overly cumbersome, one that resulted in far too many complaints ending up having to be dealt with by the disciplinary tribunal, adding significant stress and significant cost to teacher registration in a way that was not proportionate to the overall level of risk that was being dealt with. So the changes that we’re making here do swing the pendulum back to something that’s more pragmatic and sensible. It allows the Complaints Assessment Committee, for example, to resolve some of those issues without having to go through a full disciplinary tribunal hearing, and that is something that will reduce the impost on the profession and, potentially, the level of compliance cost that the Teaching Council faces. That, of course, will flow through into what they have to ultimately charge the teaching profession in teacher registration fees. So we’ve listened to the concerns that the council have raised about that current process and about the effect that has had on the level of costs that they face and therefore the level that they are having to charge teachers in registration fees.

The bill expands the mandate of the Education Review Office to look at initial teacher education provision and teacher professional learning and development. That is something that I think, again, should be welcomed. There is expertise there in the Education Review Office that can be leant to that. Professional learning and development programmes by teachers—I think people who are out there listening to the sector would, again, find a common theme in the feedback that we receive on those: that there is very variable quality there. There are some exceptionally good teacher professional development programmes out there, but there are also some that aren’t that good a quality. So giving the Education Review Office a remit to look at that can only result in better professional learning and development opportunities for the teaching workforce, and that’s something that I hope the Parliament will endorse, bearing in mind that, if we fast-forward 10 or 15 years in the future, the vast majority of teachers who will be in the classroom at that time are teachers who are already in the classroom today. So we need to provide them with quality opportunities to continue to upskill, to continue to develop during their teaching careers, and the extra remit for the Education Review Office can only add to that.

The bill deals with some provisions around the code of pastoral care for domestic students—again, helping us to refine and clarify as we continue to implement very significant changes that this Parliament put in place in 2020 that deal with pastoral care issues around tertiary students. And it also deals with the ongoing programme of work that we have in place around changing vocational education qualifications and credentials, recognising that things like micro credentials are going to become a much bigger part of our future, and the way our qualifications framework operates needs to recognise that as well.

So, in the main, most of the changes in this bill are relatively pragmatic and sensible changes. I acknowledge that there is some debate around the early childhood education provisions, but I think, on balance, the rest of the bill has attracted widespread support, which I welcome, and so I commend the bill to the House.

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

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m happy to rise to take a call on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2). The one good thing about the early childhood sector—well, there’s many good things, but one of the most important things—in New Zealand is that we are spoilt for choice. Parents can take their child to a kindergarten, a Montessori, a play centre, a day care, a crèche, a community centre. They are spoilt for choice, and that is one of the most important things about our early childhood sector in this country. You have a centre that suits your child’s needs and your family’s needs in a location that you want. It might be close to your work. It might be close to where you live. It might be close to where your family live.

Arena Williams: Not in South Auckland.

ERICA STANFORD: It might be close to your children’s schools. That’s a great point. So the point was just yelled at me, “Not in South Auckland.” Well, that’s really interesting, because this bill does nothing—does absolutely nothing—to encourage centres to set up in areas where there aren’t already centres. There’s a reason that there are areas of New Zealand where there aren’t existing childcare centres, and that’s because it doesn’t make financial sense to put them there. This bill doesn’t address that. I asked the Minister about that in his office, and I said, “Hang on a minute. This bill, all it’s aimed at doing is stopping the proliferation in wealthy areas where there are lots of centres.” And the Minister agreed. And I said, “Well, what about centres like South Auckland?”—to the member who just yelled out at me. And I said, “This bill doesn’t address that.”, and he agreed with me and said, “Yes, no, we’re going to have to use the existing Targeted Assistance for Participation (TAP) funding to make sure that we address centres in those areas.”, which is already a measure that we use. So this bill doesn’t actually address that at all.

So now we’ve put that to bed, I’ll go back to my point, which is that there is incredible choice: where you want it and the type of centre that you want. This bill destroys that. This bill gives the Minister the decision as to what centre, what type of centre, will be placed in which location. Now, the problem with that is it takes choice from local people, local communities, as to what they want and where they want it. The problem—and I’ve brought this up so many times—is that the Minister doesn’t have any data to tell him where people want centres and what kind of centres they want. I asked him about this a million times and also at the committee of the whole House stage, and he didn’t answer my question. The reason he didn’t answer is because he doesn’t have an answer.

The ministry doesn’t have a rich set of data that says parents in this area really want a play centre and a Montessori. He doesn’t have access to that. He also doesn’t have access to where parents want their centres. He might know that, yes, there’s a big new development here, but he doesn’t know whether or not those people—say, in Ramarama—want their centre close to where they work in Auckland or if they want it close to where they live. He doesn’t have that data. So what’s he going to do? Well, I guess in the end all we can deduce is that he’s going to rely on data from those applicants. So he will expect an applicant to come to him with a full set of data that they have gone out and spent thousands of dollars on that says, “We know from surveys and from the data that we’ve collected that people in this area want this type of centre in this location because it’s on a route to where they work or where their kids go to school or whatever.”

Now, the Minister is going to have to rely on that. We know that from the bill, which says that he’s only able to undertake a high-level assessment of the relevant attributes of the area to be serviced because he only has limited data. That means he’s going to have to rely on the data provided by the provider that turns up. So the question then becomes: how is he going to analyse that data? How is he going to verify that data, because what happens if he has two providers turning up to him saying completely different things? What if he only has one provider that turns up with data but he doesn’t really like them because it doesn’t fit his ideology, and he waits however long—we don’t know, because he wouldn’t answer that question—for a number of other centres to put their applications in? But what if they don’t have data but he picks one of them because he likes them better based on the data that company A, who got theirs in first, spent thousands of dollars on?

So you can see what a complete mess we’re going to be in by letting the Minister decide what he wants, where he thinks it should be, based on data he doesn’t have, based on an ideology that he’s bringing to what kind of centre that he wants, and that is problematic. Furthermore—and I made this point to him; again, he didn’t answer in the committee of the whole House stage. It was around quality. Now, he talked at length in his opening speech today around the fact that he is modernising and updating the education sector, and his big problem was the proliferation of centres having a reduction in quality. Well, my argument is that if this is true, which I don’t believe it is, it’s only going to get worse, because you can imagine if you are a centre given that golden ticket in your area, to be the only provider of that service because that’s deemed to only need one centre, well, what is there for you to upgrade your service, to offer different things, to be better? Because there’s no competition. No one can move in and set up a centre next door to you. So what incentives do you have as a centre to upgrade any of your services, to offer any additional services, or to improve your quality? Well, the answer is that there is none. So we are giving a golden ticket to centres not to do anything extra over and above the minimum standards, if that’s what he’s worried about. Well, clearly he’s not worried about that.

The issue with quality is a big one. I put this to him, and he didn’t answer. The other question that I put to him that he didn’t answer, which this legislation clearly brings up, is that once a licensed early childhood education (ECE) centre has got that golden ticket in that area, what does that do to the value of their business? How does that distort the market and the value of those businesses? Again, he couldn’t answer that question.

The one egregious thing in this piece of legislation that we tried desperately to fix but is still in there in the final bill is new section 17A(2), inserted by clause 5B, where the Minister may at any time impose new conditions on the approval or amend or revoke any existing conditions. Let me make clear to this House and those people listening what that means. That means the Minister can grant a licence to a provider. They can go away and start building, start the process, and then the Minister can turn around under this and say, “Actually, I’ve decided to reduce the number of licence places you can have.”, or “I’ve decided that you can’t do this and you must do this.”, in the middle of a build. The question we put to officials and we put to the Minister was “What bank will lend on this?” And the Minister said, “Well, banks haven’t come to us. They haven’t mentioned anything.” My question back to him was “Well, did you go to any banks and ask? Because we did, and they clearly told us that this is a problem.” The Early Childhood Council said this is a problem. If we are trying to make sure that people can get set up with early childhood centres, they have to have finance, and under this bill, it’s going to make it very difficult for them to get it.

One of the other issues that we had with this bill that’s still there is that there is no time frame. I mentioned earlier in my speech today about how long the Minister might wait after he gets the initial application in for an early childhood area in one place before he waits for a few others to put their applications in. It could be months. We don’t know, because there’s no statutory time frame required for him to have to make a decision. Now, in “Real Land” out there, where people are actually doing business, the developers put up land for tender in new subdivisions. Typically, the applicant has got six weeks for that process to happen. Now, the question I put to the Minister is: is he going to make a decision within six weeks to give that licence? Because if he doesn’t, that applicant is going to miss out on that land that’s put up for tender by that developer, which means that potentially it’ll go to someone else, which won’t be an ECE centre, and that new development won’t have an ECE centre in it. So we’re talking about new-build areas, new subdivisions, which may not end up having ECE centres built in them because the six-week time frame the developer puts the land up for tender—the Minister won’t be making a decision in that time frame. I find it highly unlikely that all of this process is going to be done within six weeks.

This all goes to the point that the Minister and his officials did not go out to the sector and talk to them about the implications of this legislation. We know this because he admitted today that he made a number of changes. It was great that he made a number of changes, but the fact is that I had to go to his office and sit down and practically beg for them at the last minute, because officials in select committee wouldn’t listen to me. The Minister wouldn’t listen to me in select committee. I had to go to his office and beg for them. Now, that indicates to me a massive lack of understanding of this sector on the part of the Minister and on the part of the officials, because they aren’t talking to the sector. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that you can’t get a resource consent in anything less than about 15 months, and the Minister was, previous to my going into his office, only giving people two years to complete the whole build. Finally, at the last minute, in a Supplementary Order Paper, he said, “OK, we’ll make it three years.” But the point is that I shouldn’t have had to do that. He should have been in touch with the sector, and he’s not, and the whole bill reflects that from beginning to end when it comes to early childhood centre licensing. That is why we will not be supporting this bill.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2). It was a pleasure to chair the Education and Workforce Committee. While we considered this bill, we had a very constructive way of working together, as we usually do on our select committee—although, I do have to say that some days are better than others.

This bill was introduced on 30 November 2021, with the first reading on 14 December of that year. The Supplementary Order Paper relating to the network management of licensed early childhood services was referred to our select committee on 14 December 2021 to be considered alongside this bill—a bill that both contains new policies and minor and technical amendments to existing provisions in the Act.

The Minister has already outlined that this bill is the next step in a programme of continuous improvement. He also spoke on the quality concerns, in particular, that the reforms in this bill are designed to deal with. They have been extensively detailed in the previous stages as well, so I won’t go there, but I will be creating a more sustainable and more diverse network of early learning services.

We received 36 written submissions and we heard 14 oral submissions, and I want to thank all those submitters for their time. It has been really helpful to receive that feedback. Several changes were made as a result of the feedback that we heard, and I want just to mention a couple of those. The previous speaker spoke about the delay to the commencement date of the timing of the network management changes to 1 February 2023, and that was one of the changes that the select committee made.

Also, the Minister in his speech touched on the police-vetting provisions. They were changed. And, in particular, the New Zealand Educational Institute Te Riu Roa expressed their concern about what they saw as a loophole in the police-vetting processes, where registered teachers who don’t hold a current practising certificate and are employed in a non-teaching role were, under the current legislation, not required to obtain a police-vet. So we heard the concerns about that particular loophole and we addressed that, and, as a result, we made an amendment to clause 65. Police-vets are now required for non-teaching staff who are registered teachers but who do not hold a practising certificate.

So I’d like to finish by commending the Minister of Education for introducing the bill. As has been said before, it is the next step in the programme of continuous improvement in the education sector. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Speaker. So I rise to speak in opposition to the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) in this, its third reading. Much does seem quite minor and technical about it, but what it does is continue this Government’s theme of not trusting those that are out on the ground delivering education, whether it’s at the early childhood end of it or at the tertiary sector; of not trusting those that are delivering the education to make the right decisions; and of pulling the decision making back into the centre and particularly back to the Minister. In the early childhood education sector, I have no doubt this legislation will lower quality, will make it more difficult to set up new centres, will reduce competition, and will increase prices to families having to access these services. Some of the legislation also continues the Government’s theme of wasting public money and also not understanding business processes.

Let me give you the example of the police vetting, which is now requiring, prior to commencement, work applicants for non-teaching and unregistered positions to be vetted. This will be a nightmare for police. It will put unnecessary strain on police resources at a time when they clearly need to be freed up for much more serious issues that they are having to deal with. When we brought this to the Minister’s attention in the committee stage, the Minister said he was looking at streamlining this process. Now, what does that throwaway line even mean? We hear things like that: streamlining; work smarter, not harder. What does it mean? The reality is, if 30 people apply for one position, the police will have to vet those 30 people applying even though only one person will get the job. That is not a good use of police resources.

National strongly opposes the Minister having the new provisions regarding the network management of the early childhood education sector. We certainly opposed the consultation phase being truncated at a time when the early childhood sector was under incredible stress and they begged for more time and a better time for them, rather than during COVID when they were having to deal with shortages in their centres and were not able to put in submissions. But the Minister carried on with this as he is inclined to do. The Minister said, “It will all be OK, this network management planning, because there will be national and regional policy statements, and it will all be strategic and planned.” Except nobody knows what is going to be in those national or regional policy statements. Nobody knows what the Minister’s strategy is or what his planning is, and so anyone wanting to set up a new centre is shadow boxing. They don’t know what they’re going to be judged on. They don’t know what the criteria will be.

Here it shows again the naivety of having no understanding of business processes. When a centre is being set up, considerable amounts of money are being spent on the planning processes, on the collation of materials, on looking at demographics and work patterns, etc. That is commercially sensitive material that they have had to spend considerable money on pulling together. So how is that going to be protected when it goes in to the Minister and his bureaucrats to look at? My colleague has already pointed out: what will the Minister do when he gets that application with all the commercially sensitive information but doesn’t perhaps like the look of that provider? Is he going to sit and wait till he gets a couple of other providers that he knows of somehow and thinks might be better? And then is he going to share that commercially sensitive information with them, if they haven’t collated it? So there is a whole question around dealing with commercially sensitive information, but we can’t expect this Minister to know about business processes because we need to keep reminding ourselves he has never run a business.

The simplification of qualifications and other credentials is the enabling part of the bill for the workforce development councils. The workforce development councils were part of this Minister’s brainchild of merging all the polytechnic sector together. That’s worked extremely well for him, hasn’t it! So he’s now got to put in this legislation, which allows the WDCs, the workforce development councils, to be able to approve these qualifications. This was previously done by people in industry who knew what sort of training industry needed. But the Minister, in his wisdom, has set up workforce development councils, and if you take a look at the composition of those workforce development councils, you have to look very, very hard to find anyone with any industry knowledge or experience—but they need to be given the opportunity, apparently, to simplify these qualifications.

Let’s look at the increasing flexibility in this legislation for the Government to set requirements on compulsory student-services fees. These are fees that the tertiary providers set. Now, the Minister, of course, can’t possibly trust tertiary providers to know how to set these fees. He can’t trust universities, polytechnics, and private providers to set compulsory student-services fees. He has to be the one in there meddling because he knows best. This is the long arm of Government trying to dictate to those at the sharp end of education delivery. Be it early-childhood delivery or tertiary delivery, it is the long arm of Government dictating because they know best. They can’t have this pesky market or competition having an influence; they want to reduce choice and, at the same time, reduce quality, because people making a decision at the centre removed from the front line of delivery never have the best information to make decisions.

So we are opposing this legislation, which the Minister tries to say is “just technical stuff”, just stuff to enable them to roll out their policy. Well, he’s quite right. It allows him to continue on with this relentless trundling of centralisation. Whether it is the tertiary education sector, whether it is three waters, or whether it is the health sector, this Government knows only one ideology, and that is centralisation—Ministers and bureaucrats making decisions. Those people on the front line of any of those services cannot be trusted to make the best decision for the people, so the Minister is putting this legislation in place to ensure that he is the only one that gets to make decisions, not those people out on the ground. We therefore oppose this Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) at its third reading. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2).

National left behind a damaged education sector. It was worrying that teachers and the schools were in despair. The education legislation was outdated, but most of the energy and the legislative changes had gone into the flawed ideological sideshows like national standards and charter schools. There was a lack of unifying vision or sense of mission. Early learning, in particular, had suffered from frozen funding for most of the decade and the rampant competitive model.

This bill is a part of the Government’s comprehensive programme to reform the damaged education sector. The Act brings all of the legislation on early learning, school, and tertiary education into one single statute. It makes amendments to the Education and Training Act to align with a new policy and make minor technical changes. It will create a more student and their whānau - centric approach.

The Education and Workforce Committee heard from a few submitters, and their views were part of the finalised bill. The committee listened to their submissions and their views and also concerns. So I’d like to thank them for their submissions and I’d also like to thank the officials who worked hard to make this look the way it is now. So it’s a good bill. It’s a bill that rights the wrongs of the past; it’s a good one. I commend it to the House.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to begin by acknowledging all of our teachers and everybody that works in the education sector who have gone back to school, as well—I know there’ll be some relieved parents out there, as our tamariki have gone back to school—but also to acknowledge the enormous amount of pressure that they’re under as well.

And I was just reflecting on a headline that said teacher sick days are up 50 percent on 2021 and there have been calls for more support, and how important that is, given that we’re living in the middle of a COVID pandemic, and the need to actually support those people that support our children to do the best and be the best that they can be within the education and school settings, as well. So enormous pressures for them, but also acknowledging that there have been some movements to provide N95 masks and better ventilations, and so on and so forth. But, also, reflecting on the need to actually have an expert-led school plan as well—and I’m hoping that’s on the agenda for the Government to make sure, so that people aren’t trying to do that guesswork in terms of how they manage their different school communities. Because when you talk to teachers, sometimes teachers are parents as well and they’ll have children in one school while they’re teaching at another school, and so if those two schools have completely different types of ways that they deal with the COVID pandemic around masking and all of that kind of stuff, that gets a bit tricky for them. So keep that on the radar, our friends in that corner of the House.

This bill is a small, technical bill, and it’s got a number: the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2). All of these bills always seem to have the same name—you’ve got No. 2, No. 1, with the third readings of, it’s like listening to a trilogy. This one focuses on allowing the police vetting provisions; amongst many other things, strengthening teaching council disciplinary processes; requiring compulsory student services fees; and enabling NZQA to exercise discretion about whether to cancel the registration of a private training establishment in relation to immigration breaches, and so on and so forth—important things that need to be wrapped around and sorted out, and we support that.

But I guess my reflection on listening to the debate today—I understand the importance of having that certainty for people that are setting up early childhood education (ECE) centres, and for business to have that certainty to go about and do those things. But, on the other hand, it’s important for us to remember that that should be about what is the best for our tamariki, what is the best for our mokopuna, what are the standards that are in place to make sure that they’re being taught in the best ways possible, and the ways that that can be organised to support them to do that.

Sometimes, I listen to the debate and I think sometimes you could just transfer out ECE for burger joint—you know what I’m saying? You could be talking about anything. It sounds like you could be setting up a McDonald’s franchise, but, actually, we’re talking about tamariki, we’re talking about childhoods, being able to support services for our children. And that’s what the focus should be. And so bringing that all under one umbrella makes sure there are those small, technical fixes to make sure that there is some sort of overall coverage and focus on whether that stuff that is being carried out is a good thing. So, on that, we support this bill.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): I rise on behalf of ACT to speak to the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2), the third reading.

It’s amusing to hear from the Government how terrible education was prior to 2017. I was teaching then; it wasn’t. Actually, quite the opposite. The purpose of this bill is to make amendments across a range of matters in the Act, to give effect to new policy decisions, and to make other minor and technical changes. There are some good things in the bill, but unfortunately the bad outweigh the good, and ACT will not be supporting it. I’ll go through quickly some of the changes.

The police vetting provisions: the proposal is to ensure all non-teaching and unregistered employees of early childhood education (ECE) services and schools must be the subject of a vet before they begin working in the service or school, and to remove the two-week period in the Education and Training Act to apply for a vet for non-teaching and unregistered employees after they start work. On the face of it this makes sense; less confusion, and we all like keeping kids safe. But the practicalities really haven’t been considered and police must just be shaking their heads.

Teachers council: there’s not a lot of love lost between the teachers and the Teaching Council. They’ve lost the trust, and it’s not an ideal relationship. But to strengthen teaching council disciplinary processes is a good thing. Complaints are taking far too long to process and to reach an outcome, and this is unfair on everyone involved. Complaints—along with registering teachers—is the Teaching Council’s core business, and any streamlining in these areas is very welcome.

Then there’s the compulsory student service fees, where the proposal would give Government more flexibility to regulate these fees, enabling a wider range of options; to regulate, to support broader Government objectives. The current disaster that is Te Pūkenga must make everyone worry that the Government wants to interfere more in the running of tertiary institutions, and I think we should just park that and watch this space.

Enabling national student numbers to be used when there is funding to support work-based training makes sense—more streamlining.

The change to the private training establishments to enable the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to exercise discretion about whether to cancel the registration of a private training establishment in relation to immigration breaches we believe is overkill. It reeks of a not so subtle attempt to get rid of private training establishments by stealth, and we don’t support that.

Education Review Office: the bill seeks to amend the Education Review Office’s mandate to enable it to review professional learning and development, amongst other things. No teacher thinks this is a good idea. Departments and schools know the professional development that they require and they’re currently doing it. It’s another example of consultation being completely ignored by this Government. There are other changes to make—minor and technical amendments—but the main sticking point with this bill is the network provisions in the ECE sector. The reasons for this have been explained in previous speeches much better than I ever could. The extra power the Minister wants points to a much bigger agenda that this Government has quite openly admitted—control and centralisation. It shows a huge mistrust of the private sector—“We know best.”

Lastly, we cannot support the exclusion of kōhanga reo and Māori immersion services from the network management. We have a lot more faith in Māori providers than the Labour Party do.

Madam Speaker, this bill has some good points, but the overreach is just too much, and ACT opposes this bill. Thank you.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to make a short contribution on this bill, and I do want to acknowledge our teachers across Aotearoa. It’s really important that our community understand why this bill has been introduced by the Government, as the Education and Training Act was passed in 2020. The amendment bill makes minor urgent amendments to that Act, and the provisions in this bill cover a wide range of areas. For South Auckland, where I am from, there are a number of early learning centres—specifically in Māngere, there’s over 25, and I just wanted to make that point.

I’m just going to focus a few comments on the early learning sector, and as a response to the matters raised during the select committee process. I wasn’t a part of the Education and Workforce Committee at that time. The recommendation of commencement has now been moved from 1 August 2022 to 1 February 2023 to give it more time, as you’ve heard from the chair of the select committee.

The amendments will improve the quality of services by introducing new requirements to demonstrate capability, by strengthening the fitness and proper test of early childhood education (ECE), to ensure that the early learning centres’ national and regional policy statements will provide a map where supply and demand will meet the need and meet the strengthening test of applicants, for suitability, and other amendments.

As you’ve heard, the bill focuses on early learning to further improve quality of services of these new requirements—that require to be demonstrated. As the Government provides significant investment to ECEs, we need the enablement of the network management, with the intent to ensure to provide the approvals process and provide that rigour.

So under the new bill, the amendments set out that the Government requires the early learning network to create a strong, sustainable, and higher quality services, with a diverse network of ECE services across the motu.

This amendment bill is an important step towards improving success across Aotearoa for our learners, and it’s the first of a number of bills that the Government has prepared to progress the education work programme. It will contribute to the continuous improvement of the education sector—clear, consistent, and consolidated by the Government. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Nicola Grigg—a five-minute call.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to continue the National Party’s opposition to this bill, the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2). I’m yet to hear one solid defence from that side of the House as to why New Zealanders should sign up to this idea of network planning for the early childhood education (ECE) sector. Erica Stanford made a really pertinent comment earlier about choice. This bill does nothing but remove choice from families and from communities around New Zealand.

If I think specifically of my own electorate of Selwyn, we’ve got 55 ECE providers there at the moment. We are the fastest growing region in New Zealand. The numbers that I hear bandied around about kids that are lining up waiting for ECE centres to come online are quite scary in a funny old way. But these provisions within this bill are going to give the Minister the ability to set and change any conditions to an ECE licence approval that he sees fit at any time. What gives the Minister the right to assume that position? This is a classic Labour “we know best” approach to everything. This is the long arm of the Government reaching into our communities and messing around with private providers and market delivery in this sector. It will have disastrous anti-competitive results and it will reduce the quality of the services provided to the small children of New Zealand.

When I speak to providers around my region, there are three major concerns that they’ve had with this bill. One, as has been mentioned, is the timing. Who on earth would put through a major sector reform during a pandemic, other than Andrew Little? Oh, Chris Hipkins will as well. Two: the delays caused by COVID, supply chain management, child space shortages. And, three, as I’ve just mentioned, is the Minister’s unilateral right to revoke pre-approval.

All of the fears and concerns that Erica Stanford spoke about so eloquently earlier are playing out in Selwyn and particularly in Rolleston. There is a real cause for fear in providers in Selwyn. I’ve got an email here from a local operator that I’d just like to quote, because it really does say it all: “I can’t stress how much pressure we are getting from upset and angry parents because they cannot find childcare to return to work, nor have a choice in where they enrol their child due to a minimum of year-long wait lists.” I contend that nothing in this bill will alleviate that.

Another operator I know has spent three years and close to $5 million building a new centre that has been delayed by COVID and supply chain disruption. It’s still yet to be completed. It already has 40 children aged under two enrolled. But like so many others in the building sector, they are waiting on jib, they’ve been disrupted, and they can’t confirm their opening date. They’re in the dark around time frames, when they can apply for their licences, and they worry that their inclusion is going to be risked, and they do not want to see their $5 million investment go up in smoke.

There is another ECE service near to that that is turning away 15 to 20 children a week. It is, as I mentioned, the fastest growing region in New Zealand, and such prescriptive legislation does not allow for market flexibility. The network management provisions are due to come into force in just a couple of days and many are still in the dark as to how to ensure their licensing will meet the new requirements. I’ve been privy to quite an extraordinary statement from the Ministry of Education itself, and it goes like this: “While there is no guarantee of obtaining a licence to operate under the current system, we appreciate that the new network management requirement adds some uncertainty into the process of establishing a new early childhood service. It’s our intention to provide the sector with as much information as possible as the policy develops.”

Well, if a Government is going to pass a law like this that is going to send so much uncertainty into the region or into the country, you would think that that policy had been developed and was watertight. My time is concluded, but I do not commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Sarah Pallett—a five-minute call.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a short call on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) with great pleasure. Although I was not sitting on the Education and Workforce Committee whilst this bill went through its various processes, I really want to take a moment in time just to commend them for their hard work, and I look forward to speaking later, on further work that they’ve done.

This is the next step in the comprehensive programme of continuous improvement for the education sector. Whilst, as I said, I didn’t have the pleasure of sitting on committee for this particular piece of legislation, I read the bill with interest, and I was particularly interested in the strengthening of the processes around police vetting, because, unlike Penny Simmonds opposite, I simply disagree that it is a waste of police time to vet people before they have or are likely to have unsupervised access to children. I find that attitude utterly baffling.

It’s a process that costs approximately $70, if an individual wishes to do it themselves before they seek employment, and it takes about 20 working days—20 days where significant harm could be done. I don’t feel that it’s unreasonable for parents to expect that people who have unsupervised contact with their children have undertaken a thorough police vet, and I commend this bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): I liked the colourful turn of phrase from my friend on the other benches Teanau Tuiono, when he said that when listening to the debate tonight and the Opposition’s comments, you might think that we were discussing burger joints. But these are Government-funded education centres.

I feel a little bit for the Opposition, because they know that the system for these Government-funded education systems is not working and is not resulting in having those early childhood centres (ECEs) where we need them. So they’ve decided to defend a fiction—a fiction where in all parts of the country we have choice, where parents are spoilt for choice. The member for East Coast Bays said that parents are spoilt for choice, but she didn’t consult her colleague the member for Selwyn, who then quoted extensively from an early childhood centre from a growing region in our country where the population is increasing and where ECEs are saying, “We do not have enough capacity. There is not enough choice for parents.”

I would suggest to members that the solution to this is a planning network. Perhaps we could call it a network planning model, where the Minister, who is elected by the people, takes responsibility for the parents around the country and makes sure that we can send our kids to our local ECE centres, because do you know what the system does now? The system pushes women out of the workforce. Women like me from South Auckland who are Māori and like my colleagues who are from South Auckland and are Pacific have the lowest rates of workforce participation in this country.

Not having access to ECEs that work for our whānau and our communities means that women are locked out of working and are limited in their opportunities for further development, and it keeps people poor. That’s why I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) third reading. National’s not supporting it because, fundamentally, it grants too many powers to the Minister to interfere and, frankly, foul up a lot of the development of the early education sector. And I think all New Zealanders will be conscious of the fact that the early education sector is important on two levels. It’s important for the opportunity for the youngest New Zealanders, preschoolers, to have some access to an element of education, to get them prepared for the compulsory sector. But it’s also very important for families as well, so that parents with young kids are able to have those children looked after while they carry on working. And we’re all conscious of the cost of that, which is very significant for many families—for all families. So it’s a very busy, difficult time. Our family have certainly been through that period, like many members of the House. So we’re very conscious of the need for the sector to be responsive, to be as affordable as possible, and reflecting the very wide variety of needs within the communities and within families across New Zealand.

So the sector has developed, over the years there’s been quite a lot of competition in the sector, a lot of variety. Our main concern with this legislation is that what we have is this impulse towards centralised control that we’ve seen, time and time again, in very many different elements in this Government, the most classic example being the polytechs, which have all been combined into one—disastrously, so far. We see it in water. We see it in health. We see it everywhere we look. This kind of agenda that we see from this Government is extended to the early education sector, where the Government is giving the Minister quite far-reaching powers to impose new conditions on the approval of applying for new licences.

So most New Zealanders will have not known about, or have forgotten, the way that New Zealand’s economy used to operate in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and up until the time of the reforms of the fourth Labour Government. But it was a licensed economy where just about everything that you did, you couldn’t just do. You couldn’t just set up a trucking business and go out and compete, find customers, and steal customers of other providers, if they weren’t doing a good enough job, by offering a better service, lower rates, or just an all-round more useful offering. You couldn’t just go and open a business. What you had to do was you had to go along, hand in glove to the Government, and ask them for a licence to operate. And the Government would say, “Well, sorry, Mr so-and-so, there are too many providers doing this already, and no you can’t”. Or they might say, “Well, OK, yes. We’ll let you do it under these conditions.” And it was a terrible system because all it did was protect the incumbents, and if you had a licence, you literally had a licence to print money, because the opposition would be kept out.

Right throughout the whole economy, New Zealand was operated in this way. It was a feudal system that if you had the licence in a particular area, whether it was driving trucks or whether it was selling tennis racquets, or whatever—whatever different element of the economy was licensed in this way. And it was a kind of dirty deal against consumers, because the consumers, the people who actually bought the stuff, were the ones paying the very high prices. At that point, New Zealanders were paying extremely high prices for all sorts of goods and getting relatively low-quality goods, whether it was washing machines, stoves, or TVs—you name it, it was all divided up into licences.

That is what this Government is doing to the early education sector. They seem to have forgotten all the lessons about the problems that it leads to and are reintroducing this principle into the early education sector, where the Government and the Minister, advised by officials, will say, “Oh, well, actually, no, we think there are enough providers in this particular neighbourhood; you can’t open up a new business.”, which is just great for the incumbents, not so good for the consumers. In their wisdom, the Government seems to think they know better. And then it creates an enormous amount of uncertainty because once a licence is provided in this legislation, the Minister may, at any time, impose new conditions on the approval.

So just imagine, you’ve decided to set up a new early education provider in a community, you’ve got your licence because, thank goodness, the Minister has decided that you deserve it and there is enough room. And so you go, “OK, good. I’m going to start. I’m going to invest a million dollars setting this up in order to provide a good offering to the community.” And then, halfway through, “I’ve got all these loans, I’ve figured it out, it’s going to work, you know, it’s quite a complex exercise—I’ve figured it all out.” And then, halfway through, the Minister may impose new conditions. He might say that you need to do “x”, “y”, or “z”. What an impossible situation. Willie Jackson wouldn’t put up with that in any way, shape, or form in many of his operations—there’s no way he’d put up with it. They may amend or revoke any existing conditions. They might say, “No, you can’t do it this way. We’re going to do it this way.” And what a hopeless position to be in.

It creates uncertainty. Anybody that understands the way the world works will know that you don’t get investment if there is uncertainty—a huge amount of uncertainty. Well, you get less investment where there is uncertainty—a whole lot of things that you can’t control. You can’t control, unfortunately, the rampant inflation that we’re having to deal with as a country. Governments can have an influence over that by the way that they spend, and the quality that they spend, and the quality of the monetary policy, and all those sorts of things. But one thing you can control is Government regulatory risk. And what’s being introduced here is greater regulatory risk because, explicitly, the Minister may, at any time, impose new conditions, or amend or remove existing conditions. And so that, naturally, will frighten a lot of people off and make them less likely to invest.

I’m looking at some notes here by my very learned colleague Erica Stanford on this topic, and she’s written “killer”—killer—in the line. And the killer is it’s a killer of investment. Because, under those conditions, who is going to take the risk? No one, of course. Who will lend to a business when there are such arbitrary—arbitrary—rules there that the Minister can impose? The Minister can change, in an arbitrary manner, the conditions on approval. The sector have pointed this all out at length during the select committee process. Has the Government listened? No, not at all.

The bill also—and we talked about this briefly yesterday in the Education and Workforce Committee phase—talks about the curriculum approvals in the polytech and the tertiary space. The point that we made there, of course, was, you know, this is a sector that has been fouled up by this Government with the review and the centralisation of the whole polytechs, some of which were not working well, some of which were doing very well. Now, they’ve all been combined, and the projected deficit is $112 million for this year—it will be worse. And then, they’ve brought a new curriculum, such as for the nurses—these same nurses that the Minister of Health says speak with a forked tongue, which was insulting and has irritated them to no end. Those same nurses pointed out that the curriculum development—they hadn’t been consulted properly, and Te Pūkenga–New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology has withdrawn it so far. So it doesn’t fill us with a great deal of confidence in the way that this is operating.

So this legislation is a missed opportunity to reverse some of those changes. But what it does introduce is the ability for the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to deal with some micro-credentials, which will make a small step. But I do implore this Government to think twice about both the early childhood education reforms, at this late stage, and the polytech reforms which, so far, are not making much progress and certainly not filling us with confidence with the ability of this Government to centralise in—

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

Dr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Just looking at all these smiley faces up in the gallery, I realise that I am one of the last speakers before my good friend Dan Rosewarne embarks on his parliamentary career with his maiden speech. Before I speak on this Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2), I also want to acknowledge that such is life, and that when somebody new comes in, sometimes people also leave this place. I want to acknowledge my colleague David Bennett on the other side of the House, who has recently announced that he will be stepping away from his role at the end of this term. On behalf of the people of Hamilton, I just really wanted to quickly thank David Bennett for his years of service to our beautiful city, and also especially as a progressive member of this Parliament, for his support for both the marriage equality bill previously, as well as the abortion legalisation bill. Thank you for that, and congratulations, once again, on your new child, as well.

Now, coming to the Education and Training Act, which came into force on 1 August 2020, it was one of the most significant education bills to come into force and it solved a lot of issues that we saw in this education workplace. But one of the things that I heard on my recent visit to a BestStart early childhood education centre in Hamilton was that there were only some centres which have already been built. The infrastructure was already in place, but, unfortunately, there was a bit of anxiety around whether they would be affected by some of the things that are being proposed in this bill. I just want to quickly acknowledge the work of the Education and Workforce Committee in helping delay the network management commencement from 1 August 2022 to 1 February 2023, because that will reassure people who have invested in helping set up these early childhood centres already.

But this is a great bill and it solves a lot of issues in the education sector, and I would highly recommend this to the House. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 42

New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill

Second Reading

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I present a legislative statement on the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill.

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

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I move, That the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill now be read a second time.

I want to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for its careful consideration of the bill. There were over 400 submissions on the bill, which highlights the importance of this matter for the public. The Oranga Tamariki system is incredibly important, not only for our tamariki and rangatahi but for our future. It is important that it has strong oversight to ensure it is operating well for our tamariki and rangatahi.

The bill does three things. It establishes the independent monitor of the Oranga Tamariki system to monitor outcomes for children and young people receiving services through the Oranga Tamariki system. The bill strengthens independent complaints oversight and investigations related to the Oranga Tamariki system, led by the Office of the Ombudsman. And, finally, the bill strengthens system-level advocacy for all New Zealand children and young people by establishing the Children and Young People’s Commission to replace and enhance the existing Children Commissioner’s functions. The independence of the commission has not been changed and will remain an independent Crown entity.

We know that the Oranga Tamariki system has not operated as well as it should or as well as we all expect it to. This bill ensures that the system has strengthened oversight to help make sure that issues can be addressed as early as possible, to ensure that what we have seen before the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care doesn’t happen again.

At select committee and in the media, there has been a lot of discussion about the Education Review Office and the monitor being a departmental agency of the Education Review Office. I want to be clear that the Education Review Office will not be undertaking monitoring of the Oranga Tamariki system. This structure allows for the sharing of back-office support and other administrative needs. The Education Review Office will have no role in the operations of the monitor.

There were a number of calls from submitters to pause the bill. Pausing the bill means the Oranga Tamariki system would continue to operate without effective oversight. It would mean that only a narrow part of the system is monitored. There would be no powers for the Ombudsman to quickly resolve complaints and the advocate’s power would continue to be limited. Calls to pause the bill have been for a number of reasons, including to undertake further consultation and to wait until the royal commission of inquiry makes its final recommendations. Consultation with care-experienced children and young people took place in 2018 during the development of the Beatie report. The Beatie report was also informed by the Modernising Child, Youth and Family Expert Panel report that included the voices of children and young people. There were also 22 hui held with Māori, including those with care experience.

We are at the point where we need to start to implement the changes that were called for in this consultation, and that is what this bill does. Our children and young people cannot wait any longer for effective oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system. The bill includes a review to be undertaken within five years. This allows enough time for the oversight system to bed in, and for the royal commission of inquiry to report back. Any final recommendations from the royal commission of inquiry can be incorporated as part of the review. The royal commission of inquiry’s interim report on redress recommended that oversight systems be independent of the organisation being monitored and other oversight bodies. The bill achieves this, and we are optimistic that the bill will align with the final recommendations. However, we are not complacent, and that’s why we have the review mechanism in place. It is imperative that the Oranga Tamariki system has effective oversight as soon as possible.

A lot has been said about the Office of the Ombudsman having the role of complaints and investigation. I want to be clear that while the Children’s Commissioner is an effective advocate, they are not currently responsible for resolving complaints. The Children’s Commissioner’s current practice is often to refer complaints to the relevant bodies who have the powers to resolve those particular complaints, including the Ombudsman. The Children’s Commissioner helps people to navigate the complaints processes by telling them where to go, how to proceed, and can advocate for children and young people in these complaints processes. They can still do this under the bill, but the Ombudsman has powers and processes to investigate and resolve the more concerning complaints. Complaints and investigations are the core focus for the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has established capability and experience in complaints and investigations, oversight, and is well placed to deliver their enhanced function. What the bill does is provide clarity as to who is responsible and accountable for carrying out the complaints oversight and investigation role, which, as we know from listening to submitters, is currently very confusing.

The bill also enshrines in legislation a process for the oversight bodies to work together to ensure that there is no wrong door for complainants seeking help. The bill also provides additional powers to the Ombudsman to ensure that complaints can be resolved quickly, which we know is important for children and young people.

I want to talk about the key changes that the committee has recommended. There will now be a Chief Children’s Commissioner, who will also be the chair of the board. It was clear from submitters that this was something very important to them. It will now be specified in the legislation. This allows the board model to still be in place and to ensure there is representation of other experiences, including disability, Māori, and care experience. The bill now also strengthens the independence of the monitor by creating a specific duty for the monitor to act independently. This will help to build the trust with the public in order for the monitor to function and ensure Ministers can still request, though, information and reviews, but cannot influence how the monitor conducts its activity.

A function of the Children and Young People’s Commission to report to the Prime Minister on matters affecting children’s rights has also been added to the bill. This is something that was in the Children’s Commissioner Act but was not carried into the bill because it’s something that can take place regardless. However, the importance of this being explicit in legislation has been recognised. These are important changes that will help to strengthen the oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system in Aotearoa and improve the lives of children and young people across Aotearoa. I commend this bill to the House.

Harete Hipango: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. The question I’ve got is whether the member would like to start her speech now and have it interrupted, or whether we can now move on to the maiden speech, which we’re just due to have in a few minutes. I’ll leave it to the member to decide whether she wants to have a one-part or two-part speech.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the courtesy. I think it’s appropriate in the circumstances to acknowledge the member who is about to give his maiden speech, so I do so accordingly. Kia ora.

SPEAKER: I just want to make it clear to the Chamber that at the conclusion of this speech, the House will stand suspended for the dinner break and will resume at 7 o’clock. I call on the gallant member Dan Rosewarne to make his maiden statement.

Debate interrupted.

Maiden Statement

Maiden Statement

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Good evening, Mr Speaker. Ko Ruapehu te maunga. Ko Waimakariri te awa. Ko Ngāti Tūmatauenga tōku iwi. Nō Waimakariri ahau. Ko Dan Rosewarne tōku ingoa. Nōku te hōnore ki te tū ki te mihi ki a koutou i tēnei wā. Kua huri aku whakaaro ki a rātou kua whetūrangitia. Haere, haere, haere atu rā. Kua hoki aku mahara ki te whaikōrero mutunga a Kris Faafoi i mahue au ana ahau te mana. Te nui o te mahi i mua i ahau hei member of Parliament au. Kua reri ahau ki te mahi mō te Pāti Reipa, mō Aotearoa hoki. Nā reira, he aha te mea nui o te ao, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.

[Ruapehu is the mountain. Waimakariri is the river. Ngāti Tūmatauenga [New Zealand Army] is my tribe. I come from Waimakariri. My name is Dan Rosewarne. It is my honour to stand here at this time to greet you. My thoughts turn to those who have become stars in the sky. May you rest in peace. I recall Kris Faafoi’s last speech, passing the baton to me. There is much work ahead of me as a member of Parliament. I am ready to work for the Labour Party and for Aotearoa as well. Therefore, what is the greatest thing in the world, it is people, it is people, it is people.]

I would like to begin by acknowledging our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. In your maiden speech, you acknowledged Helen Clark for her stewardship of the nation when our generation was growing up. When I look at your stewardship over the last five years, leading our nation through some of the most challenging events of our time, you, like Helen, will leave a legacy well beyond our generation.

My name is Dan Rosewarne. I’m a proud father, I’m a husband, I’m a tradie, I’m a cancer survivor, and, until two days ago, I was a soldier. But, most importantly, I stand here today feeling extremely privileged to serve the people of Aotearoa as a member of Parliament under Labour. I have to say, it’s great being surrounded by dedicated Labour MPs; people on the same mission as me.

Like many other members here today, my journey to this place has been a challenging one. I grew up here in Wellington. I found school difficult; my experience of the education system was one that focused on the kids who are doing well, while leaving the struggling kids, like me, to find their own way. I vividly recall seeing the college careers adviser after deciding to leave school early. She outright said that I may as well just get a trade—as if it was some kind of second-tier option. I left school deflated, as if I was a failure.

But hey, I followed her guidance, went to polytechnic, and started an automotive apprenticeship. And guess what! I absolutely loved it. For some reason, that kinaesthetic learning just clicked with me. I loved being outside, working hard, diagnosing faults. It gave me confidence.

Then midway through my training, I walked past an army recruiter at a trade expo. Knowing that I struggled academically, I thought that joining the army might be out of reach. The recruiter told me to take the tests and he’d see what career options there would be for me. He gave me three tests: a literacy test, a maths test, and a general trade test. I failed the literacy test, failed the maths test, and I just passed the trade test. The recruiter said, “Mate, you did terribly. But there’s something about you I like.” Three months later, I was on a bus to Waiōuru to complete my basic training.

I thrived as a young soldier. The army did what the education system couldn’t: they refined my reading and writing skills, developed my leadership qualities, built my resilience, and gave me the opportunity to pursue further study.

Over my 23 years in the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF), I’ve been involved in the response to many of our recent disasters across the motu. Significant responses include the Christchurch and Kaikōura quakes, as well as many responses to flooding events that seem to be occurring on an ever-increasing basis due to climate change.

If I wasn’t on the ground coordinating defence force support, I was in a headquarters conducting planning for future tasks as the disaster evolved. I got to see firsthand the sacrifices made by other Government agencies who step up during civil emergency: the New Zealand Police, St John, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, and those dedicated people at the local level who step up to work in their local emergency operations centres. You are the unsung heroes of Aotearoa.

Most recently, I was involved with the all-of-Government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, working with other agencies to establish and operate the managed isolation facilities in the Christchurch region. A source of strength for me was seeing other unsung heroes like aviation security, our health professionals, hotel and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment staff come together to keep New Zealand safe.

I’ve had the opportunity to serve on several operational deployments. I deployed to Afghanistan in 2005, the Solomon Islands in 2008, and completed a second tour of Afghanistan in 2012, where I served on the last Crib rotation for the provincial reconstruction team. I distinctly remember that when the decision was made to leave the locally employed Afghan workers behind, this left many of us defence force staff devastated, as we knew that this decision would put their lives at risk. I made the commitment to myself at the time that, if I was ever in a position of influence in the future, I’d never let that happen again. When the security situation deteriorated in Afghanistan last year, this Government made the decision to evacuate our Afghan workers. It warmed my heart, knowing that this Government was honouring our moral obligation to those Afghan workers who put their lives at risk serving Aotearoa as part of the provincial reconstruction team.

As a young man, I never really aspired to be an MP. I always thought that it would be out of reach for a Kiwi battler like myself. But there was one life event that flipped the switch for me. Eight years ago, I was diagnosed with a cancer brick, and I’ll never forget the day my doctor sat me down and said I had leukaemia. As a 33-year-old fit young man with a young family, it hit me hard. In an instant, I felt like I had moved from that strong father figure—the provider—to a patient whom my family wanted to wrap in cotton wool. I would lie awake at night wondering what would happen if I could no longer work full time. Would I have to sell the family home? Were my kids going to miss out on everyday things? No one could tell me. And then there was the crash course into the public health system and ongoing appointments. We would sit in the haematology department waiting room wondering what the results would be. As I sat there, I’d look at the faces of those who were in the hospital with me. You would see the despair of the daughter who was sitting with a newly diagnosed father, the comforting company of the nurse with the woman who had outlived her husband and now had no one to support her in her fight, and the young man who was contemplating how this could happen to him.

I must thank the defence force for their support at this time. My term of engagement was almost up and I was worried that, because of my cancer, the army would not renew my contract. But three days after talking to the chaplain, an extension of service came in the mail with a remark from my career manager that went, “You have spent the last 15 years looking after us; now it’s our turn to look after you.” And shortly after my diagnosis, the haematologist told me that my form of leukaemia used to be a death sentence, but now there’s this new immunotherapy drug that switches off the signal that causes the cells to divide and, luckily for me, it was fully funded through Pharmac. This drug is not cheap. From a financial perspective, funding this drug did not make sense. But to me and my family, it’s paid huge dividends. I could work full time. I get to see my kids grow up and I get to participate in society. So this brush with cancer turned my mild interest in politics into an unrelenting pursuit. Going into hostile environments overseas to help preserve the security of people was something I always accepted—it’s what I signed up for—but after my cancer diagnosis, I felt I also had a responsibility to contribute to the human security of our people here at home, to do what I could do to give people the healthcare, the housing, and the economic security that they deserve.

It was at that time that I signed up for the Labour Party. One thing led to another and I got the privilege to stand in my home, the Waimakariri electorate, for both the 2017 and 2020 general elections. I learnt a lot from both campaigns, especially the 2017 election. As a candidate who had not taken the usual path to politics, I quickly learnt that you needed a lot of money and a lot of time, both of which I had little of. But, with Clayton Cosgrove’s old red bus, I would get out around the Waimakariri electorate, knock on doors, host street corner meetings, visit local businesses, and listen to what our community had to say. Our small but dedicated campaign team, all life members of the Labour Party—Sally Thompson, Roger Pike, Mavis Mannell, and Daryl Flynn Thompson and Ivan Hubbard—would diligently work away making a couple of bucks here and there through raffles to pay the invoices as they rolled in. To my wife’s horror, we also had to sell some of the furniture in our house to square up the last of the bills after I lost the campaign. But we believed in Labour’s vision and what it meant for everyday Kiwis, so we decided to do it all again in 2020. Although unsuccessful, those two campaigns served as another apprenticeship, and this time for Labour.

So what do I want to achieve? I’m not here to make promises, but there’s a few things that I want to touch on. As I moved up through the ranks in the NZDF, I learnt what it meant to lead during the good times and the bad. To me, leadership is about self-awareness—knowing when to talk and, most importantly, knowing when to remain quiet and listen. I firmly believe that trust is not built by pretending that you have all the answers, but by acknowledging when you don’t. As an MP, I’ll continue that mantra. I’ll step up when things go wrong, I’ll actively listen, and I’ll never lose sight of why I’m here.

To the young people battling through their education at school, feeling that they’re getting left behind: I get it. I’ll do everything I can to help this education system work for you, an education system that enables you to reach your true potential. University is not the only path to success, and we, as a country, need to give vocational training the respect it deserves. This will allow us to respond to the skills shortages that we face and prepare for a changing labour market, particularly as we rebuild from COVID-19. The world of work is changing, and the way we shape our young people’s views of what success looks like needs to adapt so we can be responsive to the future of work.

To the tradies out there: I get it. You get things done. The Labour Party is the party for the trades, whether it’s enabling you to upskill throughout your career or setting up a business of your own. I’ll do anything I can to advocate for you from here in Parliament. I want to point out that construction workers are at more than twice the risk of dying by suicide compared to the rest of the workforce. The mental health challenges Aotearoa faces are bigger than party politics and must be tackled by all of us in this House together with the same bipartisan support that we give to national security and intelligence.

To those families depending on funding for cutting-edge medications: I get it. And I’ll do everything in my ability to make sure that your voices are heard from inside Parliament. To all those who find themselves needing support from the public health system: I get it. Going through the public health system as a patient in my time of need colours everything I said today. In the past, the health and disability system has underperformed for Māori and our rural communities. I’m proud to be part of a Government that is implementing reforms that reduce duplication and empower Māori to design systems and health interventions that work for Māori.

To those serving and ex-serving members of the defence force: I get it. When serving, you do not get the security of union representation. With that in mind, I’ll do everything in my ability to highlight the meaning and worth of military service from inside this House. This is to acknowledge the blank cheque that you wrote out to the Government of the day to cash in for up to and including your life at any moment of your service.

The Russia-Ukrainian war is a bad omen for small nation States like Aotearoa that rely on the rules-based international order for security. Our region has enjoyed a benign strategic environment over the last 30 years but that is changing, and our defence force will have to evolve in the strategic environment. This will require ongoing investment in its people, its infrastructure, and its capabilities that enhance the stewardship of our blue ocean continent in the Pacific. That way, if the Government does need to cash in that blank cheque, our defence force is ready.

In closing, I want to thank my wife Sheree and my children, Jasper and Maddie, for your unwavering support. It has been you who have enabled me to pursue my dream of serving New Zealand as an MP. This moment today has made our journey worth it, and I’m ready to work for the people of Aotearoa. Nothing in my life has ever come easy, and I don’t expect that to change. I’m proud to belong to a Labour Party that puts people first; a party that gets it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Bills

Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER Ian McKelvie): Members, the House is resumed. When we broke for the dinner break, we were up to call number two on the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill, and I’ll call the next speaker. I call my neighbour, Harete Hipango.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): I stand with the distinct privilege but also responsibility as spokesperson for the National Party with the portfolio of children and Oranga Tamariki. I’m always cognisant, when I do speak in an advocacy role for our children, of the importance of their voice not only being heard but being listened to.

I address the House this evening on the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill at this second reading, with considerable concern and consternation on behalf of the children, our children of Aotearoa New Zealand, who are in State welfare care—not so “wel”; in fact “ill-fared” care, with the oversight of this bill. As indicated, speaking for the National Party, it’s a privilege. But I speak this evening on the importance of our children’s voices and their views being not only heard and paid lip-service to but listened to and heeded by this Government.

For the public who may be listening to this debate this evening, the purpose of a second reading is that with the first reading of the bill, it’s passed over to the select committee and open for public submission and then scrutiny. So this second reading also is about reporting back to the House after having listened to the public opinion, after having scrutinised the law to improve it before it goes to what the next stage will be, the committee of the whole House, for further scrutiny and amendment of a bill that is deeply flawed and does not serve the interests of our children in State welfare care. So the second reading is very much about reporting back to the House what that scrutiny was and what the public submission was.

The report back to the House is some 18 pages long. The National Party, with the ACT Party, with the Green Party, and with the Māori Party have all filed opposing views to this bill. That in itself speaks volumes, but, importantly, it is the volume of the voice that has been extinguished by this Labour Government and by the Labour members of the select committee when those submissions and presentations were made. In effect, the submitters with their submissions have been placed into a very submissive position by this Government.

So I now quote, importantly, what I think encapsulates what this bill should be about and what this Government should be doing in heeding the voice and the views of our children. Dame Whina Cooper said, “Take care of our children. Take care of what they hear, take care of what they see, take care of what they feel. For how the children grow, so will be the shape of Aotearoa.” There are a total of 403 submissions that were received by the select committee; 311 of those were expressly opposed to this bill, and only eight in support. We heard oral submissions from 96 spokespersons and, significantly, the voice and the voices representing those children of experience in State care: VOYCE Whakarongo Mai, Voice of the Young and Care Experienced.

The National Party’s minority view, along with the members of the other political parties’, have been detailed in the select committee report. I acknowledge that there is so much that has been canvassed and there will be lengthy debate at the committee of the whole House in terms of proposed improvements and amendments to this bill that is fatally flawed. I say it’s fatally flawed because the fact is that the majority of the public views, voices, and submissions and from VOYCE Whakarongo representing, and an advocacy body on behalf of, those children who have been in State care, are saying this bill will not work. Effectively, what the Government has proposed to do, in listening to bureaucrats in ivory towers, is displacing, dismissing, dispensing with those with lived experience of care in the State welfare system, of those with lived experience advocating—legal experts, family lawyers, family law academics, professors—and, importantly, our community and voluntary sector organisations working in this space.

So, importantly, also what this bill is attempting to do with its oversight—which, in my view and the view of the public, is a massive oversight and dispensation and dismissal of what the public concerns are—is not only seeking to disband the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, not only gagging the commissioner but, effectively, disembowelling the office, effectively decapitating power to truth by setting up—and that was done back in July 2019—an Independent Children’s Monitor, which this Government, for some reason, considers to be independent when it was positioned in part of the Ministry of Social Development, a Government bureaucratic agency, but now sidestepped into the Education Review Office.

So the function of the Children’s Commissioner, Judge Francis Eivers, and her office, which was about monitoring investigation of complaints on behalf of children and their families and advocacy, is dismantled into three separate components and entities of the Independent Children’s Monitor. This was a done deal. Even before this bill came to select committee, it was a done deal because, back in July 2019, the Minister had set up the Independent Children’s Monitor. Effectively, the resourcing had been repositioned into the Office of the Ombudsman to deal with investigation of complaints. And the Minister said, this evening, that the Office of the Children’s Commissioner has had to refer a number of those to the Ombudsman’s office. Well, one really should look at the resourcing.

The Office of the Children’s Commissioner is resourced at $13 million, compared to the Ombudsman’s office of $40 million. It’s under-resourced, and the expectation for the Office of the Children’s Commissioner to continue under-resourced is unreasonable and unfair. This bill is flawed because it takes the view that the oversight—separating what the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, internationally renowned and a template for children’s advocacy, was doing so well as truth to power, by disestablishing, disembowelling, decapitating, and removing its effective function into what will be a commission and a board. So three separate entities of a Children’s Commissioner board, an Independent Children’s Monitor, and the Office of the Ombudsman to do what will be disconnected, disjointed, and will not have any measure of coherence or cohesion in representing best the interests and the voices of our children of Aotearoa New Zealand in State welfare care.

My time is almost up. This bill is significantly one that is flawed. The Government should heed and listen to the voices of our children who are care experienced and take that on board. We do not commend this bill to the House.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I do commend this bill to the House. I want to first thank the 400-plus submitters, many of whom had lived experience or deep professional experience with and of Oranga Tamariki. As a member of the Social Services and Community Committee and as its current acting chair in the absence of Angela Warren-Clark, I acknowledge the depth of their expertise. And I acknowledge, also, their fears that despite the strong commitments on this side of the House, this legislation is not truly intended to create real change but is yet another whitewash of a bad service, allowing it to get worse and to continue to perpetuate inadequate practice. This is our experience—and I speak as a former practitioner with experience of Oranga Tamariki myself—of previous reviews from that side of the House. That is the history that creates a certain cynicism, a certain wary suspicion of any attempt to remodel Oranga Tamariki.

But on the Government’s side of the bench, on the Government’s side of the select committee—I don’t know much about other select committees, but on this select committee, we have senior social workers and managers from within Oranga Tamariki. We have managers of women’s refuges, people who have audited Child, Youth and Family Services—going back to one of its previous incarnations. We have a Family Court lawyer and a Family Court academic, and we also have people who have lived experience as foster parents and as foster sisters. None of us—none of us—have any truck with whitewashing this service, and nor has this Government, and anyone who wants to hear that loud and clear should not only listen to Minister Sepuloni but also Minister Davis, who could not have been more clear in his comments on this bill.

It is no whitewash. We have just turned a single commissioner into a commissioner and a board with five other people around him able to take on roles, able to cover areas of expertise. How is that a gutting or a beheading of a service? We’ve just timesed it by six. We have created an independent monitoring service because, heck, that is required and it was what the Beatie report wanted. We have finally reinforced the role of the Ombudsman. Now, it was said, “Oh my goodness, we’ve cut the ability of the Children’s Commissioner to investigate.” The last time that the Children’s Commissioner investigated a complaint was around 2012. The role of investigator has always been played—for the last 10 years at least—by the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman has assured our committee that he is thoroughly resourced and feels well and truly able to take on this role. We have further entrenched the need for cooperation. There will be no wrong door.

Now, some people say that we should continue to delay. Some people want us to wait for the royal commission. Others want us to restart the consultation process. There will always be more information. There will always be another review, another report, but do you know what else there’s going to be while we’re waiting for that? More children being failed by Oranga Tamariki. We have to start somewhere. This may not be a perfect system—no system is perfect—but that’s why we’ve built in the review process. We are not so arrogant as to say that we are developing something perfect, but, for heaven’s sake, not one more child should be failed, and nothing that we can do on this side will be left undone to make sure that this system starts to meet the needs of children and whānau, and I commend this bill to the House.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, it gives me no pleasure at all to be standing to speak to this bill, the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill, tonight at its second reading, because I know that this bill is going to be train wreck. I know that this Government has closed its mind to delaying its progress, and we’ve just heard that quite vehemently from the previous speaker, Dr Emily Henderson. A delay would actually create a more fulsome consultation with children, young people, agencies, and their families. A delay would also enable the findings of the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in State care to complete its work and to report back with its recommendations. That report back is due in June of next year, and I imagine there will be recommendations for change that come back with that report. They will be relevant to what this bill is seeking to achieve, and I argue that we owe it to the work of that inquiry and the people that have contributed to the information to wait until that inquiry is complete so that we can do a proper job and get it right the first time.

The other reason that this bill needs to be delayed is because of the farce of the consultation process that was conducted. The outcomes are significant once they’re implemented, so those with the most to contribute needed time to gather their thoughts, to discuss with colleagues, to think about those that this bill will impact on, and then to prepare and offer feedback. So what did the Government members on the select committee choose to do? They chose to put out the consultation, open it up for submissions on 22 December, and the submissions period closed on 26 January. To give full credit to those submitters, the 374 submissions that the committee received, thank you for giving up your Christmas break to put your thoughts into your submissions on this bill. And, out of those 374 submissions, eight submissions expressed their support for the bill. In fact, one submitter told the select committee they were consulted in the preparation of this bill, they were consulted about the aspiration and what they wanted to achieve, but, sadly, they were not told what the mechanism for doing that was going to be. So there were a few boxes ticked in the consultation phase, but the cold, hard reality is that those with the most to contribute were excluded: the voice of care-experienced children and young people. I do give credit to VOYCE Whakarongo Mai for the time that they have put into their submission on behalf of those people.

Now, this bill seeks to dismantle the role of the Children’s Commissioner, a position that has been held for 33 years. It is extremely trusted, it is well known to the public, and I believe that it is of particular concern to those children and young people who are in State care. We do say, and I support the fact, that the bill’s objectives are to strengthen the independent monitoring and complaints oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system, because they are admirable goals, but this bill will not get us there. If we compare this bill to other radical changes that this Government has implemented into systems across sectors like health and tertiary education, we can have no faith that the changes in the oversight of Oranga Tamariki will be successful and deliver the outcomes that are suggested. The role of the Children’s Commissioner is a precious one, I believe, and even the appointment of a Children’s Commissioner is a very special position to hold. No one should be afraid of having someone who is completely independent of Government. I have to say, in my observations over the years, the former Children’s Commissioner Judge Andrew Becroft did no favours to the Government that appointed him, and nor should he, because that was not his role; his role was to monitor and advocate for children, and that’s exactly what he did. Sometimes those messages are difficult to hear, but that is how you build a system that is in continual improvement mode and will always be open to that improvement.

We had a lot of submissions to work through, and that was done over a period of a few weeks, but there are a few that I would like to particularly focus on—one in particular, from one submitter. It has been talked about today—about the role of monitor and advocate—and the bill seems to assume that the two roles are completely incompatible. But, if that is the case, then, we have to wonder why the legislation was designed in that way in the first place and has been operating, in terms of the Children’s Commissioner’s role, so successfully for such a long time. As my colleague Harete Hipango mentioned before, it is only because of the resourcing of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner that possibly their workload has been a bit hard for them to manage. But that has a simple solution; we don’t need to set up a whole new bureaucracy in order to make that office more efficient.

The issue around the advocacy and monitoring was pointed out to us in one submission, and I’d just like to point to a couple of those—the Human Rights Commission, for example. Its functions include to advocate and promote, to be an advocate, and to monitor and analyse progress. The other one, the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, their functions include: to advocate for the collective interests of people who experience mental distress or addiction, and to monitor mental health services and addiction services and to advocate for improvements to those services, because robust monitoring leads naturally to advocacy. So I suggest that this is a bill looking for a problem to solve, because there is no need to separate the functions of advocacy and monitoring. It’s worked extremely well in other departments, and I can tell you that this is not unique to New Zealand. Those advocacy and monitoring roles are used across Australia, in many states over there, as well.

There were some submissions that, I guess, were quite blunt, and I’m not surprised by that. When we heard from one submitter, they talked about the independence of the monitor. In their submission, they suggested that that was an abuse of the word “independent” because, by putting the monitor inside the Education Review Office—and we were told by the Minister earlier tonight that that’s the backhouse support—the cold, hard reality is that that is a ministry that is overseen by a Minister, and it is at the will and whim of the Minister and the Government of the day as to how they operate. I would suggest that perhaps what is happening here is that the Government’s abysmal performance across a range of their activities is the reason they’re absorbing the monitoring of Oranga Tamariki into the Education Review Office so they can better control the results of that monitoring. This role needs to be totally independent of Government and its Ministers, and it cannot have the confidence of the public when it sits inside an existing ministry—it’s not even dedicated to this role.

So I urge the Government: do not be afraid of honest feedback and criticism. This is how systems and processes are improved, this is how outcomes are improved, and that’s what we want for our children. We want the outcomes for those kids who are in care to be better—always better. I don’t believe the Government wants a watchdog; I believe it wants a lapdog.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Fa‘afetai tele lava, Mr Speaker. As always, it’s a privilege and an honour to take a call in this House as the member for the beautiful Ōtaki electorate. Can I first start by quickly acknowledging the passing of two Māori wāhine toa rangatira in the Horowhenua area: whāea Helen Hori Te Pa and Linda August. My aroha goes out to the Hori Te Pa and the August whānau, who do so much for the Horowhenua and the Ōtaki electorate.

Now to the bill, the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill. I would also like to thank those who submitted, both oral and written, for sharing their stories but also their heartbreaking experiences. I know that was really hard for them. Being part of a really hard-working and very busy Social Services and Community Committee, I’ve been looking forward to making a contribution on this bill, because that means that we are that much closer to ensuring a much more accessible complaints system for whānau, for tamariki, for rangatahi, and for our communities who find themselves having to navigate what is currently a really messy and, at times, closed process. This bill strengthens the independent complaints oversight and investigations related to Oranga Tamariki.

Having had care of tamariki in our whānau as well for a number of years, and throughout that time having real struggles as a whānau to understand, feel welcome, and navigate that space—a system that was really foreign to me and my whānau—was at times really frustrating and actually quite depressing. We felt really let down by the complaints process and then, of course, felt like we were letting down the tamariki that we had in our care and, actually, his whānau as well that we were trying to plan a return to home with. We tried to utilise the complaints process. Even trying to find out where to start, someone to help us in that space, someone to talk to us and not look down at us and not talk down to us—I mean, talk language that we could understand so that we could do the best we could to support this tamariki in our care and support the return to a home for that whānau—was so frustrating and heartbreaking. Honestly, if it wasn’t for the iwi providers and the NGOs in the Ōtaki electorate that supported that tamariki in our care, our whānau, through that space, I think would still be stuck in what’s currently a really horrible process.

This bill will ensure that complaints like that and the complaints process is accessible to all. It will create a framework for the monitor and the Ombudsman and the commission to work together—to work together for the betterment of our tamariki and our whānau. The changes made already to this bill from our select committee process, which also shows that this Minister is listening, especially ensuring a Chief Children’s Commissioner who will also chair the board, and giving the Ombudsman special powers to act really quickly when receiving those complaints from our tamariki, are going to make a massive difference in terms of tamariki and whānau navigating this space. Oranga Tamariki needs real change, not just a name change, and it doesn’t just need band-aids. We can’t keep putting band-aids on this; this needs proper change.

I want to thank Minister Sepuloni and the officials and this Labour Government, actually, for being brave enough to say, “We’re not going to keep putting band-aids on it. We’re going to do some real change.” This is what real reform looks like. Real change is needed to ensure the safety of our babies, of the wellbeing of our whānau, and to make sure that this cycle doesn’t carry on. This is a great place to start. I fully support this bill, and I already see the difference it’s going to make to whānau.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to start my contribution tonight with three quotes from submitters to the royal commission of abuse in State care. Firstly, “the taking of Māori children has been a cost that has been both intensely personal and inherently political. The presumed right to do so was derived from the same racist presumptions of European superiority that marked colonisation as a whole, and the attendant belief that indigenous children needed to be ‘saved’, ‘civilised’, and ‘protected’ from themselves.” That quote, of course, came from the wonderful Moana Jackson. Then, Dr Alison Green: “The trauma we are carrying is killing us. I agreed to give evidence at this hearing because I want my whānau to have better lives, to be respected as the young people they are, and the elders they will be. Hardly a day goes by when I’m not reminded of the trauma we live.” And then Keith Wiffin: “Nothing breaks my heart more, to see the continued appalling rates of abuse coming out of those homes and institutions today. The historical and the now are inextricably linked. We have not learned from the past.”

The royal commission, which has been mentioned several times this evening, found that about 40 percent of people in this country who have been in care have been abused. That’s about 250,000 people in this country who have been abused in supposed care. They recognised this as historical and also, I will quote them, “It continues to this day.” Sixty-seven percent of children in State care are Māori. Seventy-six percent of children harmed while in State care are Māori. Māori, Pasifika, and disabled children have been and continue to be disproportionately harmed by our misnamed child protection services.

The royal commission is hearing from survivors right now. Yes, they’ve put out an interim report, which has been mentioned, but at the time they put out the report they’d only heard not even a fifth of the evidence that they expect to hear. They hadn’t even started to engage with the Children’s Commissioner on the information that they hold. They were only identifying their research gaps to fill. The bulk of their report was starting to tell us the stories and to encourage others to bring their voices. So to be saying in this House that, actually, this bill responds to the royal commission report, particularly when the royal commission forum—made up of survivors and experts who are monitoring that process and have been for many, many years—told all of us to stop this bill, that they saw this as a pre-empting of the process; they did not say, “Go do this now, fix it later. You’ll give credit to our voices, our spilling of our trauma, to prevent harm in the future. Don’t worry about that, carry on and we’ll agree for you to fix it later.” That is not what they told us. To hear from the other side that this is so urgent in terms of significant reform that we ignore those voices, that process, gives me a pain, if I’m honest.

I really want to speak, too, to the point, and to recall that quote from Moana Jackson, around the harm of colonisation and how deeply entangled with our child protection services it is, and to acknowledge that what we’ve heard from Minister Sepuloni is, “Well, there were 22 hui in 2019. That’s our commitment to honouring Te Tiriti. That’s partnership.” Those hui were before the Waitangi Tribunal reported. That was before the Whānau Ora inquiry into abuse in care, before the ombudsman report, before the Children’s Commissioner’s two reports around what is happening in our child protection system. People, there was no engagement with Māori after that evidence was on the table, and there is no evidence of formal Te Tiriti engagement with Māori after the bill was drafted. That is not partnership.

It has been actually reviewed by the Auckland University Aotearoa Centre for Indigenous Peoples and the Law, which put out a report last week that found that the bill, as it sits on the Table today, breaches the Crown’s obligations under Te Tiriti and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in substance and in process. They, on scrutiny of this bill and the process in developing it, have called on the Government to taihoa and engage with Māori on the transformation of Oranga Tamariki, including its oversight and any reconfiguration of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, in a way that recognises their status as Te Tiriti partners, that recognises Māori rangatira over the care and protection of tamariki Māori and their rights under the indigenous declaration.

We’ve got a royal commission forum telling us to stop a very early-stage engagement with that process, and we have a very clear message that the consultation does not meet the requirements under obligations of partnership, which is so vital if we are to have any hope of our child protection system no longer being a tool of colonisation, which it is, actively. We have so much evidence of that. And then we also had the 403 submissions, which have already been mentioned several times, from care-experienced young people, from, basically, our entire children’s sector: lawyers, health practitioners, Starship Hospital, academics, including those with deep experience and knowledge of Government. These are not naive people who do not know how to read legislation, which, to me, was the suggestion from the Minister, of, “Oh, people just don’t understand this. They think it’s, you know, sitting within the Education Review Office and we bring it, and there are—people don’t.”

Some submitters, admittedly, had that confusion, particularly young people who found the legislation, and the time frames to be able to understand it did not enable their full participation. But there were many, many submitters who are and have been actively involved in helping Government shape legislation in the past, who said that this was problematic and needed to stop. And it is not enough for members on the Labour Party to be able to say, “We’ve got experience. We care deeply about children. Our views, our few people’s views, count more than all of those other perspectives and that deep, deep knowledge that came from many of those submitters.” It just does not stand up.

Then, in the most possibly—I always find the Tiriti perspective the most important, and it’s hard to separate from the royal commission perspective. But then we have the perspective around ensuring that we’re meeting our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is about ensuring that children’s voices are heard and informing the decisions, particularly effective. The Children’s Commissioner is their agency, and they had no say in this complete restructure of it. It’s their agency. It’s to carry their voice. And they had no opportunity to say, “This is what we want. This is how we want people to represent us and keep us safe.” The young people who have been telling this Government to stop need to be heard. Shame on Labour.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m just checking another member didn’t want to take a call.

Simon Court: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Dr Craig. We do have a member—Karen Chhour—who is intending to make a call remotely. So could I ask the Speaker and the Clerk if they have got Karen Chhour online.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): My apologies. I do have Karen Chhour online, and apologies to you, Dr Craig. I do have Karen Chhour online. Apologies to you, Karen. I call you now.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT) (remote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It kind of saddens me that I’m having to speak to this bill today; I was hopeful that it wouldn’t get this far and get past select committee and into the House for second reading. Sat through a lot of submissions from young people who expressed huge concerns around how this is going to affect them, in that they feel that they won’t feel safe under this new direction.

Now, it’s OK to sit there and say our Social Services and Community Committee was full of lawyers and advocates and caregivers and all this other stuff, but until you’ve been on the end of a system that has broken you down to the point where you don’t know where to go, you can never really fully understand what it feels like to be a youth that has got absolutely no strength left in them to fight anymore. These youth are up here fighting for the rights of the next generation and the people that come after them so that they don’t suffer the same fate as those in the past that have been ignored and unheard. These are not just youth that don’t know what they’re talking about. These are youth that have been through the pain of a system that has let them down. These are youth that understand the consequences when Oranga Tamariki and complaints systems don’t work.

I get emails on a regular basis that tell me that the system right now isn’t working. But they’re also telling me that this new design is going to be even worse than what we’ve got already. The Children’s Commissioner has built up a brand of trust, and in order for an oversight system to work, there needs to be trust. And right now, the children and young people and organisations that represent these young people are saying that that trust will be completely gone under this new system. Sometimes perception is important as well. Sometimes the fact that the youth do trust the Children’s Commissioner is enough to stop, sit back, pay attention, and listen to what they’re saying.

These are youth—that I had the pleasure of going to a meeting not that long ago—who spent three years putting together a document especially for people like us who sit in Wellington and don’t listen. They wrote a document especially for us to understand how to communicate with them, how to listen to them, and how to make sure that they are heard in a correct manner. Any member on the other side of the House that decides in the future that they want to engage with young people, I recommend that you look for this document: Kia Tika, Kia Pono – Honouring Truths. It’s an ethical framework for engaging with children and young people who are care experienced. These are the ones that are affected by this bill. These are the ones that have to go through life being let down by our system. These are the ones that know what it feels like when we get it wrong, and they are telling us that we are getting it very, very wrong.

Now, I would like to appeal to those on the other side of the House to take a step back for a moment. Think really hard about the way you vote on this, as the decision you make today will affect many families and young people in care. If you even have a sliver of doubt that this will not improve the outcomes for our young people, you must, in all good conscience, vote against it progressing any further. Sometimes the hardest thing we can do in life is put our own agendas and ambition to the side and make the choice to do the right thing, even if it upsets those around us, because this isn’t about us; this is about the next generation. We are the caregivers of the next generation, and we can’t afford to keep letting them down. This Government and past Governments keep making decisions on behalf of our youth, based on our adult knowledge, based on our education, based on what we learnt in a classroom. But unless you are on the other end of it, you will not be able to understand truly—truly—how this affects you for the rest of your life if you get it wrong. We really, really urge that the Labour Government take a moment, sit back, and reflect on those submissions. I watched and I heard and I saw the pain in the eyes of some of the people that came to submit. These children didn’t only just give their voices, they gave a part of themselves to us and they deserve to be listened to.

There are many concerns around separating the monitoring, the advocacy, and the oversight of this system, confusing young people about where they need to go. It’s all right to say, “They can go to the Children’s Commissioner, and then they can direct them where to go”, but it takes huge courage to even get through that door in the first place—to the Children’s Commissioner—and then you’re saying that the Children’s Commissioner has to turn these kids away and send them off to another resource. It just feels like these kids will get passed from place to place to place and get lost in the cracks on the way. Advocacy and oversight and monitoring can all work together. The Children’s Commissioner has built up a brand of trust. That’s what we need. Oranga Tamariki is a system that is not trusted. Unfortunately, it’s a system that is known to be manipulative and untrustworthy. So we need to have a way where we can make our youth feel like they can trust who they’re going to.

I wonder if anyone’s even asked the Children’s Commissioner—even though they may not have done an official investigation for a while—how many complaints have come their way that they’ve advocated for, and it hasn’t had to get to the point of investigation because their advocacy has managed to fix the problem before it gets there. And the fear of being investigated by a bold Children’s Commissioner who is willing to stand up and say what needs to be said is enough to get the organisation to pull their head in. So next time a member from the other side of the House stands up and says that young people and their voices matter the most to them, just consider: can the youth and the agencies and the advocates that came before us in the select committee really have faith in those words if you vote for this bill today? With all due respect to the member Emily Henderson, there may be experiences in there where you’ve gone through university and the member has learnt to be a lawyer and an advocate for children, but have you been on the other side of when things go wrong, and really understand the implications on a young person’s mental health, on a young person’s self-esteem, and who they will grow up to be when they are let down? So I stand on behalf of ACT today and fiercely oppose this bill.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to speak on this bill. I’ve only just joined the Social Services and Community Committee, and so I wasn’t actually on the committee when they heard the submissions, but I am very familiar with the advocacy work of the Children’s Commissioner, and so I’d like to focus my comments today on those aspects, because over the last few years we’ve had some very strong advocates in the area, particularly of child health and child poverty, and I do remember working alongside and with, over previous years, Children’s Commissioner Dame Cindy Kiro and also Dr Russell Wills on that advocacy around child poverty.

I think the issue we’ve got is that the needs of New Zealand’s children and young people are incredibly diverse, and so I was really pleased to see that the advocacy functions of the Children’s Commissioner would be strengthened in this bill. Basically, what we’re putting in place is a Children and Young People’s Commission with a clear legislative mandate to advocate for all children and young people in Aotearoa. The addition of a board will mean that we’ve actually got a wider range of skills and experience around the table, and so, basically, what the requirement is is that half of the board will need to have Māori knowledge and understanding of tikanga Māori, so bringing much more of that expertise around the table but also having the ability then to have people with expertise in Pacific communities, disability, and a whole range of other aspects, because there’s a significant amount of advocacy work that needs to be done, and strengthening that is really important.

In response to a lot of the submissions, there was a real sense that there was a need for a clearly identifiable advocate, and so as we’ve had canvassed tonight, the committee recommended that we have a Chief Children’s Commissioner, who will also chair the board, so that there’s that single person people can focus on, but that also allows for that diversity and experience around the table. I think one of the other things I understand people were advocating for was having it very clearly spelt out that the Children and Young People’s Commission could report directly to the Prime Minister on matters affecting children’s rights. While there was no preventing that happening in the current legislation, it wasn’t spelt out, and so that is a change that, again, the select committee has recommended.

But, basically, the independence of the commission won’t be changed, and it will remain an independent Crown entity. So I think this is an important bill, and I’m really looking forward to seeing the impacts it’ll have on strengthening the advocacy that the Children and Young People’s Commission can do on behalf of the whole diverse range of children and young people in our country. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): I call Melissa Lee for five minutes.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is rather unusual for me to be standing and speaking on the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill because I don’t actually sit on the Social Services and Community Committee, nor did I sit on it during the hearings. Having said that, it is an absolute pleasure to have been given the opportunity to speak about how wrong this bill really is.

As members of Parliament, we often get terrible stories of people who have been abused as children or who have actually been in the system of Government services like Oranga Tamariki that have the oversight of children who are on their own with no guardians, for example. When children come into the system, it is often a given that they have the worst possible outcome because Government does not do the function of carer very well.

When a Government decides to overhaul a system that is broken or is not functioning properly, I would have thought that the people who have not been served properly are the very people it should have consulted with, and I haven’t participated in the select committee, but from the speeches that I’ve heard so far in this House, it is very, very clear that this Government has an agenda. Those members are not interested in what the children have to say, nor are they interested in the views of the people who submitted to the select committee, or the views of the Opposition, because they are arrogant in thinking that the Labour Government knows what’s best for everyone in this country.

Harete Hipango: “Do as I say, not as I do.”

MELISSA LEE: Exactly right, Ms Harete Hipango.

I think it was the Prime Minister, in her recent Harvard commencement address, who said—and I quote her—“Democracy can be fragile. This imperfect but precious way that we organise ourselves, that has been created to give equal voice to the weak and to the strong, that is designed to help derive consensus—it is fragile.” Those are the very words of the Prime Minister of this country, who apparently cares about the children of our nation, and this is the bill that that Government brings to this House to reduce the mandate of the Children’s Commissioner.

Not only is the Children’s Commissioner the one person who should have more power to give voice to our children but that commissioner is now only one of six. Tell me, does that mean that that power is reduced? It’s being watered down, in my opinion. I may not know the system very well because I haven’t really been involved in the bill from the beginning and haven’t even heard the submissions, but it really, really makes me very upset. There are parents on that side of the House. I would urge the Labour members who are parents, who care about their children, to look at the children who do not have parents and who rely on the State to look after them and provide them with the protection and safety that they so deserve.

Someone once said “Look into the eyes of the children and you see the future of the nation”. What do we see in the children who have been abandoned or who have been abused? We still see hope. Let’s actually not abandon their hope by doing bills like this.

This bill should be dumped, and the Labour Government should be ashamed of bringing this bill to the House. Those members should be hanging their heads in shame and unable to look at those children’s eyes, because if those members actually think that they’re doing the best for the children of this country, they are very sadly mistaken. I do not commend this bill to the House.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te W’are. I rise on behalf of Te Paati Māori to speak to the second reading of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill. We actively opposed this bill at first reading, and we continue to oppose it now. The submissions received by the select committee only serve to confirm and strengthen our view that it is reform that is short-sighted, breaches Te Tiriti, and, to be perfectly honest, is downright dangerous. In the words of the submission from leading Māori public-health advocates Hāpai te Hauora, “[The bill] will not only stagnate any attempts to pursue better outcomes for tamariki and whānau engaged with Oranga Tamariki but may even perpetuate the harms and dysfunction of the current Oranga Tamariki system at disproportionate and irreparable rates.”

It is obvious that the Crown has learnt nothing from the constant controversies surrounding Oranga Tamariki. This is a systemically broken organisation. Racism, paternalism, and cultural disregard run rampant. And yet, in this bill, the Government relegates tangata whenua oversight to a Māori advisory board under a Crown agency within the Education Review Office. It would almost be laughable, if it wasn’t so disgraceful. There is no Government department that needs robust, independent, and Treaty-compliant oversight more than a department that has responsibility for child protection.

As Moana Jackson, who’s been quoted quite a lot tonight, said, the Crown has no right to put our children into State care. Our role, therefore, must be to dismantle these Crown systems of oppression and, in its place, devolve power and resources to w’ānau, hapū, and iwi through a mokopuna Māori agency as affirmed in Te Paati Māori’s policy. As we work towards that goal, we must hold Oranga Tamariki to account at every step on how it treats every single one of our babies in every w’ānau, community, and region across Aotearoa. We must hold their feet to the fire and say, “Not one more mokopuna will be stolen from their w’ānau, hapū, and iwi—not one more child.”

Despite the need for much-greater and more independent oversight and monitoring, the Government remains determined on changing the monitor of Oranga Tamariki from an independent Crown entity to a departmental agency, when this inevitably reduces the independence of the oversight. In no way does the bill provide for the Te Tiriti o Waitangi guarantee of tino rangatiratanga of w’ānau, hapū, and iwi over the care and protection of tamariki Māori. It also weakens the role of the Children’s Commissioner, a role which has proven to provide important advocacy for tamariki Māori.

As was so accurately put in the submission of Hon Dame Tariana Turia, Dame Areta Koopu, Dame Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi, Merepeka Raukawa-Tait, and Lady Tureiti Moxon, this bill relegates tangata whenua to the provider level and, effectively, maintains a system that is destructive. Despite submissions from dozens of kaupapa Māori organisations, hauora groups, community groups, Māori legal academics, and NGOs, the Government continues to ignore their calls for change. Of 403 submissions on this bill—403 submissions on this bill—only eight were in favour. A mihi to the young 16-year-old Ihorangi Reweti-Peters, who’s been upstairs and has been giving evidence on abuse in care, actively opposing this, like many submitters. The Crown has not listened. This is an act of extreme arrogance and represents an abuse of colonial power that has no place in this 21st century.

Te Paati Māori opposes this legislation in the strongest possible terms. We will seek to amend the bill as drafted, and we’ll continue to work with our people to stop this. In the words of Dr Fleur Te Aho, “The bill cannot progress unless these fundamental issues for Māori are addressed. It also cannot proceed until the bigger-picture issue of how Oranga Tamariki will be overhauled and how Māori will lead this transformation is taken.” You have been told by the most traumatised to stop. It’s truly heartbreaking to watch this and to watch you proceed with this bill. It is shameful. Te iwi Māori will not let it stand. We do not support this. Tēnā tātou katoa.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. This evening, I want to begin by acknowledging our caregivers, who have for many years cared for children of the State. This evening, I want to rise and acknowledge our Oranga Tamariki staff, community leaders, community activists, those who fight for the right of our tamariki, of our pēpē, of our rangatahi. But, most of all, this evening, I want to rise and acknowledge the children who are living and have lived in State care, the challenges that they’ve experienced, the challenges, sadly, that some of them probably tonight are experiencing. I rise tonight and acknowledge them, and the reason I stand is I want to do right by them.

Now, I actually, to be really frank with you, don’t really want to speak on this piece of legislation, not because I don’t believe in it but because I dream of a Parliament, I dream of a nation, where Oranga Tamariki is a redundant organisation, where the State doesn’t have to be involved in the care and protection of our tamariki. But, unfortunately, we live in a time when the State must be involved and must do what they can to protect our young people.

Now, we could do nothing and allow what’s happening to continue to happen, or we could put things in place and begin to work on it. For myself, I am acutely aware—in fact, this weekend I was reminded—as I buried one of my foster boy’s fathers, of his journey as a young person in care, of his journey as a young person going through youth justice, of his journey of actually not being particularly listened to or heard or respected within our State care system. So I stand here today to ensure that systems are in place that can ensure the future of young people in care is protected.

Now, there’s one thing I want to just reflect on in the select committee process that came out of this for me, and I kind of knew it but it became really starkly clear to me. It was that this place isn’t particularly accessible. This place isn’t particularly accessible, whether it be if you have a disability particularly, whether it be language, whether it be understanding what is going on, and that’s been talked about a few times tonight. So, for me, listening, a learning I take from this is: how do we be the most inclusive and open Parliament in the world when it comes to not only working with our young people but working with all people throughout Aotearoa? That’s important to me, and some of the conversations with some of the young people we spoke with—they spoke very strongly about that and how that could work.

This evening, I just want to leave you with a line that hit me actually really hard from one of our young submitters. It talked about one of the divine spark of our mokopuna—the divine spark of our mokopuna. I’m not going to claim that this is perfect, but this is something that we put in place to ensure that the oversight of the Oranga Tamariki systems is better than it is now for the divine spark of our mokopuna. Kia ora.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in opposition to the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill, in this, its second reading.

I want to acknowledge the heartfelt and knowledgeable voices of those who have spoken in opposition to this bill tonight—across all the parties in this Parliament, aside from Labour. I want to acknowledge the heartfelt way in which they have expressed themselves.

The supposed policy objective of this bill is to promote and improve the Oranga Tamariki welfare system and, subsequently, the outcomes for children and young people in New Zealand. This in itself is laudable, but National believes the Government is risking the safety and welfare of children by steaming ahead with this bill despite its significant flaws and despite the significant opposition to it from the public and the sector. The safety of our babies, our children, our young people is of utmost importance, but National cannot and will not support a bill that weakens protection for children—as this bill does.

This bill is the result of the Government pulling together a poorly thought through Wellington solution to a very real problem—protecting our children from harm—and then trying to rush it through Parliament, hoping no one would notice. It is simply disgraceful that a matter so important as protecting children from harm could go through a truncated consultation process: a submission process timed to coincide with the Christmas holiday break, a press release going out on 22 December with the submission period closing on 26 January. There is not one person in this House that does not know putting a press release out on 22 December is designed to silence detractors.

That this Government has stooped so low as to take a very significant problem like the safety and wellbeing of our children and play games with a consultation process like this is simply wrong, and there should not be one member of this Government sitting here feeling proud of what they have done. Yet, despite the cynical attempt to silence detractors, despite this flawed submission process, 403 written submissions were put in over that holiday period, 96 oral submissions were heard by the select committee, and the vast majority—311 submitters—expressed strong opposition; eight submitters expressed support.

Unlike the Government, we have read and listened carefully to the submissions from the many organisations who work with and advocate to improve the lives of our young people every day. Like the submitters, our view is that the removal of the role of the independent children’s commission and replacing it with a board—where its functions will be shared between three different organisations—will water it down, will mean more bureaucracy, a less effective voice for advocacy of children.

We have railed against this Government putting more into bureaucracy on so many different things. But on this particular issue—the safety and welfare of our children—it defies belief that this Government could seek to do this. My colleagues have explained very carefully that the Government needs to listen and actually hear what the vast majority of experts and organisations who work closely with our children are saying in opposition to this bill.

National is committed to ensuring there is a strong, independent advocate for children. We believe the current structure of the children’s commission that operates under enables this advocacy. Over the 20 years, Children’s Commissioners have been incredibly effective. There have been some fearless voices in the Children’s Commissioner role, and they should be fearless voices who can speak unimpeded by cumbersome bureaucratic structures set up to water down their voice. The Children’s Commissioner is a well-known, established, and proven role that has the trust and confidence of the public for monitoring and investigating complaints and advocacy. The fact that the Children’s Commissioner is often a vocal critic of the Government of the day, whoever is in Government at that time, should be seen as a sign of success, rather than something to be done away with as an inconvenience. They must be heard.

There has been many organisations and people saying the passage of this bill should be paused. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care is ongoing, its final report and recommendation due in 2023. Why on earth would this Government not wait for that? To make significant changes to the role of the Children’s Commissioner before any findings have been made public from the royal commission of inquiry is an absolute disservice and disrespect to the victims who have come forward during the inquiry to share their stories. We here in Parliament should heed the voices of survivors—who have courageously shared their experiences—before deciding what arrangements serve the best interests of vulnerable children.

The sector was not supportive of the bill. Serious concerns were raised by the sector about the bill, in particular the significant changes to the children’s commission that hadn’t been signalled in advance. This and the disgraceful shortened time frame for submissions led Save the Children to initiate a petition which 10,700 people supported. The petition asked the House of Representatives to retain the Children’s Commissioner as a named role with authority to report directly to the Prime Minister and to consult with children before progressing the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill.

VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai, which stands for Voice of the Young and Care Experienced—established in 2017, an independent charity organisation that helps to advocate for the approximately 6,000 children with care experience—should be listened to. The Government did not engage with VOYCE during the development of the bill. Unbelievable and a travesty. Then VOYCE submitted on the bill, thinking that the process of democracy would hear their account. But, again, their submission was not taken seriously.

Opposition comes from so many different organisations, from so many experienced people in this sector. The Government should be ashamed of taking this bill forward.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on this very important bill, the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill. Now, I’m going to start by talking about the select committee briefly. We see in the select committee report that, despite the very clear disagreement about the bill, the select committee was unanimous in making the changes that it suggested—so congratulations there. We also see in the select committee report that some effort was made to engage with young people and to do things differently in the select committee process. So there was special thought about the time when young people would be wanting to make submissions—after-school hours is an obvious one, sitting from 3.30 p.m. to 6 p.m.—also ensuring that, if requested, the oral submissions by children or young people would not be live streamed or posted on Facebook. There was a range of methods that the select committee did to ensure that participation, and I commend them for that work.

I also want to acknowledge the membership of that committee. We heard from my colleague Dr Emily Henderson about the range of skills and life experiences on that committee on the Labour side. I also want to acknowledge around the House. This is a particular select committee which does have deep knowledge and real interest in these issues, and I believe everybody who’s spoken about this bill very much cares about the wellbeing of our tamariki, and I commend them all, everyone, for their passion on that. It’s been clear that there is agreement on the importance of the Children’s Commissioner, or commission, and I want to add my voice to that and acknowledge that one of my very special mentors in my life was a previous historian, social worker, and children’s advocate; he was John Angus, who was the commissioner from 2009 to 2011, and I cannot say enough the influence that he’s had on my life and really being committed to the advocacy for children and how important that is.

So why do we have this bill? We want to strengthen the oversight of this system, and we’ve heard from my colleague Glen Bennett about how important it is that the system—of course, the system is not perfect; it would be great if we didn’t have this system in the first place—how it’s so important that the oversight is improved. So the bill does that by three main parts. There’s the advocacy, that’s with the commission; complaints and investigation, mainly with the ombudsman; and monitoring with the independent monitor that other speeches have spoken about. Now, of course, there is some overlap between those functions. The Minister talked about that, and the bill is very explicit about this at clauses 57 and 102, on common duties.

The start of the bill deals with that monitoring—the independent monitor and the ombudsman role—but it’s Part 5 that relates to the commission, and this is from clause 82. The idea, I believe, is that this Part 5 will become its own separate bill in the next stage. What Part 5 does is it replaces the Children’s Commissioner Act 2003 and it establishes this board that we’ve heard a lot of about, particularly from my colleague Dr Liz Craig. So that board is created at clause 91, and it has a chair. The chair is going to be called the Chief Children’s Commissioner. Now, the select committee is very clear about why they recommended this. They took on board the submissions that we need a face for people to be able to engage with. So that person is there. But not only are they there by themselves; they’ve got two to five other members. So that increases the diversity, that increases the skillset, and that will increase the good governance of this role of advocating for children, which is so important.

I just want to quickly note that the select committee added to the functions—at clause 99(ha)—this ability to report to the Prime Minister. So that’s there, and also noting that, at clause 118, there’s a provision there for a review of the commission within five years. This is a very sensible clause and, in general, I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 65

New Zealand Labour 65.

Noes 54

New Zealand National 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

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

Second Reading

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for ACC): I present to the House a legislative statement on the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I move, That the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

At the moment, many women who are injured during birth cannot access the treatment and financial support they need through ACC. This reflects a broader issue with the ACC legislation. We know that women make fewer claims than men, have fewer injuries covered than men, and each woman’s claim costs ACC a third less than a man’s in entitlements. Officials initially thought this bill would support 18,000 women per year by extending ACC cover to a list of maternal birth injuries that was based on injuries recorded when New Zealanders are discharged from hospital. Using its own estimates about how often the injuries on the list occur and how many parents will make claims, ACC now expects to support 28,000 women per year to access the support they need; 10,000 more than initially estimated.

This bill addresses a historical inequity in the ACC legislation. But it also represents the Government’s first step towards addressing the gender and other inequities in New Zealanders’ access to, and the support they receive from, ACC. I want to first acknowledge the Education and Workforce Committee, which has reported back on the bill. The bill is a first of its kind and represents real progress towards our 2020 election manifesto commitment to return ACC to its original purpose of assisting all New Zealanders who have had an injury. I thank the committee for its diligent consideration of such an important piece of work.

I also want to acknowledge everyone who has submitted on the bill during its select committee stage. I understand the committee considered submissions from many individuals, including those who bravely shared their experience of birth injuries and notable medical organisations. Their input has proven to be invaluable in this process.

A large number of submitters were concerned that the bill does not cover all maternal birth injuries. I want to reassure these submitters that the bill is intended to cover all maternal birth injuries that can be caused by childbirth. This is why I am very pleased with the two changes the Education and Workforce Committee has made to the bill. One of these is to add a number of additional birth injuries to the bill for cover. I welcome this change. I knew when I introduced the bill that the list would need to be carefully scrutinised to make sure that it is comprehensive. That is why I encouraged New Zealanders to make submissions on the bill and asked my officials to continue to work closely with the experts throughout this process. I am confident that the committee’s change ensures that the bill provides comprehensive cover for birth injuries.

The other change the committee made is to include a review clause for the list of birth injuries to futureproof the bill. I wholeheartedly endorse this change, which will keep the list up to date with developments in medical science. The select committee process also thoroughly explored an alternative approach to covering these injuries, putting a general definition of “maternal birth injury” into the bill, instead of listing all covered injuries. This would risk cover being applied inconsistently. Because of different medical professionals’ interpretation of the general definition, some parents could receive support for an injury but others with the same injury may not. That’s the opposite of what we want to achieve. The committee’s rigorous process has given me confidence that the list approach taken in the bill will remove uncertainty and limit the number of women who have to fight for the support they need through the courts. Most importantly, it will support them in accessing treatment to aid their recovery as quickly as possible in what will already be a time of great change in their lives.

This extension of cover to an estimated 28,000 birthing parents will improve the support available to those who suffer childbirth injuries, and, in particular, provide them with more timely access to surgeries and to pelvic physiotherapy. In addition, if a birthing parent suffers a mental injury caused by a birth injury or any other physical injury that is the result of an injury on the list, they can also be covered by ACC. I want everyone to know that the way that the accident compensation scheme is set up already allows for those consequential injuries to be covered, and they do not need to be listed to be included.

I want to thank my colleagues from across the House for their unanimous support for extending ACC cover to maternal birth injuries. This shows just how clear it is to all of us that this is a change that is not only necessary but long overdue. I also want to acknowledge the Green Party’s differing views in the select committee’s report. I understand that these concerns have been fully explored during the committee’s thorough process, and I look forward to discussing them at the committee of the whole House stage of the bill.

As I have said before, this bill also addresses some of the changes made in 2010 which disadvantaged tens of thousands of New Zealand workers. In particular, the bill provides more clarity on what is involved for gradual process injury claims at work and more equitable cover for claimants.

Aotearoa New Zealand looks very different from what it did 50 years ago, and our workforce looks very different too. The old legislation reflects the inherent gender disparities in the accident compensation scheme that are the result of its focus on physical injuries, which are more common amongst men in male-dominated types of work. This bill is our commitment to begin addressing the gender disparities in ACC and to reverse some of the 2010 changes so that we can provide better access to ACC and ensure it delivers better outcomes for all New Zealanders. I’m excited to see the real-life impact of this work and I look forward to the future where families will have the care and support needed from the start of their journey into parenthood, and workers will be better supported by ACC. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): In the first reading debate on this bill, my colleague and friend Louise Upston encouraged people with traumatic and negative experiences of their births to come forward and submit, and we certainly had a large number. The Education and Workforce Committee had a large number of women who did just that, and we heard submissions from over 790 people and 46 oral submissions. Some of them were harrowing, as mums described occasionally lifelong sequela from traumatic birthing experiences, and, if anything, that brought home to the committee and to officials the need for this, I think. So I want to thank them. It brought a human story and face to the improvements that we’re making to the ACC legislation.

I want to also put on record my thanks to officials, who were put through the mill quite a bit, I think, in terms of the questions that we asked—some were very technical—but I also want to acknowledge a parliamentary colleague: Sarah Pallett. It was very helpful to have a registered midwife on the committee. I have huge regard for our midwifery community. I have a sister who is a midwife of many years, and I’m very proud to say that I have a daughter now who is a registered midwife at Middlemore Hospital, and they have to deal with these things on a day-to-day basis.

So the bill is better for this process, as the Minister for ACC has acknowledged, and I want to thank all the people who helped us along that journey. It was a tough one, and we start with the premise that 85 percent of birthing mums are going to have a form of trauma that’s likely now to be covered by this.

I mention that in the context of—and anticipating the contribution by our Green colleague Jan Logie on—the Green Party view of the report. The Green Party aren’t happy with the way in which we have got here, with a specified list of birthing injuries, and we looked at this very closely. I think we’ve actually struck the right list as a start point, and Sarah Pallett was very helpful in that regard, I must say. But I do acknowledge the reasons why Jan Logie and the Green Party have concerns about this, and I have no doubt that there will be a close watch on whether or not trauma that’s experienced by mums in the labour and birth process—if it doesn’t end up being covered by ACC, I think we’ll all want to know why, and there is a review built into the bill now as part of the select committee’s recommendations. We’ve had reviews in the past that have been sort of lip-service clauses going into a bill, but I think this is a really, really important one, and the ACC officials actually gave us a commitment that they would be looking at that very closely all the way through in any event.

So there are six extra injuries that the committee is recommending be added to the bill. There were a couple of other things, I think, that we looked at, and there were many submissions calling for this. One was mental injury, and this has been a challenge for successive Governments—the degree to which mental injury should be covered. We’ve settled on a place that is mental injury as a consequence of physical injury, and, of course, post-natal depression and other psychological stress that may not be related to a birthing injury is not going to be covered. I can understand why.

My concern more broadly about mental injury is that—despite the backslapping that the Labour Government gives itself—our mental health services, despite the extra funding, is not in better shape. My worry is that like with many other conditions, as was my experience as an employee at ACC and as Minister of ACC, ACC becomes the default provider because the pathway to care is perceived to be shorter and better, and I worry that if we do broaden out the range of the definitions of injuries and mental injuries, that would be the case. I think that’s also the case with the other birth sequela that Jan Logie will talk about.

One area that I think we really do need to keep an eye on is injuries to the babies themselves. I remain uncomfortable at the possibility—and the difficulty, actually—in understanding whether a baby born with a severe, often neurological injury or condition is actually as a consequence of the birthing injury, and the arbitrary distinction between when does a person get cover and when does a person exist. I think that when you’re in labour, you’ve got a human being that’s about to come out and can be injured in the process. I think we need to look very closely at that, and I understand ACC’s reticence around that. Some are covered, but those are lifelong conditions that can be extremely expensive, and I’m not sure that we’ve actually captured all the injuries to babies that we could or should.

The Minister mentioned equity, and she did so also in her first reading speech. I accept the point she’s making, and this will close the gap between men and women in an equity sense. But, as she said in her first reading speech, there was billion-dollar difference, I think, in the costs of ACC claims—men more than women. I urge caution with that as a metric, because if there is an inequity, the goal is not to increase the costs to women. It’s to reduce the costs incurred by men who get injured—young men, particularly—who are much greater risk-takers and who have a propensity to slide their motorbikes in the gravel or to wrap their cars around lamp posts or break their legs on the rugby field or have trees fall on them in the forest. But, actually, the equity is not to increase the number of injury claims by women; it’s to reduce the claims by men—Jan Logie is not so sure. But there’s no doubt that men are less risk-averse, actually, and the injury prevention efforts by ACC are actually targeted at reducing those costs for our male rangatahi.

Indeed, injury prevention needs to be a part of birthing injury prevention, as well. As I say, I think we have a tremendously competent health professional group in charge of maternity care, but there’s no doubt that mistakes are made and they lead to injuries, and now that there is cover here, I think ACC can and should pay closer attention to professional standards, competencies, and clinical best practice to make sure that we can reduce the number and impact of birthing injuries on women in New Zealand. So it’s not just reducing injuries for men that we need to do.

I want to just touch, in the end, on the other minor changes that the Minister describes as the reversing of the terrible changes that the previous National Government made in 2010. Firstly, let’s have a bit of a context here. In the four years up until that change, the unfunded liability on Labour’s watch went from $4 billion to $13 billion, and the cost of ACC claims went up by 57 percent, or five or six times the rate of inflation. That’s because Labour have a track record of softening and expanding the scheme and of taking their eyes off the rehabilitation ball, and they haven’t actually reversed that many of the changes that we made in 2010 in any event.

Even with the hearing loss changes, prior to 2010, there was no threshold for entitlements to hearing aids. We put in a 6 percent hearing loss because that’s what Australian jurisdictions did and it’s what the United Kingdom did, and it actually recognised that between zero and 6 percent, there was little case to be had, according to the science, for a hearing aid to be provided. That was still the advice that officials gave us at 6 percent.

So there’s a bit of virtue signalling going on here. I think there were two reversals—if you’d even call this a reversal—but that’s a minor irritant in a bill that is going to improve services for birthing mums. I look forward to having a more detailed conversation in the committee of the whole House about it, but, in the meantime, we’re very happy to support it at second reading.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and a pleasure to take a call in this second reading. With the ACC legislation being introduced 50 years ago, it is very clear that the existing legislation was due for an overhaul, and that is what this bill is actually doing. We have heard mention of issues of gender balance, fairness, and equity in the ACC scheme. That brings me to the story that we heard during our submission process of a couple, where one of them slipped in the pub and had an injury that was similar to the one that his wife sustained during childbirth, except one of them was covered—the one from the man—and the one from the woman wasn’t covered. So it’s obvious that birth injuries, as they’re currently not covered in the legislation, were a very important place to start the work.

It is really important to put up front that this bill is intended, as the Minister said previously as well, to cover all maternal birth injuries that can be caused by childbirth. I want to thank the Minister, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, for bringing this bill to the House. We are really grateful for that. It is a first of its kind, and, once this bill is passed, 28,000 women will benefit from this improved legislation. That is 10,000 more than initially expected. I want to also thank the officials and advisers for their work on this, and my colleagues from the Education and Workforce Committee for working so collaboratively on this bill. I join the previous speaker, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, in also commending a special mention of our wonderful colleague Sarah Pallett. She subbed in to our committee on many meetings and took the opportunity to share her extensive knowledge and expertise on this particular issue, and the bill is better for it. Thirdly, but not lastly, I would like to thank every submitter on this bill; they bravely shared their personal stories, and their contributions were extremely valuable in informing our consideration. The feedback actually resulted in amendments being made with regard to the injuries covered.

Now, the previous two speakers, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni and the Hon Michael Woodhouse, already mentioned the review clause, so I won’t go further into that. But I want to talk a little bit more about an addition that our select committee made in the process, which is that we also opened a briefing into the accident compensation scheme cover for maternal birth injuries. What we put in our select committee report is that we hope to see this briefing reinstated in the 54th Parliament by the Education and Workforce Committee. It means that, in addition to the review clause, this briefing will then give an opportunity to review how the bill is working in practice. If it turns out that there are obvious injuries missing, then, through the briefing, injuries could be added to the schedule rather than awaiting the three-year review period.

Our committee heard very many notable institutions and organisations—I won’t mention them all, but it was from drawing on their mahi and all of the personal stories from the submitters that the committee recommended a number of additional birth injuries for inclusion in this bill. That is exactly what this process was supposed to do, and because of that process, we are here at second reading, discussing a more comprehensive and better bill. I commend it to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. While the bill does cover those other matters, as our spokesperson for women I’d like to concentrate my contribution this evening especially on birth injuries.

As spokesperson for women, I’m really pleased to see these changes come about that will allow maternal birth injuries to be covered, and I spoke in the first reading about the fact that I’d actually started drafting a member’s bill very close to these lines but the Minister beat me to it, and congratulations to the Minister and to the Education and Workforce Committee for beating this thing into shape and coming out with an even better bill than was first presented to this House. I’m also very pleased to see that it does, actually, as the Minister acknowledged, balance the scales a little in favour of women, given that this is a system where men are predominantly the award-recipients of claims and payments. So it is very nice to see something tipping in favour of the women of New Zealand.

But we do have a little bit of discomfort around the lack of robust costing, and I think that, while the regulatory impact statement has done a rudimentary estimate of about $25 million annually, we on this side of the House don’t view that as robust, and we don’t think that we have had enough of a provision or, indeed, an insight into an estimation of how many additional claims may be made through the ACC system once this piece of legislation does pass into law and is in place, and therefore we don’t have a full understanding as to what that is going to cost the Crown or the taxpayer. We do know, though, that there are about 18,000 women a year who do suffer quite severe, quite traumatic injuries. About 85 percent of women who give birth in New Zealand each year do need medical attention, and, as we all know, in this day and age, medical services don’t come quick and they don’t come cheap.

The amendment bill proposes that ACC extend cover to include seven injuries as accidents, and they include the perineal tearing, obstetric haematoma of the pelvis, and ruptured uterus and uterine prolapse. Some of these injuries are particularly painful and they take an exceptionally long time to recover from, and they do have long-term effects on the lives of new mums who suffer them. We do know, and I did refer to this in my first speech to the House on this subject, that perineal tears particularly are not uncommon in childbirth, but the most severe are known as third- and fourth-degree tears, and that was what I did personally appeal for in the first reading in the House, because they do involve some really debilitating injuries. So I’m very pleased to see this kind of injury being included in that schedule, because they do often require surgery and general anaesthetic and ongoing physiotherapy.

There is also the fact that ongoing medical issues, as many people in the public do know, are profound and they are exhausting and they are time-consuming and already, in a period of time that can be life changing for women, this is the last thing they need to contend with as well. So, while we would agree—and I understand the select committee did hear a lot of submissions around the fact—that mental health injury needs to be covered as well, that will not extend to the likes of postnatal depression, but it is pleasing to see that the select committee took the view that mental health distress related to maternal birth injury would also be covered.

I think the bill is making an excellent step towards advancing the rights and protections of women in New Zealand, and particularly mums. We do think that it is a much-needed change for what has been a painful and unfair consequence of a legislative change that was made just a couple of years ago. We do not think, as I have referred to, that the Government has fully justified the costs, but I am happy to commend this bill to the House.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an honour to take a call on the second reading of this bill. It was one of the highlights of my parliamentary career so far to sit on the Education and Workforce Committee to consider this bill. We heard so many submissions, and it wasn’t easy. Some of the submissions that we heard were very difficult to hear. Some of them were absolutely heartbreaking. We had 800 submissions in total, and I want to take this opportunity to thank the submitters who came to our select committee and bravely shared their very difficult stories of some very, very difficult injuries that they suffered at a very difficult time in their life.

I also want to acknowledge the Minister. This is a very important bill that came about because there was an issue that was raised about the equity of the ACC scheme and the fact that these particular types of injuries weren’t covered. She saw this issue and she addressed it very quickly, and I want to commend her for that. I also want to commend my colleagues from across the House on the Education and Workforce Committee. We did work very collaboratively together. There may be some areas of disagreement, but, in general, I think that we all agreed that this was a step in the right direction.

Many people who submitted to this bill wanted it to go further, and so the three things I would just mention are that the Minister has clearly said—and I state this for the record as well—that the intention is for this bill to cover all birth injuries. It also covers mental health associated with birth injuries and it is a first step in this regard. So I think these are really important steps to consider and issues to mention when considering this bill. Also we have the review in three years, and the additional briefing that the committee has looked into.

So we did take this really seriously. We did scrutinise this list, as the Minister requested of us. We heard from obstetricians, we heard from nurses, we heard from physios, but, most importantly, we heard from the women who were affected by birth injuries. We made improvements and, as a result of that, 28,000 more New Zealand women will receive the help they need after suffering a serious injury. So I commend this bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. In contrast to an earlier bill, it’s a real pleasure to rise and speak in support of the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I will get to some of the points of, kind of, difference that the Greens had around this bill, but this is a day to celebrate. It is a really important step for families in our country to have the injuries that thousands of birthing parents have been carrying in silence, often in shame, without treatment or support for years. I also, like everybody else who’s spoken tonight, really just want to acknowledge the submitters first. Also when the Greens did a call out earlier, we got 900 stories from birthing parents around their experiences of birth that we passed on to the Minister, and I just want to thank all of them and just say how humbling it was, I think, for everybody on the committee to be able to hear and read their stories.

And before getting into the substance of the bill, I also just want to acknowledge just a sense of being really disturbed by the failure of our health system. Getting ACC now to respond to these injuries is one thing and is a really, really important step, but the fact so many of these injuries were not even ever picked up or responded to by health practitioners and the degree of silence that’s existed in our society—and I note too for myself, as, you know, like a feminist who’s been active on a range of issues, this is not an issue that I have previously picked up before. That shocks me now that I’ve heard all of these stories, because this is something we should have done something about a long time ago. So I really want to acknowledge everybody who shared their story, and the Minister for bringing this piece of legislation, and then the committee, and to acknowledge the chair, and Sarah Pallett, our resident midwife, for the journey and the process, and also having a previous Minister for ACC from the National Party. It was like a very intense experience, I think, for the poor officials, so I’ll also acknowledge them.

There were changes made, and I acknowledge, in terms of the Minister’s articulated intent, that this bill will cover—and I’m going to clarify this a little bit from what has been said—all physical injuries and consequential mental injuries to birthing parents. There is a difference from covering all birth injuries to doing that, and this is a good first step towards covering all birthing injuries. We are pleased to see a significant number of injuries that have been added to the list to ensure people get the support that they need, which is ultimately what this is about.

We heard so many stories about people, you know, like living with injuries where they weren’t able to pick up their babies, they weren’t able to play with their babies, and they weren’t able to do housework. Sexual relationships: they weren’t able to enjoy sex anymore, so then relationships broke down as a result of it. Like, then you think about the profound impact of that. Here you are, this most joyous experience that you’ve, hopefully, been looking forward to for most of your life, and then it turns into that, and you’re trying to connect to your baby and know how important that attachment is for the entire life of your baby; too much—too much, without support, without intervention and support. So this is what this is about addressing.

For the Greens, we didn’t want this defined list of birth injuries because it is a unique approach in the Act to have a defined list. Nowhere else does that exist within the ACC legislation. For us, we don’t think the best way to address embedded sexism in a system is to create something unique, special, just for those birthing parents and women. That seems like that might actually have potential to embed a degree of discrimination into the system. We could’ve lived with it, even a bit more than what we’re living with now, if there’d been, kind of, a catch-all, which is similar to some of the other workplace gradual process injuries, where there’s a provision that enables things not on the list to be covered. But the officials’ advice was that they thought that would catch too many things, and that makes me sad. I don’t think we should be fighting to defend the existing boundaries within ACC, when we know those boundaries right now are deeply problematic and causing lots of harm. So that was why we were looking for a general cover.

I heard the Minister say that the rationale for not going for general cover was because it might lead to different outcomes. We also heard that between different areas, different language is used to describe injuries, so we may well end up with that difference in cover anyway, even with that specified list. There’s a real potential it’ll create more bureaucracy and potential for disentitlement as practitioners use that different language to refer to different injuries. It’s also, for us, a really fundamental point of the separation of the physical from the mental from the whānau actually negates a Te Ao Māori worldview. So we’re embedding a Pākehā world view on to a system that is supposed to be providing support for all people in this country. We think we could’ve done a bit better than that, and a generalised approach that included whānau would’ve been a way to do that.

Also, just the potential for it to exacerbate existing problems with the approach to treatment injuries by focusing narrowly on cause rather than focusing on the impact of an injury or a person experiencing it was a concern for us. The point about requiring a physical injury before mental injury gets covered, I do just want to point to how problematic that occurs to me to be, particularly for birthing parents in rural areas. I’ve heard a significant number of stories of people whose births do not go to plan. They may be haemorrhaging, and they have to be airlifted. In this, I’ve heard several cases from Queenstown area—and I know this will be similar in other areas of the country—have to be airlifted out to another city. Sometimes they have to divert their partners in a car racing to one town to meet them. Then they’re diverted to somewhere else, and their life is at stake. There is no physical injury at the end of that that is on that list. But boy, will there be a mental trauma that is a result of the physical process. So I was not convinced that we should not have had a clause to ensure that there was cover for those women.

I also just want to speak to the point around—and I was really encouraged to hear the Hon Michael Woodhouse talk about the openness around needing to consider injuries to babies in the future. Also, we heard from people who’d fought through the courts to get cover, and that it had been a full-time job to get treatment injury cover for their child, and recognising that’s an inequity. Very, very few people are in a place to be able to fight the system through the courts to be able to get that cover. We know people are not getting it. All the way through the hearings, we were hearing things that sounded like treatment injuries to most of us around that table that were not being covered as treatment injuries. So for the Greens, actually ensuring cover for all birth injuries to pēpē would be the best way to avoid that problem and to ensure that they get the support that they need. Cost for us is not an argument. It is a massive difference—and I’m not going to buy into the sexism that we’d heard previously about men’s behaviour and women’s behaviour. But just to say this is a really important day for whānau in this country, and the Greens are happy to support.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party to support this bill, the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The first thing I would really like to do is to thank the submitters. We had over 800 submitters, and many of these were women that had traumatic experiences while giving birth. And the stories that we heard from there are just horrific because of the amount of treatment that they were unable to access. Also, listening to women that had given birth overseas with one child and then came back to New Zealand and had their second child, and just the total way they were treated and how these injuries had occurred. Also, the other sad reality, we heard from these women that have had a child and they are now not even considering having second or third children because of the traumatic birthing injuries that have occurred.

Next, I would actually really like to thank the ACC officials for listening to all these submitters; actually looking at the list and hearing what these ladies had to say, due to their births being traumatic experiences; and adding many injuries to this list. However, again, as the Green Party said, there’s always going to be a line—what is actually an injury, and then what is actually part of. And it gets very, very difficult because there was also the consideration of that grey area between medical and ACC. However, we are very glad to know that the ACC will be holding a three-year review instead of a five, which they gave us the options. However, again, as we mentioned at the Education Workforce Committee, which we worked really well with, we insisted that we will have a briefing paper put forward to the next Parliament to suggest that they have a review every year. As we all know, we also can miss things, and we want to make sure that we don’t miss these horrific injuries that can occur to these women.

Now, what we also believe, from the original, is around 85 percent of women in New Zealand may experience this. You know, this a huge number, and it’s quite sad to think how many women are currently carrying birthing injuries which will not be covered because they were not going to go back. So it would be very nice to see if there is some way within the ACC bill that some of these women may be able to prove injury that they may want to look at—how to get some treatment. We do want women to be able to have more children, and if they’re carrying an injury now, what is the likelihood that they’re going to do it again?

So I would really like to see that. Yes, I know that we haven’t fully costed this, because, I think, the biggest thing of all was we actually do not know how many women will be claiming. I know that they estimated, back at the beginning, it was around 17,000 to 18,000 would benefit from this bill. But I am guessing it’s going to be a lot larger than that, since we have increased the number of injuries to that list. And also, it is good to see that the mental health side of a traumatic birth will be looked at as well, because there’s also some very interesting stories that women have told us with that.

But the other thing is that everybody is also talking so much about the greatness of the maternity birth injuries, but there are also matters in this bill. Again, lowering the threshold from 6 percent to 5 percent for hearing loss. But there’s also one bit in five of the other clauses that are here that still concerns me: raising the board from eight to nine, saying that they need broader representation.

Again, I look back. Last year, we had three appointments put on to this board. So I’m pretty certain we should have had good representatives back then when they were appointing these three new appointees. And also within this bill, there are seven other little technical things that help, also, around assisted dying for children that parents do assisted dying for. So this is great. We’re moving it into our modern world, which is forever evolving. And we’ve got to make sure that we are covering people and making sure that they have the access to good care.

The biggest thing of all is that I still think there’s much more that we have to look at, at ACC. It’s a 50-year-old Act—it’s 50 years old. Things change so rapidly in this modern world: technology and treatments within the hospitals. We may have to start looking at how we reform ACC and how we can move it into the times. There are things that we could be probably doing a lot better than what is being done now to help people with their injuries, be it a maternal injury or a work injury or a sporting injury. We need to keep looking and moving forward instead of necessarily looking at something that is 50 years old, which is ever so slightly younger than me. And I’m pretty certain that for kids that are born today, there’ll be totally different new things. So, hopefully, we can look at this bill and improve it even more for the better. Or we just start writing something new that fits our modern times so that everyone is looked after.

Now, also in the bill, with the other five policy changes, there’s a clarification in clause 8 around section 30, clarifying the test of work-related gradual process, diseases, or infections covered and restoring the more climate-friendly test that applied before 2010. Of course, this was around the changes that the National Party did. However, we also heard from the firemen’s association around cancers. I know that the ACC say that, yes, it would be picked up, but there are still so many different questions around that, around the firemen, especially also volunteers that sometimes don’t receive the same coverage. So there’s something there that we still need to improve on and have a look at, because we need the firemen and women that look after us, and especially the volunteers within New Zealand, because there’s a lot of small rural communities and we have to make sure that we’re looking after them or anyone—first responders—that may attend to something that could end up causing them problems down the track.

I would like to commend this bill to the House. And, once again, I would like to thank all the women and also all the experts that submitted on this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m delighted to be able to take a call on the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This is a bill that will improve lives. I want to acknowledge the submitters, who—we’ve heard quite a few speeches now on, obviously, the trauma that many submitters have faced and how harrowing that was at the Education and Workforce Committee. So well done to everyone across the House on the select committee. It seems like it was a very engaged select committee and also had the benefit of Sarah Pallett and her expertise as a midwife. So well done to all involved, and, of course, the officials, who, obviously, responded to that work.

I want to focus on the maternal birth injury part of this bill, rather than the other matters. I just want to take a moment to go back to the principal Act, in section 3 of that, where the purpose is “to enhance the public good … by providing for a fair and sustainable scheme for managing personal injury”. How that Act operates is that, at section 20, this relates to who is covered by the compensation scheme, it applies to (2)(a) “personal injury caused by an accident”. That word “accident” is a key definition, and that comes in at section 25. Now, what this bill does is it adds a new subclause to that section 25, new subclause (1)(f), and so that inserts “an application of a force or resistance internal to the human body at any time from the onset of labour to the completion of delivery that results in an injury described in Schedule 3A to a person who gives birth.” So that’s what this bill does.

And then we have this new Schedule 3A of the Act, and that schedule lists what a maternal birth injury is. We’ve heard from some other speakers a bit about what’s in that list, and also that the select committee revised the detail of what was on that list, and it sounds like a very fine process. In addition, I want to note that at new section 25A there’ll be a review of these provisions within three years.

And so, really, I’m very proud to be part of this Labour Party and just supporting the Government that’s providing for women, who have previously missed out on the benefits of our very important and world-renowned ACC scheme. I really want to thank Minister Carmel Sepuloni for bringing it to us, and I commend this bill to the House.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m also delighted, like the previous speaker, Rachel Brooking, to stand and speak in support of the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The bill, of course, in legislation, allows certain maternal birth injuries received during childbirth to be covered by ACC, and the schedule sets out that list of injuries. At select committee, by dint of careful consideration of the submissions and a great deal of discussion and good technical advice, it was further defined and other specific injuries were added to the schedule, and I think we did good work in achieving that at the select committee.

Look, it was a very collaborative process, I would have to say, and a very enjoyable process to be working in the select committee on this bill. Like all the others, I would like to acknowledge the submitters that put their very personal and often very emotional stories to us. When you think that this bill isn’t retrospective, none of those particular women, mothers, giving their stories were doing this for the benefit of themselves but rather for the benefit of other women who were going to go after them. So I really want to acknowledge them and their bravery in speaking out about some of the very most vulnerable and harrowing periods of their time.

The chair, Marja Lubeck, gave a submission that obviously hit home to her, and I want to share one of the ones that was really a penny-dropping moment for me.

Hon Member: Penny dropping! We got you there.

PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, good. Everyone is awake! So in the midst of hearing a number of these very harrowing stories, you get very immersed in it, but one young woman told us of the situation where her partner went to rugby practice, and, at rugby practice, he pulled his hamstring. He then went to the doctor or went to his physio, was able to straight away go through to physio through ACC, yet this poor woman, as a mother who had suffered significant pelvic floor injuries, wasn’t covered, had been trying to get cover to be able to go to physio, couldn’t afford to pay to go to physio, and it was obviously impacting on her quality of life, her ability to care for her children, and was likely going to have ongoing impacts for her. All of a sudden, the nonsensicalness of this situation was very, very clear: that you could pull your hamstring in rugby and straight away be covered for physio through ACC, but go through a traumatic birth experience, get a significant injury, and not be able to get cover. Immediately it was obvious that changes needed to occur. I think that speaks to some of the equity issues that the Minister commented on earlier.

I would like to acknowledge my colleagues on the select committee. I felt we worked well together to get the very best out of this bill but also to make provision for being able to review it and see if further changes needed to occur. I also, like the chair, want to acknowledge the officials who supported our select committee, the clerks, and the report writers. I think we may well have scarred our very young male report-writer for life in some of our technical discussions about birth injuries.

Look, there were nearly 800 submitters, and they were across a wide range of people—health professionals, mothers, and a wide range of people. Of those, we heard 46 orally. I do want to very briefly acknowledge those who submitted on behalf of the hearing impaired. We heard some very good technical advice and some very real-life stories from those people with a hearing impairment as well, so I don’t want them to get lost in our euphoria of the maternal birth injuries being accepted. But I think we’ve gone through a very good process with this bill, and I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora, Madam Chair. He was an undiagnosed giant—5.14 kg. The words are “massive shoulder dystocia”. The result was I was on crutches for eight weeks. I had, at that stage, a very active 2½-year-old and a very sleepless newborn. It was pretty horrific. And there was no ACC cover. I remember asking my midwife, “Do you think there might be ACC?” “No, dear.” We underestimate how extraordinary ACC is and how much it protects us. I am so deeply grateful to the select committee and to my colleague Sarah Pallett for the work that has been done. But to Minister Sepuloni for picking this up and protecting 27,000 more New Zealand mums a year, thank you. I commend this bill to the House.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise with enormous pride this evening to speak on the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and wanted to add my gratitude to the Education and Workforce Committee who very kindly put up with me for a few meetings whilst we worked through this piece of legislation together. I commend its chair enormously, my colleague Marja Lubeck, and, of course, acknowledge Minister Sepuloni, who from the very beginning has been absolutely determined that this legislation will ensure that all birthing injuries be covered.

This is why so many of us are here. We want to be here, I hope, to work together to ensure that things are made better for the people that we serve. What I saw in this committee was total commitment across all parties to ensure that the overall aim of this bill was fulfilled. That aim, as I’ve said, was to ensure that all birthing injuries are covered by ACC, and I truly believe this bill will do that. It’s intended as a pragmatic bill, and it will enable 28,000 birthing parents a year to receive prompt and effective care that is long overdue. That’s 76 a day who will get the care that they need as a result of our work over the past few months and of our time here this evening.

We deliberated long and hard, as you’ve probably gathered. The officials deserve medals or sainthoods, at the very least, for the amount of work that they put into ensuring that every question that we had was answered. We deliberated long and hard, in particular, over whether or not we should land on a list or a more broad form of cover. We landed on creating a list of covered injuries, which we expanded substantially in the course of the select committee process. This was done with extensive consultation with obstetricians, physiotherapists, midwives, gynaecologists, and, obviously, taking into account the very many moving and courageous submissions.

We futureproofed this with a review clause in the bill, and we also called for a briefing with the anticipation of the 54th Parliament also calling for a further briefing to ensure that this legislation is doing what we hope it will do. We also intended, as I said, that it would cover consequential injuries following a listed injury. Incontinence, for example, will be covered as a result of a listed injury. We did this so that court processes wouldn’t be engaged with. We didn’t want to have delays caused by arguments about eligibility. We wanted to ensure that the pathway for birthing parents was clear to get the care that they need while we address the embedded sexism. Thank you so much. I commend this bill.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I too rise in support of the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill in its second reading tonight. Although I haven’t sat on the Education and Workforce Committee, I have listened with great interest over the first and second readings to the content of this bill, and it’s been clear from the contributions made from the members of the committee that they are obviously very pleased with the outcome of the select committee process. I think one of the things that impressed me about the contribution that the community has made is to attract 794 submissions, which is no small feat indeed, and so that obviously shows the level of interest in the community for this bill.

As we’ve heard, there have been some inclusions made in the bill, additional to what was first in the draft. Six new injuries were added to the bill at the select committee process, and I’ll just go through those six: anterior wall and posterior wall prolapses, post-partum uterine inversion, coccyx fracture or dislocation—and, actually, a friend of mine did suffer from that, and I can tell you it’s very uncomfortable and takes quite a bit of diagnosis—pubic ramus fracture, symphysis pubis capsule or ligament tear, and obstetric anal sphincter injury tears and urethral tears. Speaking of tears, they all make your eyes water.

One of the things that I did have particular interest in was a comment made by my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse, when he talked about the ACC cost for hearing aids and that level of hearing loss from 6 percent down to 5 percent, and the concern around having had no cost-benefit analysis for that. So that led me to look at the costs potentially associated with the rest of this bill. I note in a ministerial statement that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni made, she talked about tens of thousands of New Zealanders standing to benefit from the changes to this legislation, and some of the Labour Party members have mentioned numbers around 28,000 potential claims.

But the regulatory impact statement only did what was described as a rudimentary costing of around $25 million annually. I say “rudimentary” because there was really no way that you could gauge what the level of claim may end up being in any particular year. So the Government, I think, needs to be really cautious about how then they are going to fund these approximately 28,000 extra claims a year, because, unlike the Labour Government—they just think you can keep spending money and keep dipping into the public purse, but this all comes at a cost and somewhere that cost is going to lay. That is going to, obviously, mean increased fees for someone somewhere, because unlike what happens in Disneyland, you cannot keep printing money.

There are some definitions in the bill that—or one in particular that is an obviously simple one, and that has been to make the alignment with other Acts so that the language is consistent. That was the Land Transport Act—just aligning mopeds and motor scooters, I think it was.

But the other one that I’d like to turn to is section 30 and an amendment that’s being made to section 30 regarding personal injury caused by work-related gradual process, disease, or infection. And I did speak to this in the first reading speech because it’s one that is of particular interest to me and, indeed, to the National Party, because it was included in our policy proposals that we put out pre-election. And that is to do with injuries that are work-related and that gradual process for hearing loss or illness, disease, or infection, which is described in section 30. One of the cohorts that will be affected by that will be our firefighters, and I know that the firefighters have been battling this for quite some time to have recognition of this gradual process that happens especially in the field that they work in where they are often exposed to toxic fumes. Over time, there is clear statistics that show that they are more likely to incur other illnesses far in excess of the normal range that would be expected with people outside of their workforce. So it’s good to see that that is going to be addressed.

But it is quite confusing when you read the wording in the bill in section 30(2)(c) is being replaced with this: “that, if the particular property or characteristic is present in both the person’s employment tasks or environment and non-employment activities or environment, it is more likely that the person’s personal injury was caused as a result of the employment tasks or environment rather than the non-employment activities or environment.” And I guess that’s spoken in legalese, and maybe my legal colleagues will be able to interpret it a bit better. But the other one that is relevant to that is (2A): “even if it is established that a claimant’s personal injury was caused in the circumstances described in subsection (2), the Corporation may decline the claim if the Corporation establishes that the risk of suffering the personal injury is not significantly greater for persons who—(a) perform the employment task than it is for persons who do not perform it; or (b) are employed in that type of environment than it is for persons who are not.” So if they can work their way around the meaning of those clauses, I hope that there is some advantage to our firefighters because they are a very important part of our volunteer service and our paid firefighting force, and I pay tribute to them, tonight.

The other thing that this bill will do is to make clear that this bill does not apply if the death was a result of suicide or of assisted dying in accordance with the End of Life Choice Act 2019. So I think it’s important that as we update legislation, we also incorporate other legislation that has gone before it. And, clearly, the select committee in its wisdom has done exactly that. I did in my first reading speech query the title of this bill, and perhaps I will be creative and put in a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) around the title, because it does beg the question about why we call it “Maternal Birth Injury”, because my understanding is that unless you are a seahorse, it’s only women that can have a birth injury because they’re the only ones that give birth. So why do we have “Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters”? So maybe in the interests of saving ink, we could reduce the title name, and I’ll give consideration to that at the committee of the whole House and maybe put in an SOP to that effect.

Andrew Bayly: What a great idea.

MAUREEN PUGH: I think it’s a great idea, too. Thank you, Andrew Bayly. So we’ve heard tonight that there’s a great deal of interest in this bill and especially from our midwives, doctors, etc., who are literally at the coalface of these injuries, and they do see the impact that it has on their patients, their clients, and have given it their support, and so too does the National Party. Thank you.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. What an absolute pleasure to round out the debate this evening on this important bill. I congratulate the Minister, the select committee, and our expert in the room, Sarah Pallett, for shepherding this bill through the House.

So how do we know when a system and laws need to change? Well, we listen to the simple truth of bones. There’s a profound power in hearing people’s accounts of their own experience, and I’m an advocate for maturing our domestic legislation so it develops on the foundations of international law such as UN conventions that protect the quality, that protect the highest attainable standards of health.

But it’s people’s accounts and experiences which tell us whether rights are actually being upheld; it’s people’s experiences that help us navigate our understanding of what section 65 of the Human Rights Act means when it prohibits indirect discrimination.

Given how many people are affected by these injuries, I suspect many of us have heard these simple truths in quiet circles with our friends, with constituents, with professionals. For some in the select committee room, the changes we are making through this bill are rights-affirming changes. They’re included in 3A, and I’m also very pleased to see that they affirm the right to protect mental health when it arises from one of those injuries that’s resulted in the list as well.

Again, the changes in this bill will make a difference for thousands of people in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Data and Statistics Bill, the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill, the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill, and the Plant Variety Rights Bill.

House in Committee

House in Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members, the House is in committee on the Data and Statistics Bill, the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill, the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill, and the Plant Variety Rights Bill. I remind members that they are able to participate remotely. If you’re 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. Please give us a couple of minutes’ notice if you want to take a call on Zoom.

Bills

Data and Statistics Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): We come first to the Data and Statistics Bill and Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 9 and Schedule 1, Preliminary provisions. The question is that Part 1 stand part. I call the unusually frequent attender, the Hon Dr David Clark. You’re always there!

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): Thank you, Mr Chair. When I know you’re in the Chamber, Mr Chair, I take great pleasure in engaging in the committee stage debates, and I’ve got two lined up in the current session, so I look forward to take some quality time engaging with the debates. [Hon Jenny Salesa takes the Chair] And it is with some disappointment that I see you moving to another place in the Chamber, Mr Chair. Your presence is always welcomed. But I also delight in Madam Chair being back in the Chamber here to steward our debate on this incredibly important bill. And I do have some introductory comments to make, which I hope will outline a response to some of the issues that have been raised in the select committee stage, that have been raised in subsequent public debates, and which I suspect will want to be worked through carefully here in this Chamber, because this is very important legislation and there is a very important debate to have around it.

Data and statistics and the insights generated from them are critical to effective democracy, decision making, and accountability. Timely and accurate data and statistics support equity by informing public policy decisions, resource allocation, and service design and delivery. The bill we are debating repeals the Statistics Act 1975 and replaces it with a modernised and futureproofed Data and Statistics Act in line with international best practice. It enables a coherent, system-wide approach to addressing data gaps and improving the quality of data used for official statistics and research, under the leadership of the Government Statistician. As Minister of Statistics, I continue to be responsible for specifying the Government’s data and statistical priorities, or the “what” of the statistical production. This mirrors the Minister of Statistics’ role in the current legislation. The statistical independence of the Government Statistician is preserved, and that is what I would describe as the “how” of statistical production.

Statistics will continue to be produced and released free from political interference, a fiercely guarded democratic convention and an incredibly important one, I would stress. As an example of statistical independence, it will be the Statistician who determines the timing of the next census. The primary consideration for deciding whether the next census is in 2023 or 2024 is the viability of the census operation and the corresponding quality of census data. Considering whether to proceed with the census as soon as all relevant information is available is part of due diligence and should be done before investing time and money in activities that cannot be recouped, such as launching publicity campaigns and printing millions of forms.

More importantly, it respects the time, effort, and goodwill of people and communities that come together to support census delivery, and who rightly should expect that Government has considered whether a census is likely to be delivered successfully. Given the pandemic and the lessons from the Canterbury earthquake sequence, frankly, I think it would be irresponsible not to give the Government Statistician the necessary flexibility. Contingency planning is an important part of effective governance.

The bill clarifies the Statistician’s ability to delegate their functions under the Public Service Act, with enforcement actions unable to be delegated outside the Public Service. Any delegate must comply with all requirements in the bill, and the Statistician continues to be both responsible and accountable for actions taken. The bill in its current form removes Officers of Parliament, the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and the Parliamentary Service from the definition of public sector agency and makes it clear that the Statistician cannot make mandatory requests for data from these bodies. These changes address concerns raised by the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General in their submissions to the select committee.

To support transparency, the bill requires the Statistician to publish information about delegations outside of Stats NZ, including what informed of any such decision. I note that these requirements were added in response to the Privacy Commissioner’s late submission at the select committee. Like the Act it replaces, the bill only allows Stats NZ to collect data for official statistics and research. To be clear, the Statistician can only make mandatory requests for data for official statistics, not for research. It doesn’t expand the scope of information-gathering powers across Government. In New Zealand, sharing of personal information between Government agencies is regulated through agency legislation or agreed information-sharing agreements and information-matching programmes under the Privacy Act.

The bill provides a robust framework for enabling safe and appropriate access to data for research to benefit New Zealanders. This is an internationally recognised function of national statistical officers set out in the implementation guidelines for the UN’s fundamental principles of official statistics. Research is an important output of statistical agencies globally and incredibly important for the betterment of peoples. It’s one of the reasons why, of course, the Data Iwi Leaders Group has argued in the Mana Ōrite agreement that there should be data collected to fill gaps and so that we produce high-quality research that betters the population outcomes. So removing research from the Act would be against what the UN fundamental principles suggest and against what the Data Iwi Leaders Group are arguing for in their agreement with the Government. So I will challenge in due course that particular Supplementary Order Paper put forward by the Māori Party. To remove research from the Act, I think, is short-sighted.

Like the Privacy Act, the bill enables access to data for research, subject to strong confidentiality requirements ensuring protection of personal privacy. But the bill goes much further by setting out a comprehensive framework that the Statistician must use when making decisions about access for research. Data may be accessed for the purposes of research and only in accordance with the enforceable confidentiality requirements in the bill. Stats NZ will continue to hold the data, with researchers only having access through a secure portal to the data they need for their research.

For the first time in New Zealand’s history our statistics legislation recognises the relationship between Māori and the Crown and the Government’s obligation to work with Māori to ensure that data and statistics meet the needs of Māori, iwi, and hapū. I do want to acknowledge my associate, the Hon Meka Whaitiri, for the work that she is leading in that regard on behalf of the Government. Closing data gaps and improving data quality will ensure we make the right decisions to improve outcomes for Māori, iwi, and hapū. This revised approach will empower Māori, iwi, and hapū to make decisions that benefit their communities.

I’m very mindful of work under way such as work on developing a Māori data governance model. I did consider a proposal put forward to me by the Data Iwi Leaders Group to include a review provision in the bill but, ultimately, considered this undesirable as I have the ability to review or amend the legislation in my portfolio at any time, as does any future Minister of Statistics. Indeed, stipulating the timing of a review may unnecessarily curtail productive engagement between Crown and Māori, possibly forcing a less than optimal outcome. But I do want to be clear, and I have corresponded with the Māori Data Iwi Leaders Group, that I am committed to reflecting the outcomes from the Māori data governance work in legislation as appropriate. That work is incredibly important work and I think, when it is completed, it is entirely appropriate that that is then considered in the context of the new legislation.

Given the careful and thorough work of officials and robust consideration by the Governance and Administration Committee, I am confident that the bill will ensure high-quality, impartial, and objective official statistics; provide for trusted collection and use of data for producing statistics and research; and protect the interests of people and organisations through privacy, confidentiality, and security measures. I want to thank the officials for their careful and thoughtful work on the bill. They been at it since the Hon Craig Foss was the Minister of Statistics. That is when this bill had its genesis. Early decisions were taken under his careful eye. And then I do, also, want to acknowledge the careful stewardship of the Hon James Shaw, too, through his time as Minister of Statistics. This bill has been a long time in the making. Obviously, the 1975 bill that we’re replacing has been around for a while and many of the provisions are carried over. The modernising was necessary, and it’s taken eight years and officials have worked very hard on it. I thank them for their efforts. I think they have produced a bill which will carry us into the future.

I want to thank the Governance and Administration Committee for their thorough consideration of the bill, as well, and for recommending changes to strengthen and clarify provisions. I want to thank, also, all those who made submissions. Again, as I said at the outset of my comments, I think the debate we’re having around this bill is a very important one.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the Minister might need to go and have a chat to his ministerial advisers, because it seems as though they’ve given him his second reading speech to deliver again, exactly 10 minutes long and traversing just about every part of the bill. I’m not going to do the same. I’m going to focus—and I think it’s necessary to some degree, perhaps not to that degree, that the Minister does traverse a wider range in his opening remarks, and he certainly did that.

I will leave him with some homework in respect of Part 1, but I want to touch on a couple of things that he did say. One is: the fact that we’re here is because the Act is old. As a Minister who was born two years before the Act was born, I’m sure he’ll agree—and one who, I think if memory serves, is probably only a few months away from a certain milestone birthday—that something approaching 50 years old isn’t necessarily out of date. His children might disagree, but I’ll go into bat for him on that point.

The Statistics Act, though, is different. And as we have talked about, both in committee and previous readings, the environment for collection of data that existed in 1975 is light years away from where we are now. And I think it’s that very modern, very ubiquitous internet-based speed of data environment that has led to a lot of the concerns that the Minister and I, as spokesperson, and a number of other colleagues have received from the likes of the Council for Civil Liberties—legitimate concerns they are, although I think they’ve gone over their skis a bit on a couple of the issues. But it’s certainly necessary to update this legislation, more so than any other 47-year-old Act.

But I do want to just challenge one thing that the Minister said in his opening remarks. They relate to Part 3, but I think it’s important to signal to him that we need to have the discussion about the role of research in this. Because I think he tried to reassure the committee, in his opening remarks, that research was not a primary purpose and that the collection of data is only for the publishing of statistics. But that’s at odds with the words used in clause 22(c), which I’ll come to and we will have a more reasoned debate about it in Part 3.

Part 1, though, lays out the purpose of the Act, and, as he mentioned several times, the high-quality, impartial, and objective official statistics production is the goal. We have received a number of submissions to say that the purpose is much broader than it should be, including from a previous Chief Statistician and the Council for Civil Liberties. So I wonder if the Minister, in Part 1, could provide something of a commentary and potentially a reassurance that the protections that are set out in clause 3 of Part 1 are robust enough to give those who are concerned about that sufficient comfort so that people can volunteer data that’s often very, very personal, and be reassured that it will be protected both from disclosure to the wrong agents—that it will be kept private, confidential—and free from scrutiny from those who are not, frankly, in their view, desirable to access.

We’ve got some great words in clause 3, but it’s actually clearly not sufficient to satisfy a number of the people who submitted to the select committee and who have corresponded with us since the second reading.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to ask the Minister a question about clause 3(b)(i), which says that the purpose of this Act is to: “enable the trusted collection and use of data for the production of official statistics and for research;”. I wondered if the Minister could succinctly explain what the differences are between collecting and using data for the production of official statistics versus research. In other words, how are official statistics different from research as a purpose of collecting data?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): I’ll address some of the points that have been raised so far. I do want to acknowledge, as the Hon Michael Woodhouse has done, the correspondence we’ve received from groups concerned to make sure that the Act is doing, or will do, responsibly, those things we would expect it to do, to keep people’s data safe. One comment I would make from the outset is that the greatest part of the Act itself, from the old Act, is carried over. Though it is approaching 50 years, they’ve been 50 good years. And our statistics agency is respected globally. It is an agency that is in high standing, and rightly earned.

It’s also true that what the bill does is codify current best practice across Government. When an Act gets that old, a lot of what it stipulates is no longer directly applicable. The bill doesn’t mention data at all because it wasn’t a term that was being bandied around in 1975, and yet there is data collected across Government every day. Different departments collect data for different purposes, for research. The private sector collects your data every day. We’re dropping data all over the place, it’s the nature of modern society.

What this bill does is make sure there is an ethical framework that sits across the collection and use of that data, and it makes it much more explicit. The bill incorporates effectively the Five Safes framework; it was developed originally by the UK Office for National Statistics. The Australian Act and this bill draw on that Five Safes framework. Anyone who works in the area of statistics will know it by that shorthand, but, for the purposes of the committee, that is principles that must be considered as part of assessing a request for Government-held data. So when we’re talking about research, certain questions have to be asked: why the data is being used—the projects principle; who is using the data—the people principle; where the data is being used—the settings principle; what data is appropriate—the data principle; and how the results of the project are used—the outputs principle. Those things have to be done in the public interest, so there’s careful thought given in the context of any research that’s done.

Indeed, the data is produced so that we make good decisions as a country, so that citizens, you know, when they get GDP data, can analyse trends; from statistics that are produced, can research around those statistics and use those as reliable inputs into wider research; can look at the methodologies; the Consumers Price Index data that’s collected is used in a certain way and can be trusted and analysed, research can be done around that and people’s interaction. And I referred to this report Te Matapaeroa 2020, which has been in the media in the past week—research done using data collected within Government but done in an ethical way to ensure that we are improving the wellbeing, the lot of parts of our society, and improving opportunity for people.

So the bill reflects principles that guide ethical and culturally appropriate data use, including decisions on research access. It’s a bill designed to bring us into the modern age; to recognise that data is being collected; to make sure that we’re collecting and using it in a responsible way; and where it is used, or passed between departments for specific purposes, that that’s done in a way that is responsible.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Minister, I note that a number of commentators have raised some quite significant concerns about this bill—Sir Geoffrey Palmer, former Prime Minister; the Hon Anne Tolley, as chair of Transparency International New Zealand; the Hon Maurice Williamson, a former statistics Minister; Len Cook, former Government Statistician; the Library and Information Association of New Zealand; and the Chief Ombudsman.

I’m going to limit my questions just to some concerns raised, obviously, in this part of the bill. And I’m just looking at the purpose, noting clause 3(b)(i) is to “enable the trusted collection and use of data for the production of official statistics and for research”. And I note, for example, Transparency International Zealand, who have echoed the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties’ concern, saying the bottom line is that this bill dangerously conflates collection and use of data for the purpose of official statistics with collecting and sharing data for unspecified research.

I’ll just note that in the initial statements at the beginning of this debate, the Minister referred to the United Nations Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics and said this was complying with that. I just need to raise a concern that the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties has expressed, saying that principle 6 of the United Nations Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics says “Individual data collected by statistical agencies for statistical compilation, whether they refer to natural or legal persons, are to be strictly confidential and used exclusively for statistical purposes.” So I’ll just invite the Minister to explain how clause 3(b)(i), namely the use of data for the production of official statistics and for research is consistent with principle 6 of the United Nations Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics, in that it’s used exclusively for statistical purposes; no mention there of research. It would be quite helpful if we could have an explanation of how that is consistent.

The other point, Minister, I would note, and we probably could explore this later on, but it’s just clause 3(d)(i), namely the protection of the interests of people and organisations represented in, or by, data that is used for the production of official statistics and for research, by providing for appropriate privacy, confidentiality, and security. And just where that is shared overseas—and I do note, this is clause 52, so we can probably get into this in more detail later, but I’d just be interested in the Minister’s views on how data shared overseas will be protected when the Privacy Act 2020 does not apply overseas, and how people can be assured that information collected in New Zealand when shared overseas will be protected when those privacy provisions don’t apply to the use of that data overseas.

The other point, Minister, is clause 6, namely the definition of data which says data includes information. I just note, again, that the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties has raised an issue here where they are saying that this definition suggests that the data that agencies can compel other Government departments to provide for research does not have to exist solely as a defined and structured data set, but can be any information held by it, however loosely. They’ve gone on to say that data that was gathered by an agency for one limited purpose—and which are provided by members of the public on the understanding that that is all that it would be used for—will be available for any research Stats NZ or another agency chief executive to whom the Statistician’s powers have been delegated considers desirable. There will be no obligation on that agency that receives the transferred data to delete it after the research has been completed. So I would just invite the Minister to address that concern that the definition of data in clause 6—“data includes information”—could be any information gathered by an agency for any purpose, however loosely, as opposed to a defined and structured data set.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): I just want to address a point raised by the member Mr Mooney. The UN provisions—it’s laid out in the guidelines, the implementation guidelines for the UN’s Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics, the aspect that relates to research. You asked the question about clause 3(b)(i), which is the purpose of the Act, to “promote consistent and collaborative practices across government in order to—(i) enable the trusted collection and use of data for the production of official statistics and for research;”. That’s in the implementation guidelines laid out, associated with those. Just a clear fact to clarify for the member.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Madam Chair, I asked a pretty straightforward question—“What’s the difference between collecting data for official statistics and research?”—and would really like the Minister to give a succinct definition of those two concepts, because they’re fundamental to one of the most significant changes in this bill.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I support the request, but I know we’re approaching a time when we will be adjourning this debate until tomorrow morning, and I would encourage the Minister to have a chat with his officials to answer Mr Seymour’s question, because I think it’s going to be fundamental to the discussion we’re going to have on both Part 1 and Part 3—and the Minister is ready to answer; that’s great.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, sorry, I was just trying to make sure I had correctly understood the question—because it seemed frighteningly simple, and it is—I think the member’s asking. So official statistics are those statistics held by Stats NZ, produced by Stats NZ, and research done on the basis of those statistics by researchers. For clarification, I mean, the Act doesn’t enable sharing of data for research. The data continues to be held by Stats NZ and is accessed through a secure portal. So Stats NZ holds on to data for the purposes of ensuring that it is protected appropriately. I think I’ve already answered the member’s question, so I’ll try and be succinct in my answers.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. That’s a fascinating answer and lies at the heart, I think, of some of the confusion of people who have submitted, both through the select committee process and afterwards, and the consequent concerns that they have about the use of data for research. Now, up until that answer, I expected to hear that there was a both proactive and reactive element to information or data, which is that the Statistician collects certain data for statistical purposes for the publishing of regular demographic and trend-based analysis, and that research would primarily but not entirely be academic—for example, where a researcher from the university might come along and say to Stats New Zealand, “We’d like to drill into some of the datasets that you’ve got in order to establish trends.” One of the very good examples of that is in our mutual home city, and that is the Dunedin multidisciplinary study, which has not only contributed to the statistics database but they’ve actually drawn on it for the purposes of academic research.

Now, the reason that is important is because if one of the primary purposes, as clause 33, I think it is, says, is that data can be collected for a primary purpose which is research, then that really opens up the scope of what the power of this Act would do in terms of collecting just in case. And one of the disciplines that is set out, as Mr Mooney said, in respect of UN guidelines and the disciplines that we’ve had over the last 47 years is that data is a taonga. It is collected for a specific purpose, and inferred in that is that we need to know what that purpose is. Subsequent to that, research could be done on it as a secondary purpose but not a primary purpose. I think if we are opening up the purpose of statistical legislation to be that broad, that potentially gives the power of the Statistician to go and collect anything just in case it might be researchable in the future. I think that’s what’s giving the Council for Civil Liberties and Transparency International New Zealand concern. But noting the time, I’m sure that’s a conversation we’ll continue tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the committee is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow morning. Pō mārie.

Sitting suspended from 10.02 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 27 JULY 2022

(continued on Thursday, 28 July 2022)

Bills

Data and Statistics Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions (continued)

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): Kia ora to the committee, and welcome back. I just wanted to make some initial comments that respond to some of the points that came up late last night, just so that they’re on record in terms of the purpose of the bill and where we go from here. The member David Seymour, who, I know, will take a call shortly, raised the question about the difference between research and official statistics, and I placed an answer on record. I’d like to put a more fulsome one down. The deceptive simplicity of his question caught me off guard at the time. So, there we go, it’s a perfectly valid and important question.

Official statistics are defined in the bill as statistics that are produced by the Statistician or a public sector agency or by an individual or organisation approved in writing by the Statistician to produce those statistics. They are the output of the organised collection, analysis, and presentation of data, usually to describe an aspect of the economy, population, society, or environment. They’re often internationally benchmarked, including measures such as GDP, labour force participation, or the price of a usual basket of goods and services. Research, in this context, describes a wider, analytical approach whereby underlying data are used in new ways to create new insight and knowledge. It often involves using data to identify trends and observations over time or across different populations, to understand their relationship between variables—classically, whether X causes Y to happen—or to evaluate programmes and policies.

I also wanted to respond to a couple of points that the member Joseph Mooney raised that I didn’t have a chance to respond to last night. He raised concerns about the Privacy Act not applying overseas—that is, essentially, a summary of the point he was making, as I understood it. While the New Zealand Privacy Act doesn’t apply to a person overseas, clause 52 requires the Statistician to take extra care when deciding whether to allow access from overseas, taking into account the laws that apply in that relevant jurisdiction—this is laid out in the Act—and the relationship between Stats NZ and the overseas person, and any means available to the Statistician to ensure that the overseas person complies with any conditions imposed in that context by the Statistician. So I think it’s important to emphasise what has already been said in the debate: that data will not be provided to the researcher; Stats NZ continues to hold the data, and it can only be accessed through a secure portal. The member also noted that there was no obligation on the researcher to delete the data. This would only make sense if the researcher held the data. But, again, I stress: the data continues to be held by Stats NZ.

There were a couple of points that Joseph Mooney raised. Another one that wasn’t addressed last night, as we ran out of time, was that the member suggested, implied, that the Statistician is able to compel other agencies to provide data for research, and this is a concern that has been more widely aired. It’s simply not true. There is no ability for the Statistician to require the provision of data for research. The mandatory collection powers only apply to collecting data for official statistics. Agencies choose whether to provide data more broadly to Stats NZ. Many agencies have done so because they have trust and confidence in Stats NZ to safeguard and protect that data appropriately. What all this means is that the agency, essentially, gets to choose whether they pass on data to Stats NZ, and they can do that in accordance with whatever agreement they’ve made with the people they’ve collected the data from. So they can honour any commitments they made to people when the data was collected, and that might be that the data is only to be used for certain purposes, and that might not include research. So that is, in that respect, the decision of the department.

One other thing, which was covered briefly in response to a concern raised by Joseph Mooney last night, was his concern about principle 6 of the United Nations Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics having no mention of research. As I stated yesterday, it’s laid out in the implementation guidelines for the UN’s Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics—the aspect that relates to research—and the implementation guidelines make it very clear that non-statistical organisations must have a legal framework setting out their professional independence, to allow for impartial and equal access to statistics, but that access to data for research may have a different threshold for access. And I quote: “A law or formal provision is in force, which specifies that statistical agencies are professionally independent and impartial, develop, produce and disseminate statistics following professional standards, and treat all users in the same way. But this does not mean that there is no distinction between different types of users. For example, only accredited researchers might have access to anonymized microdata for research, while the general public would not be allowed such access. Among categories of users, each user must be treated ‘in the same way’ in accordance with published guidelines.” That’s directly from those guidelines.

The implementation guidelines have got an entire section on how to ensure confidentiality when enabling access to data for research and, consistent with these guidelines, Part 3 of the bill specifies the conditions—we’ll come to that, obviously, when we debate Part 3—required to protect confidentiality. Part 5 of the bill clearly sets out the framework by which data held by Stats NZ may be accessed for the purposes of research, and these are provisions that have been carefully thought through over the past six years or more. This bill, we know, goes right back to Craig Foss’ time as Minister of Statistics and has been carefully and thoughtfully developed from that time on, including under the stewardship of the Hon James Shaw. So, with those few comments, I open the debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the member, I’d like to inform the House that we’ve received two new tabled amendments from Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. These are available on the Table and on the House papers page. If we receive new tabled amendments, I’ll advise members so that they can refresh the House papers 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 during their call. I call on David Seymour.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the Minister engaging on this question, because, actually, the difference between official statistics and research seems to go to the heart of many of the concerns that have been expressed about the bill. It would seem that “official statistics” is a term that implies certain restraints and safeguards around the use of data, whereas “research” is a much more generic term, and, of course, the confusion between the two is much compounded by the official statistician’s ability to delegate his or her powers, thereby meaning that you combine the delegation of powers to other entities with the somewhat more diffuse definition of research, and suddenly the restraints around the use of data that imbue trust in the Crown’s use of it and allow the Department of Statistics to keep collecting data is suddenly eroded. And that really goes to the heart of the problem that people have raised.

While I appreciate the Minister giving a more fulsome definition of the official statistics and research, all he’s really done, in my view, is highlight what a problem and contradiction we have in clause 3(b)(i)—and, I just note for one member, it’s not 3(b) “I”, it’s 3(b) “1”. That’s what they meant, the Romans. They meant “1” when they said that. But in any case, it says, “(i) enable the trusted collection and use of data for the production of official statistics and for research;”. Now, it would seem, based on what the Minister’s given as a definition, the facts are if research is something that, by definition, is done with official statistics, then it was redundant to include the “purpose of research” in clause 3(b)(i). So if all research is just using official statistics, if official statistics have to be collected before that research can be done, then clause 3(b)(i) should just say, “collecting data for official statistics” and what happens subsequently is a separate matter. But by using the conjunction “and” and saying “and for research”, this clause implies that the purpose of the bill is to collect data for the purposes of research, separate from collecting data for the purpose of official statistics. And as soon as you bring in that confusion, the whole purpose of the bill means that we potentially have the collection of data for purposes that won’t be constrained by the usual restraints that we expect for official statistics. So, of course, the fact that there are two parts of the bill about this, Part 4 and Part 5, defining “official statistics” and defining “research”, I think brings home the point more clearly. So, in terms of a question to the Minister, would he consider amending clause 3(b)(i) to the effect that “the purpose of this Act is collect data for official statistics.”? If research happens subsequent to that, that’s another matter, but it shouldn’t have the purpose of collecting for both.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): A few points just to cover off there. The Government Statistician is accountable for every decision made by a delegate. So when we’re talking about this delegation—I think it’s just important to stress this is a baseline understanding for the House. I’ll come to the member’s specific question. The bill hardwires in legal obligations regarding independence and confidentiality, which apply to any delegate, and it is a criminal offence to wrongfully obtain data while acting as a delegate of the Government Statistician—clause 79 of the bill. So there are some really clear protections, and what we’re setting up here is an ethical framework for the handling of data.

Now, Stats NZ has two internationally recognised integrated databases: the Integrated Data Infrastructure—the IDI, as it’s known—contains data about people in households, and the Longitudinal Business Database contains linked data about businesses. If the bill did not provide the Statistician the ability to collect data for research, then all the data collected from other agencies—like justice, education, training, health, benefits, and social services—could not be integrated, and that would make that database completely worthless. So it is important to have that in there.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I’m not sure I agree with the conclusion that the Minister’s made about the Integrated Data Infrastructure, but I certainly would agree with him about the importance of it. I want to just support the point that David Seymour made, briefly, and then sort of add my own clarification of what the problem is that we’re trying to solve. I think we all understand that the intention of the Government is to restrict the Government Statistician’s, and his or her agents’, powers to the collection of data for use in statistical analysis. So we have two things: the collection of the data and the use of the data. The collection of the data is restricted to statistical analysis. The data can also be used for research. Now, that’s fine, I think we’d all understand that and accept it. The problem is that’s not what the bill says, and that’s why the Council for Civil Liberties and Transparency International New Zealand are worried that there can be legislative overreach.

Even in the Minister’s first call last night—which I’ll quote back to the committee because I think it kind of highlights the confusion that we have. Dr Clark said in his first call: “Like the Act it replaces, the bill only allows Stats NZ to collect data for official statistics and research. To be clear, the Statistician can only make mandatory requests for data for official statistics, not for research.” So they can’t make mandatory requests for research, and yet that’s exactly what the purpose clause says.

So I think we’re in a situation now where we have a Government and Stats NZ knowing what they want to do and how they want to do it, within the legal boundaries, but the boundaries are too wide, because not only at clause 3(b)(i) but also—and we’ll come to this in Part 3, I’m sure, but it’s relevant to Part 1—clause 22(c) says, “if the Statistician considers the data is necessary or desirable to enable the Statistician to produce official statistics, or desirable for research”, it can collect it. And that doesn’t sound to me consistent with the Minister’s last call in response to David Seymour.

So the point, I think, both the ACT Party and the National Party are saying is: we understand what the Government wants to do—we get it—but we need to be very careful that in the black-letter law, we don’t provide an opportunity for the Statistician—and as the Council for Civil Liberties says, it is more worried about, I think, the Statistician’s agents under delegated powers to collect more data than they need on the basis that it could be helpful for research in the future. That’s not how Stats works, but the way Part 1 and Part 3 are worded, I agree with Mr Seymour.

So my question, simply, is this: have I understood the Government’s intentions right—that is, a restriction from collection of data for statistical purposes, but the use of it for both statistical analysis and research, and, if so, will the Government consider an amendment to the bill? My amendment is only to Part 3, but I think Part 1, at clause 3(b)(i), I think it is, should also be tightened to make clearer what the Minister just said, albeit it was a bit confused when he said it last night.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to pick up on the conversations that are taking place already, questions from Messrs Woodhouse and Seymour, and, to be fair, the Minister as well, engaging in the point regarding that distinction between official statistics, on the one hand, and research, on the other. My question is, ultimately, in a similar space, but going a bit further down the track of what it means to be collecting statistics for the purpose of research. Just looking at it from the perspective of a researcher and someone who would be undertaking academic work, to discover some great truth about New Zealand as it is now or where it’s heading and so forth, and understanding that in an academic context it’s hugely important that there are ethical considerations of the collection of data, the use of data, the publication of the data, and knowing that, in an academic context, there are very strict requirements, such that there must be ethics approval for research projects given prior to the undertaking of those projects. And, of course, in relation to the use of the data and the publication of the data, whether we’re talking from a privacy perspective or not to cause harm inadvertently to those who are providing the information or, indeed, in the way that it is used and presented.

It occurs to me to wonder how researchers might be obliged to justify the use of data—and I use that term generically—in their research when that data has been collected before the undertaking of that research, in the sense of the way that the data is collected. So it seems to be there’s a bit of a disconnect in time, as well as in relation to the purpose that it was collected, and I wonder if the Minister’s got any advice on how that could be resolved, such that a reasonable ethical oversight can be undertaken by a researcher, noting that they wouldn’t have had any hand in the collection of that data in the name of official statistics in the first place.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): I say this a little cautiously: I think a lot of the conversation that we’re having now is about the intent, because the purpose is about the intent. And some of the questions that are being raised, rightly, actually will be dealt with in a more concrete way, as the former Minister Michael Woodhouse referred to, Part 3 and Part 5, and David Seymour as well, and this is a test about whether those things align, is, essentially, what I hear from members opposite. I think we’re agreed that we do want the data, we want the official statistics, and we also want the ability to research in a safe and protected way, and to ensure people’s data is protected, and that the right kinds of protections are around that, and we come to that in the bill. So I just say that for context, and I think some of the real debate and the detail is going to happen in those later parts of the bill.

But I just want to also say for the record, the purpose enables collection of data for official statistics and research. Data can—and I have covered this, but I’m just saying it in other words—be provided voluntarily for both purposes. The mandatory collection only applies to official statistics—the mandatory collection only applies to official statistics. The bill clearly provides for data to be provided voluntarily or by agreement, as well as the mandatory aspect of it.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Thank you. Look, we very rarely lodge Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), but the gravity of this is so severe that we thought that we must. And I’d like to just capture that for a couple of minutes and then go into my questions.

We’ve put forward SOP 185 that would require that the Act be reviewed within three years, and that the Data Iwi Leaders Group (ILG) and the National Urban Māori Authority be consulted on the terms of reference of this on any other review of the legislation. A reminder, in 2019, Stats New Zealand and the Data ILG signed a Mana Ōrite Relationship Agreement to work together and develop policies to give effect to the Crown’s Te Tiriti obligations and Māori aspirations for Māori data and data sovereignty. In 2020, the Data ILG and Stats New Zealand engaged in a co-design process with the aim of designing a wider model for Māori data governance. So it’s really disappointing to see, and to hear from the Minister last night, that, in fact, that’s been ignored and the bill has progressed without incorporating any of that mahi, any of that goodwill, and the Mana Ōrite agreement, effectively, in the outcomes, has been ignored.

So the bill is being perceived by Te Ao Māori as a slap in the face and yet another example of this Government refusing to work in good faith. Actually, I’d also like to go on, at the same time, to say the expansion of the facial recognition technology, which is going on at the same time across Government—again with no engagement with tangata whenua. So we’ve also tabled two further amendments on behalf of the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties. One would remove reference to research and delegation of powers and ensure that the data collected under the Act can only be used for statistical purposes, the other would require Government to communicate directly to each household that a census return is required and inform them to obtain a paper copy or access a computer.

So my questions to the Minister are two: what are you going to do, or what are you doing, to ensure that this bill honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi? And, secondly: what are you going to do to ensure that this bill mitigates tangata whenua’s concerns on State profiling and misuse and abuse of data and statistics as tangata whenua have endured and experienced? Kia ora.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): Kia ora. A few things to say. Obviously, in terms of Part 1 of the bill, clause 4 puts Te Tiriti o Waitangi out for the first time in this legislation. This is an appropriate and timely update to actually have obligations for the Crown put into the legislation, completely absent from what went before.

I don’t accept the member’s characterisation of the relationship with the iwi leaders group and the Mana Ōrite agreement. I really do think that we have a good, honest, open conversation that has started there that simply did not exist before that Mana Ōrite agreement was signed. It’s a work in progress, as is, I think, all of the Crown’s work to better engage, incorporate, and work with Māori for better outcomes.

The process, as I said last night, the work that’s going on with the Data Iwi Leaders Group has not yet reached its conclusion. It will be appropriate, when that work is completed on governance, to revisit, to review where the bill is and what the place of Māori data governance in that will be.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Thank you. I think my question was quite clear—I know it’s early in the morning, for some. But I think what the question to the Minister was is: what is this bill; what are you going to do to mitigate? It wasn’t about whether there’s a work programme in motion or how you now feel good about the group after you’ve ignored them. It’s more about what the bill is going to do to mitigate that. I didn’t hear anything in this and we really would like to have that assurance that while you have ignored the advice and the extensive work that they’ve done for three years, there is some consideration to how you’re going to implement any of their recommendations or considerations.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): Well, I don’t think there’s much point in engaging too far in name-calling and slanderous accusations on this matter. But I do think there is, and experienced, a very genuine engagement and a lot of value coming from that relationship and the improvement of the bill as a consequence. I do think that the member fundamentally misunderstands the bill. And if she thinks that removing the value of such reports like this one is a good thing, with the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) she’s put forward on behalf of the Council for Civil Liberties, I think that’s a real shame because I do think there is huge value that can be added through the use of statistics for research into improving wellbeing for our peoples, for our Māori communities, for our Māori businesses, and for New Zealanders as a whole. So I simply don’t agree. Obviously, this is not the place to have the debate about that SOP; that comes into a later part of the Act. But I do want to put on record that I think the member fundamentally misunderstands the bill.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Before I ask my question, it’s not our job to do this but I find myself in strong agreement with the Minister on his response to Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s question.

The Governance and Administration Committee heard from iwi data groups—one in particular that his name eludes me—and I’m pleased to support the Minister’s response, which is, “We can’t look over our shoulders.” Maybe we haven’t treated iwi with the respect they need in a statistical sense in the past. There is a remedy. I think this is very strong and they were very satisfied with the level of engagement and the protection of data as taonga. So I just want to put that on record.

But the Minister’s distinction of voluntary versus mandatory data collection, I think, was something of a red herring, because if data is provided voluntary, it’s not subject to this legislation. It’s almost a legal paradox to say, “We need a law to say you can voluntarily hand over information.” So the whole purpose of the bill is for a mandatory framework—a legal framework—for the collection, storage, and use of data.

So my simple question, and the reason this is relevant to Part 1, is the Minister pretty much rightly said, “Look, these questions of research are down in Part 3.” But the problem we’ve got is by the time we get there, if we recognise that the purpose clause is wrong, we passed Part 1. So I think it is worth dwelling on that bit a little longer. So my question to the Minister is this: when he said last night, “The Statistician can only make mandatory requests for data for official statistics, not for research.” Where in the bill is that made absolutely clear? Because it’s not clear to me.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): I do think, as the member has alluded to, that that debate properly belongs in Part 3 and I respect what he’s saying. I do think, you know, we need to be agreed on the purpose and then we need to be sure when we come to Part 3 that we’ve got the right protections in place.

I, obviously, bring the bill here reasonably confident of that. I think the select committee—and the member sat on the select committee—have done a really thorough and robust job over a full select committee process of designing and developing a bill that strikes the right balance in here, that carries over what has worked and served New Zealand well over a period of time. But, of course, the devil is always in the detail and we do need to work through the specifics, I think, when we get to that part of the bill.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Look, I thank the Minister for his answer to my question a few questions and answers back. It seemed to me what he said in response to my question about whether or not it was necessary to have the word “research” in clause 3(b)(i), after he appeared to have previously said that research was done using official statistics—I made the point that maybe research was redundant as a purpose of the bill, because if you had official statistics, research could be done subsequently. The Minister gave an interesting example. He suggested that the Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI), which a lot of people regard as an extremely useful and world-leading tool, was a good example of—well, it wasn’t clear if it was official statistics or research. But the fact that the IDI accesses data sets, administrative data, from a range of departments—education, health, welfare, and so on—and integrates them together would be an example of research that is not necessarily official statistics, or at least that’s what I thought he was saying.

So my question is: when he used that example, was he trying to say that the IDI is an example of research or is the IDI an example of official statistics? If he’s saying yes, the IDI is an example of research, then what are the constraints on the use of the IDI? If he comes back and says, “Well, all of the chief statistician’s usual requirements are placed on the IDI for the custodianship of official statistics.”, then how is it any different calling it research if all of the same constraints and protections are there—why don’t we just call it official statistics and save ourselves time, which gets us back to the original question of: is it not redundant to say the purpose of this bill is research?

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I’m wanting to go back to the question that I asked you last night and your response to it, around the purpose of this Act being to enable the trusted collection and use of data for the production of official statistics and for research. That appears inconsistent with the United Nations’ Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics, namely principle 6, which says that, “Individual data collected as a statistical aid by statistical agencies for compilation are to be strictly confidential and used exclusively for statistical purposes.” No mention of statistical purpose and for research.

The Minister referred last night to the United Nations’ Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics Implementation Guidelines to justify the purpose of the Act, saying that it can be for official statistics and for research. I’m curious about where in the Implementation Guidelines that is. I’ve had a bit of a look through it. Look, I’ll note, for example, in page 14 of the Implementation Guidelines, it says that, “For example, only accredited researchers might have access to anonymized microdata for research, while the general public would not be allowed such access.” Then page 56 talks about “Statistical agencies [having] established appropriate procedures and processes (e.g. anonymization) before passing over the data to researches.”

Additionally, the use of microdata is monitored in order to immediately apply corrective actions from circumstances appear in which confidentiality is violated. On that point, I note that the Implementation Guidelines keep on talking about anonymised microdata, and there is an important distinction there that I’ll just touch on briefly. Statistics New Zealand points to personal data being de-identified rather than anonymised, which is a higher standard.

I’d be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that, but I’m struggling to see how the implementation guidelines justify moving away from principle 6 of the United Nations’ Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics, namely that it should be used exclusively for statistical purposes—albeit with some caveats in the Implementation Guidelines for anonymised microdata. I’d appreciate the Minister clarifying that point.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): I do think that the answer’s in the member’s question, because that use of that microdata is the research, right? The anonymised microdata. I guess I covered this off: it is in the guidelines. We’re just making it explicit in the bill what that is in the purpose.

So I want to come back to, though, the member David Seymour’s question. Just to be clear: the IDI is research and Part 5 of the bill applies to that data set, so we will come to a detailed debate on that. If the bill didn’t explicitly cater for mandatory and voluntary provision of data, there would be no protection of voluntary provided data that is also being canvassed in the debate. Stats New Zealand may not have a mandate to collect data by agreement were that not explicit in the bill.

The general point I’ll come back to is that in all of this, the bill hard-wires an ethical and cultural framework into the bill and that is the debate that comes up in Part 5. It’s right that we then work through whether that has been done in the right detail.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 44

New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 163 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Michael Woodhouse’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 197 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 75

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendments to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Part 1 as amended stand part.

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

Ayes 107

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 12

ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order, Madam Chair. I don’t think I’ve ever seen, in a committee stage, a presiding officer put a question after the first closure motion, while there were multiple members making a call. This is a bill that has attracted widespread and deep expert criticism. There were several more clauses that had not been debated that I know members wanted to move on to. You’ve taken a closure motion while there were people calling to add more to the debate, and I urge you to allow us to actually fulsomely debate this issue. Otherwise, I think members on this side will have to ask for the Speaker to be recalled—it’s a serious matter.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Speaking to the point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. The member should be well aware that an ability to accept a closure motion by the presiding officer rests entirely with the presiding officer. To suggest otherwise, I think, calls for disorder of the House.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Speaking to the point of order. I guess you could put it down to inexperience but you can question a ruling without questioning that it’s their right to make it. I haven’t questioned the presiding officer’s right to make the ruling; I just think, in this instance, it’s the wrong one. When the member’s a bit more experienced, he might learn that members are actually allowed to comment on the proceedings of the House.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Speaking to the point of order, the Minister, the Hon Dr David Clark, and then I will be making a ruling.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): Speaking to the point of order. Yep, I will leave the member’s condescension to one side, but I do think that we have had a fulsome debate, somewhat repetitious, and getting into the detail of clauses that members were interested in. There has been plenty of opportunities for new clauses to be debated but members have chosen to focus in on certain areas. We have chosen not to have closure motions on this side of the House because we also believe in a fulsome debate, but when the material does start to get repetitious, of course we reserve the right to bring a closure motion because there’s business to get on with in the House.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I will now make my comments, because there’s been a lot of point of orders and further points of order on this issue. I was actually on this seat last night when this bill began to be discussed, and I’ve just counted how many calls I’ve taken and how long we have actually taken to discuss just Part 1 of this bill—this is a seven-part bill. We have debated Part 1 for over two hours. So one of the reasons why I actually accepted the closure motion was that we have discussed it for a long time. It is clear to me that there is no agreement in terms of the debate here. There are substantial parts that we will be discussing in Part 3, and I’ve accepted the closure motion. We shall now move to Part 2.

Part 2 Roles and responsibilities

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Clause 13 of Part 2 talks about the functions of the Statistician, and the first function of the Statistician is “to collect data in accordance with this Act.” It’s a somewhat circular clause, because the purpose of the Act is in Part 1. So if we are in a somewhat cloudy area about what the purpose of the Act is, then it’s important, I think, to reconcile clause 13 with clause 3. Now, in clause 13(c), I think we get some clarity about the research, which is “access to data for research [is allowed] in accordance with section 48:”, but the collection of data is in accordance with the Act overall. And, as we have established and haven’t yet had rejected or refuted, the purpose of the Act is to collect data for research.

So I have two questions. The first is the question that I asked in Part 1—it’s still relevant here—and that is: if, as the Minister said last night, the Statistician can only make mandatory requests for data for official statistics and not for research, where in the bill is that made clear? Secondly, in respect of, I think, quite a helpful contribution around the Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI), in that the IDI is a database for research and, I stand to be corrected, but I’m almost certain that what the Minister, basically, said is the contribution—to my comment that if it’s voluntary, it doesn’t need to be subject to a legal framework, in the response, the Minister said, “Well, it is voluntary, but it does need to be subject to the law.” So my question is this—it’s hypothetical, but it’s very relevant. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that the Statistician goes to the Ministry of Education and says, “We’d like all your data on school attendance anonymised and put into with a unique identifier.” and the Ministry of Education says, “No thanks; we’re not going to give you that data.” Does the Statistician have the power to say to the Ministry of Education, “Too bad, you’ve got to give it to us.”? That makes it mandatory and that makes it mandatory for research because it’s going into the IDI. It wasn’t collected under the Data and Statistics Act, when it’s passed. It was collected probably under the Education Act, but it’s being pulled into the IDI under this Act, which the Minister has just said that’s not mandatory for research. So I want to know—and I know the answer; I’ve been a Minister around a table that’s discussed the IDI at some length—does the Statistician have the power to go to the Ministry of Education in that scenario and say, “Too bad, Jack. You’ve got to give us that data.”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): The answer to the member’s question is no, and he does appreciate that, in that case, the Government Statistician cannot.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair. The clause within Part 2 that I’m particularly interested in, apart from, of course, the one that my colleague and friend has already been interrogating—but I won’t tread on his toes to the extent of going to that same space at the moment—is clause 16, “Independence of Statistician” and the related points around delegation. It seems to me to be really interesting and at the heart of what we should concern ourselves with as a Parliament and as the committee of the whole House today, in relation to those safeguards that we would hope for and expect on behalf of the good people of New Zealand.

I turn to clause 16(1), “The Statistician has the sole responsibility for deciding on—(a) the production of statistics by the Statistician, including”—and it lists various matters—“and (b) the timing, manner, and content of the dissemination and communication of those statistics.” So these are important points to establish lines of accountability for.

So my first cluster of questions, so to speak, to the Minister is around the subject of accountability. If the Statistician has sole responsibility for deciding on these matters, how is that person accountable for the decisions? Are we to understand that “sole responsibility” means that these can’t be questioned by other authorities—and I’ll give some examples in a minute—and do we also take it that sole responsibility means that in the Statistician’s honest or reasonable belief, these things are being done in an appropriate manner? For example, I would be keen for the Minister, in conjunction with his officials, to address the question of ministerial accountability. It’s proper sometimes that there is a measure of independence in these matters, and certainly we wouldn’t want the Government of the day, of whatever stripe, to be acting in a way that eroded the independence of the Statistician. But the flip side, of course, is that if the Statistician is able to act in way that’s independent but not accountable, then we should be concerned about that.

So there’s the ministerial responsibility question. We’ve got a system of responsible Government in this country, and I use the term quite loosely and in a political sense, I suppose, to underline that point of my own. But we have a responsible Government in the sense that the Government of the day, the Cabinet and whatever other arrangements prevail in MMP, are such that the people have the right to elect those who will run the country and be accountable for their decisions. The Statistician is outside that, so the first question is on ministerial responsibility.

The second is: can the Minister provide some assurance to the committee, and, indeed, the country as a whole, about the ability of the Ombudsman as an Officer of Parliament to be able to interrogate decisions, notwithstanding that the Statistician is solely responsible for them? The courts, too—would judicial review be available to interrogate the decisions of the executive if a person or an organisation feels as though they’ve been hard done by, just to use that colloquialism—to use that phrase? It’s a bit early in the morning for this. Anyway, just some thoughts about accountability versus independence, please.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): Thank you, Madam Chair. These are important questions that the member raises and that we’re canvassing in the debate. The Minister is responsible—I alluded to this earlier, but I think it’s a point worth reinforcing also in this part of the bill because it’s actually laid out here. The Minister is responsible for the “what” of statistics, and the Government Statistician is responsible for the “how”. So clause 11 outlines very clearly that “The Minister has the following functions and powers under this Act: (a) to specify the Government’s data and statistical priorities: (b) to approve the multi-year data and statistical programme required under section 18: (c) to approve joint collection agreements under section 24: (d) to exercise the power in section 28(3) (certain requests for data require approval by Minister): (e) to exercise the power in section 44 (Minister may direct Statistician to produce or cease production of statistics on matter).”

These are carried over, essentially, from the previous Act, and, likewise, the material around the independence of the Statistician laid out in clause 16 is beautifully succinct. The Statistician is responsible for the “how”, essentially, but it’s laid out here in clause 16(1), which states, “The Statistician has the sole responsibility for deciding on—(a) the production of statistics by the Statistician, including the selection of data sources, concepts, definitions, methods, and classifications to be used;”, and in clause 16(2): “This section is subject to section 44.” So it’s right there.

In terms of the accountabilities, which the member raises as well, the Government Statistician is accountable for every decision made by a delegate. The bill hard-wires in legal obligations regarding independence and confidentiality which apply to any delegate, and it’s a criminal offence to wrongfully obtain data while acting as a delegate of the Government Statistician, which is in clause 79 of the bill. I think these things are really important to hard-wire into the legislation so that there are those accountabilities. What we’re talking about here is, in some cases, people’s sensitive personal data. In some cases, it’s kind of more economic data that no one would get upset about, but it’s still right and important to have the principles right and laid out, and the accountabilities. So I welcome the member raising these as important points to cover in the debate.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to return to the answer that the Minister gave to my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse about mandatory requests for information or data. My question is: the issue, he said, was that in the case of the Statistician wanting to get data on truancy, for instance, from schools—going to the Ministry of Education and the ministry refusing that request. There’s, obviously, some data that is mandatory and some data that is not mandatory, and I suppose this comes back to the question of research that Mr Seymour and Mr Woodhouse have been talking about. So my question is: under what circumstances is a Government agency or organisation required to provide the information to the Statistician—I presume that would relate to the preparation of statistics as defined in the bill—and where is it clear that it’s not mandatory for certain other information?

The reason I’m just raising that is just in reference to clause 11 that the Minister’s just been talking about, there may be occasions where there is a change that the Government or the Minister requires the Statistician to provide new additional data or statistical priorities, as set out in 11(a), which, in that case, might mean that we do want to get the truancy information from the Ministry of Education. At what point and what would the process be that it would enable the Statistician to require the Ministry of Education to require that data? So just the clarity around when and under what process is it mandatory, and how is that power exercised; and when is it not mandatory, and discretionary?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): I want to be helpful to the member. We have canvassed this debate a few times already. Properly and fully, this debate belongs in Part 3, which we’ll come to next. We’re debating the bill clause by clause, so we are doing a fairly in-depth play on each of these things. Part 3 canvasses that entirely, so I think I would prefer to respond in Part 3, where that debate can be had again and more fully.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. First, I just have a bit of statistical trivia for the Minister of Statistics. The Chair told us that Part 1 was debated for two hours. Now, we started Part 1 at 9.30 last night, adjourned at 10, resumed at 9, and she said we had been debating for 40 minutes today. So I ask the Minister of Statistics: is 70 minutes more than two hours; if not, should we have had more debate on Part 1? I dare say we should have, because the excuse that we’ve got a lot to get through is not good enough. The reason we’re in extended sitting is so we do have time, as a Parliament, to scrutinise legislation.

Turning to clause 17, there’s this question of delegation. It’s very clear: “The Statistician may delegate in accordance with clauses 2 to 4 of Schedule 6 of the Public Service Act 2020 any of the Statistician’s functions or powers under this Act or any other Act”. Now, the Minister has been very cautious to say, “Yes, the Statistician can delegate, but, of course, the responsibility will be entirely with the Statistician.” So it’s almost as though we’re eating our cake and having it too here. Anybody can carry out the chief statistician’s role. Anybody within the Public Service, so long as the process of notification and so on is gone through with, can have all of the powers of the chief statistician, but there will be no diffusion of responsibility in line with that diffusion of power. This seems to be almost too good to be true. So I wonder if the Minister could explain how it’s possible that the chief statistician can delegate to a whole range of people and not lose any accountability whatsoever.

And if he’s not certain that that’s possible, perhaps what he’d like to say is that, actually, yes, there’s a diffusion of responsibility, because, actually, at some point, if an agent, a delegate does something, and it’s not quite what the chief statistician wanted, or perhaps the chief statistician couldn’t reasonably have monitored the behaviour or activity of the delegate, then, of course, that cast-iron guarantee that all of the accountability will be in place is lost. So that’s the first question—you know, is it really possible that a delegate can have all the accountability of the delegator? It would seem logically impossible if they’re different people. There’s got to be some diffusion of responsibility.

But, second of all, and perhaps more importantly, if we accept there might be some dilution of accountability, maybe it’s worth it because there’s a benefit. The real question I have, apart from whether he really thinks that there’s no loss of accountability, is: what could be the possible benefit? Why does he want to take the powers of the chief statistician—which are very powerful powers; they’re there for good reason, so the Statistician can get really good, representative data sets, so we can understand what’s going on in our society. Why would he want to diffuse that? What possible benefit could there be from some other agency having those powers?

And final and third question, because you never know if you’ll get another chance here: who does he think might be an example? Can he give us three examples of the kinds of people that might, within the Public Service, have those powers from the chief statistician delegated to them?

So just to wrap up: does he really believe you can delegate with no loss of accountability whatsoever, that the person with the delegated power will really be perfectly controlled by the chief statistician, and therefore perfectly accountable? Second of all, whether or not he does, what is the benefit of this delegation? And thirdly, what are three examples of people who might be delegated to?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): This power mirrors, effectively, a similar power under the Public Service Act. It is not anticipated to be used often, so I cannot give the member three examples, and I think, you know, it’s there should it be required. It’s appropriate to have those measures there in the law should they be required. But I will repeat for the member, I think for about the fourth time now, that there is no diffusion of responsibility. There is a clear line of accountability here, as is good management practice. The Government Statistician is accountable for every decision made by a delegate. The bill hard-wires in legal obligations regarding independence and confidentiality which apply to any delegate, and it is a criminal offence to wrongly obtain data while acting as a delegate of the Government Statistician. Now, the member may argue that it’s a bit odd to have this in here or he doesn’t much like having delegation in here if we don’t think it’s going to be used. I think it’s worth exploring theoretical possibilities, having the right framework in place to protect against any harms which might be done should those clauses be required, and acknowledge that this is mirroring the Public Service Act practice and mirroring best practice around accountability for responsibilities.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a relief to see you there. Look, I just wondered if we could just get the Minister to be totally clear about what he just said. So he’s putting in place a new power for the chief statistician to delegate the considerable powers of the chief statistician to anybody, but he doesn’t think it’ll be used very often, and he’s not able to give the committee a single example of, hypothetically, how it might be used. Now, I want the Minister to put on record that he’s been involved in drafting and designing this legislation, putting together this policy, and at no time can he tell the committee, at no time can he tell Parliament, at no time has he ever had suggested to him, ever had any advice about what sort of example there might be for delegating a power under this Act. Is he really telling us he decided he’d put it in there just for, in his words, “a theoretical possibility”? If he has had advice, and it has included examples of somebody that power might be delegated to, then I want him to tell us (a) has he had any advice, and, (b) if he has, what were the examples? On the other hand, if he’s never had any advice about how this new power might hypothetically be used, then why is it in there, and will he take it out?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): What I would note is that while the current Act doesn’t contain this delegation in it, the Public Service Act applies anyway. So this is making it explicit that that power applies. It’s also true that that has then enabled a clear explanation about the publishing of information of any delegations, to have transparency, and that was something that the Privacy Commissioner sought so that there would be transparency around any powers that were being delegated in this respect.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. Statistics is very important, and the way we actually collect and the way we make sure that the people’s data stays safe is something that people feel very passionate about.

I think some of the questions that I have are going to be in Part 3, so I’ll save it for that. But something that popped up is in Part 2, clause 13, “Functions of Statistician”, which says, “to guide and direct best practice in the production and communication of official statistics”. Considering the fact that the Minister, basically, has the power to direct us to Statistics New Zealand and specify the Government’s data and statistical priorities, and looking at the function of trying to communicate official statistics with New Zealand’s population, I’m wondering if the Minister could actually answer how he is going to improve the practice of this to the communities who are digitally excluded, when we have a census that is actually carried out online. There are plenty of people who can’t actually participate when they don’t have connectivity. How are the communications going to be extended to people who speak a language that is other than English as a first language? For people who are blind, is there a Braille option in terms of the statistics information? Are we improving our dissemination of statistics information?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): Thank you, Mr Chair. The member refers, of course, to clause 13(d), and, at one level, this is a question for the Government Statistician, but here we are debating the bill, so it’s appropriate to address it, I think, at least in passing and to acknowledge that this is the independent function of the Statistician. They have to look to best practice in this regard. I think my observation and reflection is that Statistics New Zealand is very focused on how it can do this better and how it can collect data more effectively for official statistics through the census process, and very focused on how to do that more effectively to reach communities that simply weren’t well reached in the previous census. This is something that there is layers of governance across. A lot of it is focused on collecting good census information from people who are digitally excluded.

So I appreciate there’s going to be a good, fulsome debate—and here’s a good time to advertise it—this afternoon on this matter, and I know the member’s bringing the debate to the House this afternoon. So it’s a good time to begin rehearsing some of the conversations that will happen there. But, ultimately, it’s the responsibility of the Government Statistician to discern what best practice is and to guide the production and communication of official statistics in that respect.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Minister, I want to just dig in a little bit more to clause 17 and just ask the Minister to comment on some of the concerns raised by a number of commentators, including the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties. So clause 17 in the bill enables the Government Statistician to delegate any of the Statistician’s functions or powers under this Act, with the exception of needing approval from either the Minister or the Public Service Commissioner. Those powers or functions may be sub-delegated to any public servant, including contractors, with prior written approval of the Government Statistician. Now, a former Government Statistician—Len Cook—pointed out that such a wide-ranging power of delegation is enormously risky and unheard of elsewhere, and the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties has included his concerns at length, and I’ll just invite the Minister to respond to those.

So: “The Minister of Statistics David Clark has managed to avoid the public scrutiny”, he says, “of the constitutional implications of the Data and Statistics Bill despite transparency being a proper expectation [of] such change by citizens in a democratic society. The bill presented to Parliament by the minister waters down the role of the government statistician through the simple means of enabling the role to be delegated to unspecified persons or organisations without any further legislative oversight or qualification. Nowhere else in the world have changes of this sort been made. … Regardless of the political predisposition of ministers of the day, we need trustworthy official statistics to have confidence in how we measure progress or lack of on economic, environmental and social concerns. It is the independence of the government statistician in the use of the confidential information provided to government only for statistical use that underpins trust in official statistics. No policy, service or compliance organisation that I am aware of has maintained without question a consistent reputation for being as responsible, scientific and transparent, for as long as the government statistician [of New Zealand] has. [This] bill makes the government statistician a close partner of the policy, enforcement, surveillance and operational agencies of government through overseeing data sharing on an unspecified scale. It reverses the long-standing constitutional checks that distance the government statistician from policy advocacy or justifying the operational delivery of policies. In providing such agencies with the powers of the government statistician, as statistical clones, concerns of the public legitimacy of statistical functions critical to trust in government may lead to a loss of the trust we need to have in [this] role.”

So I would invite the Minister to respond to those concerns.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think—and this is an important debate to have; I’ll put that in front of my comments—that some of those claims from the Council for Civil Liberties are a bit of an overreach; to say there’s been no public scrutiny of this. I have a great deal of faith in the members of the select committee that considered this, and the—

David Seymour: Too much!

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think I hear members opposite arguing there’s been too much consideration or publicity. But, you know, the chair of this committee, wearing another hat, and the member the Hon Michael Woodhouse, I’m aware, and other members of this House on this side, were part of a committee that fairly thoroughly considered this, received submissions from the likes of the folks the member’s referencing, and reported this bill back with various amendments and protections to ensure that we can have confidence in the way any powers are exercised—or they allowed it to go through in the form that it was if they were confident.

Now, here we’ve got a whole set of expectations around any delegation. As I’ve said, in some ways it’s a mirroring of the Public Service Act, and, in fact, it explicitly labels that here in clause 17, but it’s also clear—and we’ve gone over the accountabilities thing a few times, and I’m happy to go over that again—and I think members have probably heard clearly the message that the Government Statistician is accountable for every decision that’s made, so there’s a clear sheet back to the Government Statistician, and that will mean that the Government Statistician will think very clearly and carefully, I would have thought, before delegating any powers. But then: “the delegation of functions or powers delegated to the Statistician by a Minister requires the prior written approval of that Minister”. So there’s a check there. And clause 17(1)(b) states, “the delegation of functions or powers delegated to the Statistician by the Public Service Commissioner requires the prior written approval of the Public Service Commissioner.”

So we’ve got those. We’ve also got the expectation canvassed previously, where powers and functions are delegated, that that is transparently communicated and recorded, and that is part of the request and the expectation of the Privacy Commissioner. We have amended the bill to take account of that requirement, to make sure that we are providing transparency around these matters, and I think all of this is entirely appropriate. And it is the right debate to be having: have we got the balance right here? I think, you know, the official statistics that are produced are incredibly valuable for decision making and incredibly valuable for holding decision makers to account, and we need to have a robust ethical framework that surrounds it.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I just comment briefly, the excellently chaired Governance and Administration Committee was the committee that examined the bill, and the Minister says that he’s got great confidence in the scrutiny by the committee. But what people watching at home may not know, and what he forgot to say, is that three out of the five members—i.e., a majority of the committee—are Labour members. And that’s the problem with select committees, particularly in the current Parliament. When the majority of members are from the same party as the Government, who’s putting forwards the legislation that the committee’s supposed to be scrutinising, you’ve got a problem—even with an excellent chair, even with the best chair, you’ve got a problem with that majority. The people at home may not realise the gentleman Ian McKelvie sitting in the Chair also chairs that committee, but he’s a hostage to several Labour members—now he wants to talk about the bill.

But I just go back—Mr Chair, I hope you’ll keep this debate going until the Minister answers certain questions—I asked him, “Has he had any advice about what sort of delegations might occur?” And I said, “Why don’t you tell the Parliament?”, did he have advice about how section 17 might be used, to whom the Statistician’s power might they be delegated to? They’re pretty significant powers. If you were a Minister designing legislation to bring it to Parliament, wouldn’t you want to know? So has he had any advice about that, and, if he has had advice about what some examples of delegations might be, then can he tell the committee what those are?

Now, if he hasn’t had the advice and he can’t tell us, why doesn’t he just take section 17 out and not have the delegation, or, better still, prohibit the delegation under the Public Service Act that all chief executives can make. What he’s tried to tell us is “No, no, no, you’ve got it wrong, section 17 is a safeguard against delegation, this will be safer than other delegations under the Public Service Act.” Well, what he could do is simply say the powers of the Chief Statistician will not be delegated. That would be a sensible change. If he was to do that, we’d avoid any loss of responsibility. The Minister has said multiple times, “Oh, no, no, it’s watertight; there’s criminal charges, you’ve got all the responsibilities of the Chief Statistician if you’re delegated the Chief Statistician’s powers.” But the problem is, you only need criminal charges after there’s been a failing.

Actually, what we’re interested in is getting the right result the first time. So if there’s no reason to take the risk, if someone’s going to have to be criminally charged for abusing delegated powers, then let’s not take the risk. Let’s outlaw delegation of the Chief Statistician’s powers unless the Minister can stand up now and say, “I’ve had some advice and here’s some good examples why it might be useful to delegate.” So far, all he’s told us is that he wants the Chief Statistician to be able to delegate some of the strongest powers in Government because he’s interested in the “theoretical possibilities”—I mean this is Mickey Mouse lawmaking. So either we rule out delegating, or give some examples why it’s useful. And it won’t wash to say, “I’ve already said four times that there won’t be any loss of responsibility”, the fact he needs criminal charges in case something goes wrong shows there could be a loss of accountability. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): I think it would be helpful to give the member an example because—I mean, I do think it’s a good question. As I’ve said, it’s a power that’s unlikely to be used often—I have been clear on that. Now, here’s a theoretical example: another agency may be better placed to develop standards on particular issues using powers under the Act. And a good example might be standards relating to the collection of environmental, another department might be best placed to do that. Now, again, I don’t think the member, with his highfalutin rhetoric—it’s not enough for the member to say that there’s clear lines of accountability and consequences; it’s an unusual thing, perhaps, for a party that hits the table on law and order to say. But I don’t buy into that rhetoric, I do think it’s important to have clear accountability, and I do think it’s important to have consequences if it’s ever misused or abused. I think that should be laid out in the law, and I don’t dismiss it as lightly as the member does.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I couldn’t help but notice last night the Minister said how pleased he was to see you in the Chair—you were promptly replaced by a colleague and he hastily covered himself there, of course. And Mr Seymour has praised your role, albeit saying you only have, to a certain extent, as your chairmanship role with Governance and Admin. Flattery will get you everywhere, Mr Chair, so all I can say is you look particularly well today, sir. And thank you for the call, and thank you for any subsequent calls you may give me.

Just a brief point in my final contribution for this part, I’m just drilling down a little bit into that point, that very serious conversation, actually, that’s been had across the House regarding delegation, and more particularly clause 17(4), whereby the Statistician must publish information about the delegation that that person makes. Presumably, the point of that is to provide a level of justification for the delegation, but it seems to me strange that the publication of that information only needs to be made when the Statistician is making a delegation, other than to an employee of, or an individual working as, a contractor or a secondi from elsewhere in the State services of Stats New Zealand. So, within Stats New Zealand, to be able to make a delegation that doesn’t actually require any justification in terms of published information about that seems to me actually quite amiss. Now, I do accept that this was a point made by the select committee, so the Minister, to that extent, wasn’t responsible for its drafting. Others have commented on whether the Minister has placed perhaps too much faith in the majority Government - controlled select committee, but I’ll leave that for others. Suffice to say, though, it is important because this is in the Minister’s name, ultimately, this legislation. I do want to hear why we shouldn’t have a written justification available to all in the name of accountability where a delegation happens within Stats New Zealand.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): I think, just to put it on record, it’s very normal for accountability within a department to rest very clearly with the chief executive for all decisions and work done within that department. Having said that, I also want to place on record my observation that the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee is hostage to no one—having appeared in front of that committee. But I also wish to place on record, because since that process question has been raised, the member David Seymour challenged that the chair of that committee with the particular membership was somehow held hostage; I just don’t buy that. There is an opportunity for minority views if members strongly disagree. There’s all kinds of mechanisms in our democracy for making sure those voices are aired and heard. I think the committee did a really robust and solid job, worked through it, reached agreement about what the best way forward was. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have the debate now—doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have the debate now. But I express stronger faith in the members on that committee than perhaps the member does, and I do think it’s worth putting on record.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendments to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 2

Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 117

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Amendments not agreed to.

The result corrected to add Te Paati Māori votes after originally being announced as unanimous.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order, Mr Chairperson. I may be a bit new to this, relative to you, but don’t we have to have a motion that the question be put?

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): No, we don’t.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Mr Chair, you’re absolutely right. However, I would also add that a motion on the part is usually put without a closure motion when there are no competing bids for the call—and there were at least four people on their feet seeking to continue to discuss Part 2. Therefore, a closure motion would have been appropriate.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): So my ruling was simply based on the fact that the last three speakers spent more time talking about the speaker than they had about the motion.

The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Part 2 agreed to.

Part 3 Collection of data and statistical confidentiality

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members, we now come to Part 3. Part 3 is the debate on clauses 22 to 42, “Collection of data and statistical confidentiality”. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I’m in something of a dilemma, because I’ve a very high regard for the Minister in the chair, Dr David Clark. That said, he may not be able to answer the questions that I’ve got. Before I go on to the substance of my question in Part 3, which may need to be repeated in a later call, can I just touch briefly on the ad hominem defence of the Governance and Administration Committee, to which Mr Seymour interjected he didn’t agree that—he didn’t have faith in the committee, and I interjected I agreed and I was a member of that committee. It’s not only because the committee has a Labour majority. It’s because making law is a very, very messy kind of sausage factory process, of which the committee of the whole House is a really important part.

So the fact that the committee did a good job should not detract from the questions and the analysis that we’re doing now, to which I would go to Part 3, clause 22, paragraph (c), because what we’ve established in Parts 1 and 2 from the Minister is, in his words, there is no mandatory ability for the Statistician to collect data for the purposes of research. He answered my question correctly in the hypothetical scenario of whether the Statistician, to populate the Integrated Data Infrastructure, popped along to the Ministry of Education and said, “We’d like your data on school attendance.”—the Ministry of Education is quite free, in the answer the Minister gave, to decline that request.

If that’s the case, why is clause 22 written in the way that it is? Because what it says is, at (a), “Data may be collected … by means of a request”, so you ask for it, or by means of a request under delegated authority—paragraph (b). But if those are unsuccessful and the Statistician believes that “the data is necessary or desirable to enable the Statistician to produce official statistics, or desirable for research”—and those are the key words: “or desirable for research”—then he or she can just go and ask for it. So not only did the Minister not give a clause in the bill that made it clear that data collection for research was not mandatory, but I now point to a clause, clause 22(c), that actually demonstrates the opposite: that the Statistician, if he or she considers it necessary or desirable for research under Part 5—the Statistician can go and get it. That to me is the very definition of mandatory. If you request it under (a) or (b) or otherwise, well, we’ll just ask for it because we think it’s desirable.

Now, we’ve established in Part 1 that the Minister and the Government’s goal here is to collect data for official statistics using mandatory means but not to collect data for research using mandatory means. My submission to the committee is that clause 22(c) says the opposite of that, which is why in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 197 I have a very straightforward amendment, and that is to simply delete the words “or desirable for research under Part 5”. That change will give absolute effect to what the Minister has told this committee is his Government’s intention, and that is mandatory collection for data for statistical purposes but voluntary collection for research purposes. Only, this clause says the opposite. So I commend SOP 197 to the committee but also ask the Minister whether or not he agrees with my assessment of (a) what he said and (b) what clause 22 says.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): Thank you, Mr Chair. Firstly, I just want to agree with the member’s comments around the sausage factory, and the fact that the Governance and Administration Committee did a good job does not detract from the need to have a robust debate in the committee of the whole House. I think I said that previously, but I think it’s important to note that for the record. Certainly I did not want it interpreted that we shouldn’t be having a robust debate at this point. It is an important part of our democratic process, and valuable.

In respect of the member’s discussion around clause 22, there’s a very important distinction here, which is that collection does not equate to the ability to compel. That is the absolutely critical thing. Collection—so data may be collected—is not a compulsory power. It is possible to collect it. It may be collected. But the department can refuse that request if it does not believe—it is empowering but it’s not a compulsion. The clause clearly references sections 23 and 26, which explicitly reference collection of data for official statistics. Sorry, I’m jumping ahead. Clause 29—and I risk causing confusion by bringing those things in too early—is the clause that places the obligation to comply with a request. That clause clearly references sections 23 and 26, which explicitly references collection of data for official statistics. I think it’s really important to note that this all hinges on the words “may be collected”. It’s not a compulsion at this point. That’s the really important and subtle distinction. Subtle—you know, it’s legal terms. That’s the distinction that’s being made in this particular point in the sausage factory.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek the leave of the committee to correct the record for the voting on tabled amendment No. 2 by Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, to correct it to: Te Paati Māori, two votes in favour.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Leave is requested for that. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The vote will be corrected.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. The comment the Minister made right at the end made reference to sort of the legal interpretation, and that’s the lens through which I’m looking at this. I don’t have any doubt that the Minister’s intentions have been made clear to this House, and that may even be helpful, but when we’re passing black-letter law and a judge or a lawyer is then required to interpret what the law was that was passed, we need to make really sure we’ve got it right. Because if there is a refusal to provide information, it seems to me that the statistician can—and I refer the Minister to his own reference, actually, in clause 29, which is entitled “Obligation to comply with request”. So if the statistician asks for it, it can’t be declined, because there’s an obligation to comply with the request in the manner—“must provide the data by the date, and in the manner and form, specified in the request”.

The question, really, is: does paragraph (c) also apply, even though a request has not been made under section 23 or 26, and, if so, why do we need the clause? Because the way I’m reading this, and the way I think a lawyer would read this, is if the Statistician makes a request under paragraphs (a) and (b) of 22, clause 29 says there’s an obligation to comply with it when the request is made under section 23 or 26. But even if the request hasn’t been made under section 23 or 26, paragraph (c) of clause 22 says, “if the Statistician considers the data necessary or desirable to enable the Statistician to produce official statistics, or desirable for research under Part 5”. What the Minister has said is that the key word in that request is “may”, but the word “may” refers to the actions of the statistician, not the response by the person being asked for the data, right? So the Statistician may ask for it, but it doesn’t say anywhere that the person being asked may decline the request—in fact, quite the opposite. It’s very strongly implied that the Statistician may collect data under this clause. Despite Dr Clark’s repeated assertions that this is not a mandatory collection of data for research, my reading of clause 22 is very much that.

Now, and this is the point that I was making in Part 1, which is where is the clause that says data is not mandatory? I don’t think there is one. A way to fix that would be to delete the words “or desirable for research under Part 5”.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): Again, just to clarify, clause 22 simply enables the statistician to collect data for official stats and research. A request isn’t made under clause 22. It’s not where the—it doesn’t describe the requests being made. It’s an enabling clause.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Just briefly, I couldn’t agree more with the Minister, but that’s not what I was saying. In fact, I did say that as well. This is a “may” for the statistician. The question isn’t whether the Statistician may collect data. The question is what is the obligation on the person being asked for the data? My reading of this clause, very much so, is that he may collect it for research purposes and it must be complied with. That’s the point.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I’m also interested in this point, which my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse is raising, around clause 22(c), and it’s this continuation of statistics and research. I note the Minister’s point that the obligation is—and clause 29 refers to sections 23 and 26, but in clause 23 the Statistician may request data from any individual, public sector agency, or organisation. This takes us back to the functions of the Statistician, which we didn’t get a chance to properly canvass, in my view, earlier regarding collecting data in accordance with this Act under clause 13.

Then, if we go back to clause 11, the Minister has functions and powers under this Act “to specify the Government’s data and statistical priorities:”. And then if we go back to clause 6—and a question I asked but wasn’t answered last night—in the interpretation section “data includes information”, and there’s the issue of: what does that mean? I mean, this suggests that the data the agencies can compel other Government departments to provide for research does not have to exist solely as defined in a structured dataset, but can be any information held by it, however loosely. And then that, of course, goes right back to the purpose of the Act, which is to “enable the trusted collection and use of data for the production of official statistics and for research;”, and there’s just this issue around the policy structure of this bill, where it’s focused on official statistics and research as opposed to official statistics and then allowing it to be used for research in limited circumstances and spelling out what those are.

I’m interested in why the Minister thinks the structure of this bill has got this balance right in terms of conflating research with official statistics all the way through, as we see again in clause 22(c), and this issue of the data including any information. Clause 22 sort of entrenches the shift from data collection that uses formally designed surveys in the census to using administrative data, it could appear, and I’d be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that. By “administrative data”, I mean data gathered by Government agencies in the course of normal service interactions—for example, when a hospital provides healthcare to a person or a person applies for a benefit, a permit or a consent or any interaction with a Government agency can result in the associated data being pulled together in tools like the centralised Integrated Data Infrastructure.

This bill appears to give the Statistician the ability to request any data if they are of the view that it’s desirable for research. But then data itself, it means any information, in clause 6. So there seems to be a significant expansion of the dataset that can be used and, in fact, if data includes any information, then the individual public sector agency or organisation upon whom the request is made under clause 29 has an obligation to comply with that request.

So, as the Hon Michael Woodhouse said earlier, the Minister is making clear what his expectations are, but the issue is how this is going to be interpreted by lawyers and by the courts, and there’s just significant issues, as I read this, in the conflation through this bill with official statistics and data being requested for the purposes of research. So I’d appreciate it if the Minister could respond to some of those issues.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I note you closed the debate on the earlier part because you said that there was too much discussion about yourself. I’d like to point out for the committee that statistically there was very little debate about you, but I guess we all recall some things more than others—selectively.

I just want to ask the Minister about clause 15, and, for that matter, 19. These are clauses that say that principles of engagement by the Statistician with Māori “must begin early and be meaningful”, for example, and I wonder why that’s there. Statistics New Zealand, funnily enough, has categorised people into a series of ethnic groups: European New Zealanders, Māori, Pacific, Asian New Zealanders, and also MELAA—Middle East, Latin American, and African, which I’ve always found an odd statistical grouping. It seems strange that throughout this Act, including in Parts 1 and 2—although we weren’t able to debate it—the Data and Statistics Bill repeatedly emphasises that Statistics New Zealand and the Statistician must engage in special ways with Māori, which turn out not to actually be that special: “must begin early and be meaningful”.

Well, I would have thought that the objective of Statistics New Zealand would be to engage with all New Zealanders early and meaningfully. I just wonder if the Minister could explain why, for example, he hasn’t said that Statistics New Zealand or the chief statistician should engage early and meaningfully with Asian New Zealanders. The Minister, I’m sure, will be aware that Statistics New Zealand is the one Government department which has Asian New Zealanders as the largest ethnic group employed, according to the Public Service website. I’m not entirely surprised. If you look at the academic results, Asian New Zealanders have been doing very well in maths and stats for a long time. But, you know, it’s clearly a group that is engaged with the subject, that cares about it, and, actually, I wonder why we aren’t including Asian New Zealanders as a group of people that should be engaged with.

Over the weekend, I had the pleasure of watching the film Whina. I highly recommend it. One part of the film depicts Dame Whina Cooper leading the Māori Women’s Welfare League to do their own census of how Māori were living in Auckland after urbanisation in the 1960s. Because Statistics New Zealand didn’t seem to care enough to collect—in fact, they were mainly using administrative data, and the whole problem was that Māori, not being engaged with public services, weren’t part of the administrative data. So they did a survey from outside the State sector, by the Māori Women’s Welfare League. I also note that during our country’s vaccination roll-out during COVID-19, we failed to reach a lot of people because we use healthcare administrative data rather than Statistics New Zealand data to identify the population to vaccinate. There were some people who had been caught by Statistics New Zealand but not the healthcare system.

I make these points because while it was critical that engagement with Māori was improved in order that we didn’t miss things—like things had been missed that Whina Cooper uncovered with her census. Today, as someone who’s been responsible for charter schools, for example, there’s a lot of people in the Pacific community that could probably do with better engagement by Statistics New Zealand. There’s a lot of people in the Pacific community deeply disadvantaged. There’s a lot of Asian New Zealanders who have different needs, culturally. There are European New Zealanders who are having a rough time of things. And, of course, there are Middle Eastern, Latin American, and African New Zealanders, if we’re going to use that slightly odd Statistics New Zealand categorisation of humans by ethnic groups.

So Mr Speaker, Madam Chair, Mr Chair—see, you’re not that important! I want the Minister to stand up and explain why he has clauses such as 15 that say that the Statistician should have early and meaningful engagement with Māori; why that’s needed: is he saying that he doesn’t want to engage meaningfully and early with every other ethnic group? If he does, why doesn’t he put those in? And if he’s going to start listing every category of human by ethnicity, why don’t we just say to hell with it, take it out, and just say we’re going to engage meaningfully and early with all New Zealanders?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I’m not sure I’m going to get a response out of the Minister to these comments, but I’m working very hard on the possibility that I have misunderstood clause 22. I know that possibility is remote but I do draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that in support of my contention that the collection of data for research purposes is mandatory, clause 33(3) says, “No individual or organisation may specify conditions on which data is provided by the individual or organisation to the Statistician as described in section 22(c)(i) for the production of official statistics.” , and “(4) No public sector agency may specify conditions on which data is provided”. So we’ve got all of these clauses around the conditions, the ability for information for research to be supplied, with conditions, and basically the Statistician can turn around and say that there no conditions. We still don’t have a clause that says it’s voluntary—which is what the Minister told the committee. It would be a really simple amendment. He could support my amendment to just simply say it’s voluntary.

I want to move to Subpart 4, and this is a very important part of Part 3 of this bill, because it goes to the census in 2023. This needs a little bit of a preamble, Mr Chair, so I’ll trust you’ll indulge me before I get to point I’m going to make. And that is that when the Minister came before the select committee in February, I think it was 13 February, I asked him about whether the Government was thinking about delaying Census 2023, and his response, which is on the official transcript, was almost theoretical: “Oh, yeah, well, you know, we might give that some thought.” What we now know from Official Information Act requests is that they have been thinking about that for 2½ months, maybe longer, and there was a very high level of concern that the debacle of 2018 was going to be repeated and that they wouldn’t be ready for a 2023 census and how they are going to give themselves that power. Because this bill basically said when it was introduced that a census had to take place. It originally said that Statistician must take a census of population and dwellings in 2023 and every fifth year after that.

So we quizzed the officials about what’s going on. We got some fairly muted responses, I have to say, until a draft amendment to the bill turned up at the end of March, and it basically said—a simple change—that the Statistician must take a census of populations and dwellings in New Zealand in 2023 or 2024. That’s all it said—no real fanfare. The ability to just kick the can down the road for 12 months or more, as much as 20 months, was just sort of slipped into the bill.

Colleagues will recall that after the February Canterbury earthquakes in 2011 it was necessary for the previous Government to move quite quickly to delay the census because it simply wasn’t possible to conduct a census in those conditions. What did that previous Government have to do? It had to change primary legislation. It had to come back to the House and lay out its case for why the census would need to be delayed, and it needed to get the support of Parliament. And it needed to appropriate some funds, because delaying the census comes at a not insignificant cost.

What we have in clause 34(1) is completely different, and I don’t accept that the committee of the whole House is scrutinising the conditions that could lead to a delay in Census 2023 in the manner in which it occurred 10 or 11 years ago. This is very important because Official Information Act documents that were provided to me definitely showed that Stats NZ staff were very worried about this and also were trying to find a way in which a legal power could be granted. Simply putting an amendment into the bill was probably a eureka moment—for an official to say, “All we have to do is change the bill, and we’ll slip it through, and Bob’s your uncle.”

They gave other options, which was to have a more belts and braces enduring ability to suspend a census in certain circumstances, and those certain circumstances were laid out in information provided to the Minister, and they’re actually contained in my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). There are four: a national state of emergency, an unreasonable level of risk to public health and safety—which, of course, a pandemic may constitute—an unreasonable level of risk to Stats New Zealand staff, and civil unrest. There is none of that in the bill. So it was thought about and officials basically said, “Oh, we’d need to do significant policy work.” Well, I’m not so sure that’s the case. They came up with four very good reasons why you might want to delay the census. I’m not quite sure how much more policy work needs to be done. It seems like a solution by a contractor looking for a problem.

So there are two really key things to my SOP, and I’ll just remind the committee of what one is, and that is the Government Statistician should not be given the power to just make that call, and that’s what the bill we’re considering will do—it doesn’t have any caveats whatsoever. It just says that for next year or the year after, the Government Statistician makes that call. I don’t think that’s a decision that should be delegated to the Statistician. I think it should be given to the Minister, and the Minister should make a comprehensive consultation with the public about why that’s necessary. It’s the Minister who decides, it’s the Minister who is part of the Government that is voted in by the public and is accountable to the public. The Statistician isn’t. Also, a delay should occur following public consultation and should be done only for one or more of the following reasons: a national state of emergency, an unreasonable level of risk to public health and safety, an unreasonable level of risk to the health and safety of staff employed by Stats New Zealand, or civil unrest. That’s it.

Here’s what’s not on that list: risk of political embarrassment, and the risk that six months out from the 2023 election we have a debacle the way we did with the ham-fisted 2018 census. They can say whatever they like; the documents that I’ve seen and the public statements that the Minister has made suggest to me that he is going to take a paper to Cabinet recommending the delay of the census until 2024 and that that will be a decision the Government Statistician makes, if this bill is passed. So the Minister will be able to do two things: say, “That’s the Statistician’s decision, not mine.”, and then blame the public. Because all of the public statements he’s made on the question of Census 2023 say, “We may not have it, not because the Government’s not ready but because the public aren’t ready.” They weren’t able to do a dry run in the Eastern Bay of Plenty in the midst of a pandemic, and that’s fair enough. There was probably quite significant reluctance on behalf of the public to having strangers knocking on doors and chatting to them, even with masks on. But that was a long time ago, and we’re still nine or 10 months away from Census 2023. I don’t believe that’s going to be a reason for the census to be delayed.

Definitely, political embarrassment six months out from an election is not a reason for the census to be delayed, so I’m commending Supplementary Order Paper 156 to the Minister—in fact, I’m doing the Ministers’ job. The Stats New Zealand staff did—they came up with a better framework than simply just giving the Government Statistician a chance to kick the can down the road. We know any delay will come at a significant cost, so this House does need to be involved at some point. Maybe a ministerial statement would be sufficient, but he’ll have to appropriate for that change, and we need some transparency around what the cost of that will be. But we just can’t have a public servant going, “Nah, I don’t think we’re ready. We’ll just delay it for a year.” That’s not what robust public policy-making should be, and if colleagues agree, they must support SOP 156.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): Mr Chair, thank you. I’ll just make the obvious point in response to David Seymour’s last contribution, that clause 15 is in a part of the bill that’s already been passed. I appreciate he was probably making a political point and was just wanting to resurrect that debate, so I won’t respond further to that at this stage.

But the Hon Michael Woodhouse, I think, raises a very good and important debate to have in this part of the bill, albeit a conspiracy I don’t subscribe to. It is very much the case that the Government Statistician is independent and proudly independent and rightly independent, and that they produce statistics every week that may risk embarrassing a Government. Happily, sometimes they are also cause for celebration—the record-low unemployment figures we have at the moment, for example—but the Statistician produces those without fear or favour and this bill carries across the provisions that protect that independence, and I think all members of this House really appreciate that.

But what I don’t subscribe to is singling out this one particular set of statistics in saying that somehow the chief statistician will be influenced in a way that he or she might not be influenced every other day of the week when they’re putting statistics out, and I do not see any reason there could be—to pick up another of the member’s points—political embarrassment. I mean, the last census was an obvious example of a framework that was put in place, and not particularly well thought through, by the previous National Government. So if it was an embarrassment to anyone, it was certainly an embarrassment to the previous National Government. If the opportunity arises—and I hope we get it—to put out a census prepared for under the current Government’s time where we can contrast with the kind of census that was put out under the framework created by the prior Government, if anything, it’s an opportunity to draw a contrast between a competent Government and the one that went before.

All levity aside, I will repeat the comments I made, admittedly, at the start of my contribution in Part 1—so I do think it’s worth canvassing them again because they are directly relevant to this part on the census itself. I, in my introductory comments, made reference to the fact that the census is a good example of the Statistician’s independence. The primary consideration for deciding whether the next census is in 2023 or 2024 is the viability of the census operation and corresponding quality of the census data. Considering whether to proceed with the census as soon as all relevant information is available is part of due diligence, and it should be done before investing time and money in activities that can’t be recouped. Those kinds of activities are things like launching publicity campaigns and printing millions of forms, all of which have a cost to the taxpayer. That is something that the Government Statistician has to weigh up—whether we are in a position to run a successful census.

Importantly, such decisions respect the time, effort, and goodwill of people and communities that come together to support census delivery and who, rightly, should expect Government to have considered whether the census was likely to be delivered successfully. Given the pandemic and the lessons of the Canterbury earthquake sequence, frankly, I think it would be irresponsible not to give the Government Statistician the necessary flexibility. Contingency planning is an important part of effective governance.

So with those comments, I push back, and the message which the Government Statistician, from what I’ve heard, has put out there and from what I believe from my interactions are that at this stage—you know, if it was my personal view, and odds on, I would be expecting that census to go ahead. But if there were another major strain in a pandemic or an earthquake of the magnitude of the Canterbury or the Kaikōura sequence on top of challenges from a pandemic, and so on, the Statistician may make other decisions. But, ultimately, that is the Government Statistician’s decision—and rightly so—and the idea that we would put a political overlay to that is something that I think is quite unnecessary.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. This debate was going so well until the Minister started talking about which Government was competent—inadvertently, some would say, incompetently admitting that his Government ran a census with a framework that wasn’t fit for purpose, which is something of an own goal. Look, I mean, nobody’s been asked—

Hon Peeni Henare: It was already set by the previous Government.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Hey, Peeni Henare is saying something that I can’t hear behind his mask. I mean, Peeni Henare, nobody’s been asking about the statistics for the importation of mountain bikes or the number of times people move house in this debate, so let’s just keep it civil, folks.

I actually do want the Minister to address the question I asked about clause 15. Why does this law say that the principles of engagement by the Statistician for Māori say that engagement with Māori must begin early and be meaningful. It’s not good enough to say—

Hon Dr David Clark: Point of order, Mr Chairperson. This has already been canvassed that this part of a previous part of the bill. The member continues to raise clauses that are not in the part being debated—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you—thank you. David Seymour, I’ve just assumed the Chair, so if he could direct his comments and his questions to the Minister on Part 3 of the bill, which is the part we are considering.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Yeah, well, the only reason for raising it is that we were unable to get on to that topic in the previous part. If the Minister doesn’t want to answer it, then he doesn’t have to. But it is part of the bill, and it would be helpful for him to address it for the goodwill of the public and their understanding of the law being made, even if we weren’t able to debate it earlier.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to the Minister’s assessment that I was somehow undermining or challenging the independence of the chief statistician, nothing could be further from the case. He goes on to say, “Well, there are always statistics that are being produced that may cause political embarrassment.” I agree with that. That’s not the point. The point of the delay of the census is that there will not be adequate data collected in the census that will enable any sort of conclusions to be drawn, much less political embarrassment to be reached.

It is quite rich for the Minister, as Mr Seymour said, to score an own goal by admitting that six months after they took office, they went ahead with a census that they thought was not ready to go and then blamed the previous Government. That’s not good enough. Actually, the things that are a concern to the Minister now, and that is, in particular, social economic groups and ethnic groups—Māori and Pasifika particularly, who may be reluctant to participate in Census 2023—were actually reluctant to participate in Census 2018, and that had nothing to do with COVID. I think the Māori response rate to the census was 63 percent. That is far below the level that would be required to draw meaningful conclusions from the data collected, and it had to be backfilled with administrative data, which makes it inherently unreliable, in my view.

Simon O’Connor: What percentage again?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Sixty-three percent, Mr O’Connor, was the rate. They’ve had five years to fix that, and there has been a pandemic—I grant the Government that—but we’re well past the point, I think, where we should be blaming COVID for everything. The Government needs to—

David Seymour: They’re starting to blame the next disaster.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, that’s right—he’s already anticipating that. Look, that’s the point of my amendment—these things can happen. We know that because we had an earthquake to deal with. But the idea that the Government Statistician should be so independent as to commit the Crown to about $80 million of extra cost in his own decision to delay the census actually takes independence far too far. The strong convention—and the reason we’re even debating this in the House—is that when and how censuses are held is a matter set out in primary legislation. We’re debating the very point that the Parliament is giving the requirement to conduct a census next year, and to simply tag on “unless a public sector official”—who’s not accountable to the public—“decides that we’re not ready for it”, that’s OK!

I’m saying it’s not OK, and that’s not a slight on the Government Statistician; it’s a slight on the Government. Put the four criteria in, give the Minister the responsibility that he should have, and the House has, to make the decision based on the advice of the Statistician and engage the public on why. That’s what a sensible, responsible, and transparent Government would do.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, Part 3, which we’re debating now, is concerning the collection of data, and something that this bill does is it diffuses the powers of the Government Statistician to others who the Statistician delegates those powers to. So not only the Government Statistician, but other chief executives to whom those powers have been delegated may request information. And so there’s quite a significant diffusion of those powers in this bill. Now, the second thing is that there’s a significant change in terms of the collection of data to produce official statistics or desirable for research. So these powers would be delegated to chief executives, and then they will need to determine whether they are requesting data, produce official statistics, or desirable for research which they have a power to do under clause 26. So a public sector agency “may request the data on behalf of the Statistician from an individual, public sector agency, or organisation, if the individual, public sector agency, or organisation is in a position to provide it.” My question is: what oversight is there going to be to ensure that this diffusion of powers and this broad change to request data for official statistics or for research is done appropriately, as these powers are delegated and the powers of this Government Statistician are quite broadly distributed across different public sector agencies?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): Thank you, Madam Chair. The member again comes back to the delegations. I think this is the sixth time I’ve rehearsed these points. I still think they’re important, so I’m going to say them again. Look, the Government Statistician is accountable for every decision made by a delegate. The idea of diffusion of responsibility here somewhere is just not relevant. The bill hardwires on the legal obligations regarding independence and confidentiality, which apply to any delegate, and it is a criminal offence to wrongly obtain data while acting as a delegate of the Government’s Statistician, which is in clause 79 of the bill.

I repeat these things many times because it applies to all of these different sections and the member is, I appreciate, trying to test where the different parts of the Act may lead to a different outcome, but I think we have to fundamentally come back to that delegation principle, which is hardwired into the Act.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I repeat my question to the Minister, which he’s refused to engage with. He said he wouldn’t talk about clause 15 because it was in the wrong part. Clause 15 requires the Statistician to engage early and meaningfully with Māori. I simply asked why not do that with everybody—people of all backgrounds. As it turns out, engagement with Māori on census in clause 35, which is in this part, requires basically the same thing, just with respect to census. It’s not hard to find these clauses. They are in every part of the bill we’ve debated so far.

So given that the Minister has committed to debating sections that are in the part currently before the committee, can he please explain why we have clause 35 and why we’re not committed to work with and meaningfully engage with New Zealanders of all backgrounds, whether they’re Middle Eastern, Latin American, and African; whether they’re Pacific people, who face many social and economic challenges; whether they’re Asian New Zealanders, who have a distinct culture; or whether they’re European New Zealanders, many of whom face hard times and could do with rigorous statistical engagement? Why are we emphasising engagement with Māori above all others in this legislation? Why do we not require the statistics department to engage with all?

Hon Members: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No, I—the Minister was seeking a call, yeah?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): I guess, just to cover off the member’s point again: the Treaty obligations that are included in the bill.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Can the Minister elucidate: is he saying that the Treaty of Waitangi requires the Government of New Zealand to put special provisions to engage with Māori over and above what they do for every other New Zealander who is not Māori?

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. That’s a very important question that David Seymour’s asked, but there’s also another important question which the Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa has asked the Minister in a letter that they sent on 25 July to Hon Dr David Clark, the Minister of Statistics. They are concerned, Minister, that this bill dangerously conflates two separate types of Government data: official statistics, and the unspecified data gathered as a result of Government agency activity.

The Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa, which we assume includes many, many professional people who work in statistics, who work in libraries—in fact, they represent 195 institutions and 1,125 library and information professionals, Minister—have asked for the bill to be withdrawn altogether because of its dangerous conflation of two separate types of Government data. What they’ve said is, “Look, please remove the powers to gather data for research”, covered in Part 3, Subpart 3. They said, “The bill should provide for updates to the current regime for official statistics, and then work on an exposure draft of a bill to govern the access and gathering of data for research purposes.” Because there are legitimate reasons why we’d want to research things going on in New Zealand, and why Government agencies which collect information—whether it’s about the environment, transport, or agriculture, for example—why it may be important to have access to that data.

So the Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa has legitimately asked, Minister, with respect to Part 3, Subpart 3, to remove the powers to gather data for research as a proposed amendment to the bill. They do point out, Minister, and I’d like you to respond to this, in 1976, when considering the Wanganui Computer Centre Bill, Parliament recognised the danger of intersecting data collections and required there be a policy committee to provide oversight and governance of the computer centre. The committee was to consist of Government agency CEOs, as well as external representatives from the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Computer Society.

Now, the Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa believes that New Zealand’s gone backwards in understanding and mitigating the risks of access to this kind of data, at a time when other Governments have moved forward. So the question that the Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa has, and that the ACT Party has, is would you look at the Australian Data Availability and Transparency Act 2022 for an approach to data oversight? That Australian Act creates a commission and an advisory board to look at applications to use Government data for research. The Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa believes that’s an appropriate approach to data and research in New Zealand, and this organisation represents over 1,100 professionals and 195 institutions, including many people who work in Government, who work in agencies, Minister.

So could you please respond to that—to remove the powers to gather data for research, as suggested, and the concerns around the separation of research and statistics data. What provisions were previously made in 1976 under the Wanganui Computer Centre Act; why are those controls, those restrictions, those safety mechanisms not included in this bill; and what would the Minister say to simply taking on the best aspects of the Australian Data Availability and Transparency Act?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): Thank you, Madam Chair. The burden of the first part of the member’s contribution covered Subpart 3 of Part 3, which relates back to the rather lengthy debate we’ve already have on clause 22, so I won’t traverse that again. But the question the member asked toward the end about the Australian framework, I think, is interesting and has not been canvassed at length here. Certainly, I’ve had a conversation with Sir Geoffrey Palmer, who encouraged me to have a look at the Australian Act. My research in that area has come back to the point that, actually, that Australian Act—the relevant legislation in New Zealand that covers off those same concerns as the Privacy Act. The sharing of data is governed by the Privacy Act here. So the Australians have put that in a different Act, but we have the equivalent protections.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No, this is a substantial part of the bill. I am still hearing new material. There are a number of amendments and Supplementary Order Papers proposed, so I am keeping a very close eye on proceedings.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I talk about clause 39(2)(ba), I want to just touch back on a point that the Minister made around the independence of the chief statistician. I’m going to contrast that in the context of the potential for a delay to the census with two other clauses in this bill. One is on the delegation of powers. So the chief statistician can only delegate powers with the approval of the Minister. In joint collections, the chief statistician can only enter into an agreement with a public sector agency for the joint collection of data with the approval of the Minister. And so we’ve got this weird situation where the chief statistician is not so independent that he can’t, without the Minister’s approval, go into a joint collection agreement or a delegation of powers agreement, but he’s so independent that he can delay the census next year for up to 20 months, at a cost of between $80 and $100 million to the Crown, without the Minister’s role. So, if anything, the Minister’s comments about the independence—if he adopts the same approach on independence as he did with clause 17 and clause 24, he should support my Supplementary Order Paper 156.

Now, I want to go to Subpart 5, “Statistical confidentiality”, not so much to ask—and I’ll be relatively brief because I don’t have a question for the Minister, but I think it’s really important to put on the record for this committee what the Governance and Administration Committee was concerned about and what we reached, in the context of clause 39(2)(ba), which is data that may identify an organisation when they don’t want to be identified. That exercised the committee quite considerably, because at all times we agreed with the paramount importance of data confidentiality, but actually individual and organisational confidentiality as well.

So we had this clause which basically said the Statistician will take all reasonable steps to ensure that information isn’t published in a form that could reasonably be expected to identify an individual or organisation unless they agree to it, which is fine. But then this sort of late addition came in that says “data in a form that may identify an organisation (but could not reasonably be expected to identify any individual)” can be published. So it’s data that can identify an organisation, and we were pretty worried about that. That’s kind of the antithesis of what we’re trying to do here.

But I want to reassure the committee of the whole that the select committee scrutinised this at length and put the officials’ feet to the flames. They responded well, I think, as well as they could, in terms of providing scenarios where this would be necessary. The one example that I remember is of analysis on residential care, aged residential care in a particular mesh block or town, where it would be pretty obvious who was being referred to, even if the organisation wasn’t named, because there’s only one of them. So what do we do about that, if the rest home in Cromwell or Arrowtown or something like that was the only show in town and publishing data on the needs of aged care in that region might identify an organisation? I think we got there. But I just want to reassure this committee that the select committee paid very close attention to this and ended up satisfied that this was the right thing to do.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to ask the Minister just to expand a little bit on the comments around the Privacy Commissioner and this bill. So I note that the acting Privacy Commissioner made the comment that the bill should more carefully spell out the relation between the bill and the Privacy Act. I’m just wondering what the Minister’s views are on how that’s expressed in this bill—that relationship between the Privacy Act and this bill, and the collection powers in this bill. I also note that the commissioner suggested that this bill fails to allow for redress when people are harmed by the release of personal information, and recommended that in such a circumstance the bill should provide a right for individuals to complain to the Privacy Commissioner. I’m just interested in whether the Minister thinks that should be in this bill, or, if it shouldn’t be, why not?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): The right to complain to the Privacy Commissioner exists beyond this bill. So this bill does not restrict that. That right exists, and I think it’s important to put that on the record for the House, so I thank the member for that question. In terms of incorporating advice from the Privacy Commissioner, along the way there was a close working relationship between the officials at Stats NZ and the Privacy Commissioner, and many of the aspects and things that are included in the bill come from that fruitful engagement and mirror, in fact, ways in which the Privacy Commissioner operates, and mirrors their legislation.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Michael Woodhouse’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 197 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 42

New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 77

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Michael Woodhouse’s amendment to clause 34 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 156 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 42

New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 77

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendments to Part 3 be agreed to. All those in favour say aye, to the contrary no.

Hon Members: No.

Jan Logie: Aye. Ayes have it. Party vote.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I didn’t hear an aye.

Jan Logie: Oh, sorry. Aye.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No, I’m sorry. I believe we’ve moved on.

Jan Logie: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Hang on. Let me just—we’ll sort this. Thank you for your indulgence, committee of the whole House. The member may seek leave to cast a proxy vote for the Māori Party.

Jan Logie: I seek leave to cast a proxy for Te Paati Māori.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Is there any objection. Appears to be none.

Jan Logie: Point of order. I’m sorry. Thank you. Just my notes, I’ve got tabled amendment one and tabled amendment two, and I’m not clear what we’re voting on.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, and I did put the question, and I will read it again. I’m not putting it again, but I’ll read it out for the member: that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendments to Part 3 be agreed to. There is another, for the member’s information. There is another question to be put on behalf of that member. This is the first one of those.

Jan Logie: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. If you could help me in clarifying, I don’t have which parts amend—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No. No, that is not a point of order. I suggest the member just waits. Members, I’m going to put the question again, and for clarity, the question I’m putting, on behalf of the member, relates to deleting references to “research”.

The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendments to Part 3 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 12

ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 107

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendments to clause 34 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 12

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

Noes 107

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments not agreed to.

Part 3 agreed to.

Part 4 Official statistics

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to Part 4, the debate on clauses 43 to 47, Official statistics. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): This part may not be the longest debate, but it’s actually probably one of the most important parts of the legislation, because Part 4 sets out the manner and nature of the production of official statistics. Ultimately, the collection of the data is the means to an end. The end is the production of information useful for decision making, and that’s laid out in Part 4.

Before I go on to talk about my proposed amendment to this bill as set out in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 198, I want to draw, I guess, another inconsistency to the committee, and that is, again, the Minister’s powers where he claims that the chief Statistician has this statutory independence, albeit at clause 44, in Part 4, the Minister has very strong powers to direct the Statistician, and, in this case, it’s on the production or the ceasing of production of statistics. The Minister may direct the Statistician to produce statistics. The Statistician must comply with that direction, and the Statistician must give public notice of any direction the Minister has given him. And so it, again, kind of undermines the Minister’s claim that the chief Statistician is so independent of the executive that he has the power, now, to postpone a census for 20 months but can’t produce data or would need to stop producing data at the Minister’s whim.

The concern I have—and I think, largely, Part 4 is in reasonably good shape—goes to the question of the reporting, the public disclosure of certain decisions that have been made about information that may have been provided or delegated, and the reporting requirements that are laid out in clauses 46, 53, 54, and 56. All of those clauses, essentially, say the Statistician must publish information about things like the persons to whom official statistics have been made available, what official statistics have been made available, and the purposes for which the official statistics have been made available, and any conditions imposed, but it’s all right; the Statistician can just do that in a summary form.

I worry about that term “summary form”. I think, actually, when we’re talking about the public disclosure of information that has been provided by New Zealanders for publication, that the public are actually entitled to know a bit more than just a summary of what the Statistician has done. So my SOP 198 actually removes the ability of the Government Statistician to publish the required information in summary form, and requires him to be a bit more fulsome with the New Zealand public about how, where, and to whom data has been provided.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to ask the Minister a question around clause 47. In respect of data that is collected under section 22(c)(i) for research, clause 47(2) states that that data that’s collected for research “must not be used for the purposes of the production of official statistics unless—(a) the Minister approves the use of the data for the production of official statistics;”.

I would be interested to know whether the Minister has an obligation to advise the individuals or organisations who are affected by that decision by the Minister to approve the use of the data—which has been collected for research then being used for official statistics—of the change of status of their data that has been collected from them for a specified purpose under the Act.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Hon Michael Woodhouse’s amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 197 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Michael Woodhouse’s amendment to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 198 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 75

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendment to Part 4 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 12

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

Noes 107

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment not agreed to.

Part 4 agreed to.

Part 5 Access to data for research

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to Part 5. This is the debate on clauses 48 to 56, “Access to data for research”, and the question is that Part 5 stand part.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a really substantive part of this bill. We’ve been debating, in the committee, at length about the powers to collect data for research, and the Government’s agreed to disagree that it is a mandatory requirement on request. What Part 5 does is set out the circumstances where the Statistician can authorise access to the data for research, to whom that can be provided, including people who are not New Zealanders, overseas individuals or organisations, be satisfied that the research is in the public interest, and that there are appropriate measures to protect privacy, confidentiality and security.

Now, most colleagues who are interested in this bill will have heard from the Council for Civil Liberties. While I don’t agree with all of their conclusions about what this bill will do, I was minded in their briefing, in advance of the committee of the whole House, at the top of page 11, where it says Part 5 of the bill creates a new regime governing access to data for research. So it would be helpful for the committee, I think, if the Minister could advise the committee on the degree to which, if at all, the regime that we’re considering under Part 5 differs from the Statistics Act 1975. I think it’s important that we understand how we are broadening the access to research and whether or not that is going to lead to any greater risk of harm to individuals or organisations if the research part of the Statistician’s role is broadened in the degree that the civil liberty organisation believes.

I would also note that they note in their submission that the Chief Ombudsman also recommended, as they did, the removal of Part 5 entirely. That was, really, the issue that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendment would do. I don’t support that. I think, actually, research is really important in this context, but we’ve got to have a very, very robust framework for being able to protect data and protect individuals’ identity. So, noting that as eminent an Officer of Parliament as the Chief Ombudsman was concerned enough to recommend the removal of Part 5, and also noting that there hasn’t been actually that much change to Part 5 since the bill was introduced, can the Minister provide the committee with reassurance—well, firstly, a commentary about the degree to which this is a new regime and how it differs from the Statistics Act 1975, and a commentary also, perhaps, if he feels inclined, on calls for the removal of Part 5 entirely.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): I thank the member Michael Woodhouse for his question. Part 5 is where we see a modernisation of the framework in the 1975 Act. The current Statistics Act does enable access to data for research; that’s in section 37C. Earlier in the debate, I waved this report around, which I believe to be a really important report recently released about Māori business that has come about as a result of useful research. We do need to be able to have research for the betterment of our decision making.

Now, in saying it’s a modernisation of the 1975 Act, it does so in allowing bona fide researchers to safely access data held by Stats NZ for research in the public interest. However, the 1975 Act’s framework provided no guidance on the matters that the Statistician must consider before authorising access to data. It also did not reflect Māori interests or require transparency around research access. And, indeed, this part of the bill takes the research access framework from one clause to a whole part in the bill. It is, I think, quite clearly a strengthening of the research access framework and an appropriate strengthening of that access framework. The research access framework incorporates, in this bill, domestic and international best practice frameworks for appropriate and safe access, such as Ngā Tikanga Paihere and the Five Safes framework. It requires the Government Statistician to publish information about who is accessing data, how the data is being accessed, and for what purposes. It requires researchers to publish research results and methodologies. Now, just to be clear—and we’ve canvassed this before but I think it’s worth putting on record again—access does not mean that researchers can hold and store the data themselves. Access occurs through a secure portal, and researchers can only access data that is relevant to their research.

Perhaps I’ll just also relate the comments the Privacy Commissioner made. The Privacy Commissioner, in their submission to the committee, noted that they were satisfied that the bill contains adequate protections around the inappropriate use of personal information. They noted that the protections have included “a clear framework for access to data held by Stats NZ for research purposes (Part 5)”—this is a quote from them—“including that the Statistician, before authorising access to data for research, must: be satisfied the research is in the public interest (cl 49); be satisfied the research is to be carried out by an appropriate researcher, who will protect the privacy, confidentiality and security of the data (cl 50, especially cl 50(a)(iii)); be satisfied access to data is subject to appropriate measures to protect the privacy, confidentiality and security of data (cl 51); consider whether, if the researcher is an overseas person, the data will be protected by comparable safeguards to those in the bill (cl 52); and that the Statistician must publish information about access to data by researchers (cl 53); [and] a requirement that researchers must comply with obligations in relation to data accessed for research, including to take all reasonable steps to ensure that data is only disclosed in a form that could not reasonably be expected to identify individuals (cl 54, especially cl 54(1)(c)).”

So I do think this represents a substantial strengthening of the Act, and an appropriate one, and I think it’s important to spell that out. I thank the committee for its indulgence. Obviously, it’s in the part, but I think it’s worth putting on the record both the Privacy Commissioner’s view that they’re satisfied with this improved regime. I think the transparency is important, and, obviously, the safe dealing with the data that’s provided, sometimes sensitive data, is imperative.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): That’s helpful. And I think the comments of the Privacy Commissioner are relevant. I’ve just brought up the comment though, because what I think I heard the Minister say was that there was no real regime for the provision of data for research in the 1975 Act, so my two questions really are in relation to that. Because what the Chief Ombudsman said, when he said in his submission—“It is unclear to me what purpose this alternative information access regime will serve.”—he was referring to an access regime that was an alternative to the Official Information Act. So my questions are, first, does that mean that, prior the passage of this bill, requests for information for the basis of research was always done under the Official Information Act? Is that how researchers got access to their data, because that wasn’t my understanding. And, secondly, when this bill is passed, how will it actually sit beside the Official Information Act, and are the two compatible? So, for example, if the Chief Statistician determines that it’s not appropriate to release certain information based on the criteria set out in Part 5, could the applicant then go through the Official Information Act to get the same data? Because it seems to me that the Official Information Act in section 9—grounds for refusal—is quite different from the grounds for acceptance and the conditions for acceptance set out in Part 5 of this bill. So they don’t actually dovetail together. And I don’t think it would be appropriate for somebody who the Statistician deemed inappropriate to get information to then actually use the Official Information Act in order to do so. But the Chief Ombudsman had kind of the opposite view. He was saying that because the Official Information Act exists, Part 5 was unnecessary and he recommended it be deleted altogether. So it’s just a kind of—again, perhaps to put on the record—a wrap-up of the combined effect and power of those two pieces of legislation once they’re passed.

I think Part 5 is actually in reasonably good shape, but the Chief Ombudsman is no dummy. He’s having to deal with these sorts of requests all the time and so it does behove us to make sure we’ve considered carefully what he said.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): Section 18 of the Official Information Act (OIA)—I think the member raised a very good question—provides for the Official Information Act to be overridden by other Acts, and, in this case, the updated Data and Statistics Act would override it. The member asked the question, “Could a member of the public, having not received the information they wished for, with a request under this Act, go to the Official Information Act, request the same information and receive it?” And the answer is, no.

While the OIA provides some protection to personal or commercially sensitive information, the bill’s research access framework and its confidentiality requirements go beyond what is required for an Official Information Act release by ensuring that people and organisations cannot be identified by data published in research. And also, while conditions can technically be placed on information released under the provisions of the OIA, the conditions aren’t enforceable. So you would choose to use this Act to override it, because it is enforceable. The provisions in the bill that provide for statistical confidentiality are in clauses 39 to 42; safe and appropriate data access clauses, 48 to 54; and the ability of individuals and organisations to specify access conditions, clause 33, ensures that those providing data can have confidence that their data will be subject to the highest standards of protection. I do thank the member for raising this so that we can put that clearly on the record.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a question around clause 56(5) in which agencies that are authorised by the Statistician to provide access to data need to publish information about who is accessing the data held by the public sector agency for research in accordance with that section, what data is being accessed, the purposes for which the data is being accessed, how the data is being accessed, and, any characteristics of the data being accessed or limitations that may affect the quality of any research using the data. Subclause (6) then goes on to say that information required to be published about those above mentioned matters may be published in summary form. The New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties has raised a point here, saying that, “If access to granular data is good enough for the public sector, disclosure of granular information about that access and what has been done with it is an entirely justifiable quid pro quo”, and I’d be interested in the Minister’s response to that point.

A second point—if I could ask the Minister—is around clause 52, and that is the additional considerations if overseas persons are seeking access to data. I note that a number of protective measures have been put in this clause in terms of the need to take into account the laws that apply in the relevant jurisdiction, the relationship between Statistics New Zealand and the overseas person, and any means available to the Statistician to ensure that the overseas person complies with any conditions imposed. However, I also note that anyone overseas will not be subject to New Zealand law, and, in particular, will not be subject to the Privacy Act. So I would ask the Minister how people can be assured that if information is made available to people overseas, their data can be protected despite anyone overseas accessing that data not being subject to New Zealand’s laws.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): Look, the bill provides for information to be published in summary form, as the member notes, and the reality is that it would be inappropriate or impractical to publish detailed information. I’ve give some examples.

Well, let me phrase it differently: if these could not be in summary form, which would still need to involve providing meaningful information—the summary form is not a “get out of jail free” cursory; it has to be a meaningful summary. But if they couldn’t be published in summary form it would not be clear as to whether the law required researchers to publish every set of results generated, all their notes and drafts that they produced over the course of their work—researchers to publish technical details of every method of analysis they applied, even if these are well known to the statistical community already. It would potentially require the Government Statistician to publish every detail of security and process setting in place regarding embargoed access to official statistics; potentially require the Government Statistician to publish every detail relating to the fields of data within data sets being accessed for research, the contents of CVs supplied by researchers, the contents of all documents they provided when describing their research project, for example, previous theses or reports relevant to the project; and potentially require the Government Statistician to publish every detail of process and security in place regarding research access.

You can kind of go on from there and see that it would be quite impractical and potentially come into conflict with all kinds of other requirements, particularly, for example, somebody coming from another jurisdiction where there was confidence that they could use the data securely and safely and had a good reputation as a researcher but may have other laws applying to them in another jurisdiction that would then have to be worked through as well. So it’s a practical expectation. But to the member’s point, I think that it’s important to say for the record that the summary form must be a meaningful summary form so that meaningful information is available to the public.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I thank the Minister for that explanation. Just the second question: I’d ask if the Minister could just address, regarding clause 52, the considerations of overseas persons accessing data and the point that they will not be subject to New Zealand’s law, in particular New Zealand’s Privacy Act. So what confidence can people have that data collected by various agencies for the Statistician and provided to persons overseas will be protected despite those persons not being subject to New Zealand’s laws—and, you know, recognising the point that once data is in the wild, it can be very difficult to pull it back? So there obviously needs to be quite significant protective measures around that.

I note that a number of measures have been put in place here, but what confidence can the Minister provide, and what confidence can people have, that that information that does go overseas won’t be used in ways that are unanticipated? And how can any persons or organisations overseas who access and use that data be held to account if they use it in ways that aren’t contemplated by the Statistician, who provides it to them?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Just a brief call in relation to my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) around summary form. The Minister’s actually provided some elucidation in response to Joseph Mooney’s question one before.

But I’m looking in clause 56(5) as an example of where I’m a little unsure how much more of a summary form you could get. “Chief executive”, in this case, is talking about the determination, a report that the sector agency must publish about who’s accessing data, what data is being accessed, the purposes for which the data is being accessed, how the data is being accessed, and the characteristics of the data being accessed.

Now, with the exception of that last one, I fail to see how you can have a summary form of what’s effectively a summary. I mean, it’s a bit hard to say who was accessing the data in summary form. You either say who it is or you don’t. What data is being accessed? Well, they’ve all got sort of nomenclatures and titles on them. What purposes? Well, it might be for research into X, Y, or Z. It’s a bit hard to know how that could be further summarised; it’s a bit of a sort of a legal piece of string.

So does the Minister or officials actually have a template or some kind of indication about what the information that needs to be published right through the bill in summary form might look like? Are we talking about one page per—nobody wants a dictionary and a taxonomy and a mountain of information, but that’s not what the law asks for. The law, in its wording, actually strongly implies that that is a summary. So I don’t know how you can summarise a summary. That’s the problem I’ve got, and that’s why I put the amendment up.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): I’ll respond first to the point raised by the Hon Michael Woodhouse and then come back to Joseph Mooney’s previous question.

In terms of what the summary would look like, effectively there is a convention and it’s already being done—this is codifying best practice. So what you—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: You should have asked for it in committee, then. That’s our oversight.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The member—sorry, I’ve forgotten what I; I’ve been listening to the member. I shouldn’t do it while I’m talking—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: You basically said there was already precedent.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Right. There is, yes. We would expect that to be a developing practice within the department of statistics as well.

I want to come back to the member Joseph Mooney’s question about the Privacy Act not applying to overseas persons. I think I may have covered this earlier, but again, it is an important point and I think a concern raised in some of the correspondence.

The member raised concerns about the Privacy Act not applying to overseas persons, and now while the New Zealand Privacy Act doesn’t apply to a person overseas, clause 52 requires the Statistician to take extra care when deciding whether to allow access from overseas, taking into account the laws that apply in the relevant jurisdiction and the relationship between Statistics New Zealand and the overseas person and any means available to the Statistician to ensure that the overseas person complies with any conditions imposed, obviously by the Statistician.

It’s important, I think, again in this context, to emphasise that data will not be provided to the researcher. Stats NZ continues to hold the data and it can only be accessed through a secure portal. The member noted previously, as well, that there might be no obligations—this is, I think last night, from memory—on the researcher to leak data, but that would only make sense if the researcher held the data. But again, it is actually held within Stats NZ—I think that’s really important to emphasise that point.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to speak on clause 39, “Statistician authorised to publish or otherwise disclose certain data”. Subclause (1) says “The Statistician must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the Statistician does not publish or otherwise disclose data in a form that could reasonably be expected to identify any individual or organisation.” One of the things that appeared on my desk was an article that the Government was looking to filter the internet. So how may the new data—if I may ask the Minister if he could address this concern—captured under this data and stats bill impact the Government’s plans to filter the internet, and can the Government give assurances that the information captured under this bill is actually not going to be used to potentially prosecute or filter a specific person’s internet content? Could the Minister actually address that?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): I hesitate to say—we have canvassed the protection of data a number of times in the debate. The member’s referring to Subpart 5 of the previous part of the bill, rather than Part 5, which we’re on now, but I would stress for the member—in the spirit of her question—that the protection of data is paramount in this bill. And Part 5 absolutely goes to that issue, so I think the broad issue is there, and that is the issue we’re debating.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 107

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 163 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Hon Michael Woodhouse’s amendments to Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 197 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Michael Woodhouse’s amendments to Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 198 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 75

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Michael Woodhouse’s amendments to clause 53 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 199 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 75

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendment deleting clause 48 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s remaining tabled amendments to Part 5 be agreed to.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Part 5 as amended be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 5 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 44

New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

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

Ayes 2

Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 117

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Amendments not agreed to.

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

Part 6 Offences and enforcement

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to Part 6. Part 6 is the debate on clauses 57 to 89, the offences and enforcement clauses. The question is that Part 6 stand part.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Part 6 is the part that deals with offences and enforcement, and I’m comparing Part 6 of the bill with Part 5 of the Statistics Act 1975, which we’re replacing. Subpart 1 of the bill talks about powers of entry and inspection. Clause 57 gives the Statistician quite a bit of power to enter businesses or individual dwellings—sorry, not private dwellings, I should qualify—but require persons to produce data, issue of search warrants by an authorised officer, an issuing officer, and it refers to data obtained using power of entry.

In the 1975 Act, at Part 5, which is the equivalent part on offences and penalties, there doesn’t appear to be any reference to powers of entry and the issuing of search warrants. So my question to the Minister is: are these powers of entry and search warrant new powers that don’t exist in the existing legislation, and, if the answer to that question is yes, given these are quite strong powers, what problem are we trying to solve and why are we giving the Statistician and issuing officers such strong powers of entry and inspection?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): The powers of entry and inspection are a modernisation of section 35 of the existing Act. The power has existed in statistics legislation in various forms since 1910. I think that probably answers the member’s question.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just on this, I note that the Statistician or the issuing officer can issue a search warrant if they believe there are reasonable grounds in believing it’s necessary or desirable for the purpose of enabling the Statistician to produce official statistics, so I’d just like the Minister just to clarify that. It’s very clear here as I read it, but I just want to confirm that the purpose of exercising a search warrant can only be to obtain data for official statistics and not for research purposes, although I would appreciate the Minister clarifying a little bit that definition all the way back in clause 6, which we didn’t quite get, which is “data includes information”. And that seems to be a very broad definition. So I will just ask how tightly exercised the Minister expects this power of entry and inspection to be used and for what purposes.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): The fact that the definition of data includes information is a point that the member has raised before, and I haven’t directly addressed it, so I do want to acknowledge that and address it now. There are lots of points you’re following up on and sometimes you miss one. The information relates back to the Official Information Act, so it makes the link back. So it’s not a great expansion or anything like that—sorry, the Privacy Act; sorry, I said Information Act, didn’t I? The Privacy Act, please excuse me. So it’s a clarification and provides protections, effectively.

MELISSA LEE (National): Please excuse me if I actually sound a little obtuse on this one, but I’m baffled as to why there is actually a search warrant for collection of data. Obviously I wasn’t in the Chamber when different Parts were actually discussed, maybe I’ve missed it, but perhaps the Minister could illuminate me.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): Thank you. As I just briefly outlined, these powers go back to, basically, 1910 in New Zealand. This is a modernisation of the current Act, and this whole Part, I would note, is quite a reorganisation, a modernisation, but that particular set of powers is long existing for the purposes of ensuring robust statistics.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I think it’s important for the confidence of people in this bill, and the Minister’s touched on it to some extent previously, but just I’d appreciate a little bit of expansion on clauses 78 and 79 in terms of a person committing an offence and if the person, having completed a certificate of confidentiality knowingly breaches an obligation or knowingly makes a false statement about whether they breached an obligation undertaken in the certificate of confidentiality—that’s in clause 78.

Clause 79 is about wrongfully obtaining data while performing a duty or function or exercising power under the Act. So is this the clause which is intended to address a circumstance, for example, where someone might make a claim that they’re requesting data for research purposes, but it’s in fact for official statistics; or that they’re requesting it for official statistics and in fact, are accessing it for research purposes. Is the protective mechanism that is intended to provide confidence that people will comply strictly with the expectation that there’s a distinction between those two datasets and the collection of them, and that there is, in fact, a criminal penalty here to address anyone who wrongfully obtains data that conflates, wrongly and knowingly, those two purposes for the collection of data.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): I thank the member for drawing attention to this part of the bill; I would struggle to put it any more clearly than it is in the bill itself. It says here, and I’ll just read it for the committee and for those following at home. Clause 78(1) states: “A person commits an offence if the person, having completed a certificate of confidentiality under section 42, (a) knowingly breaches an obligation undertaken in the certificate of confidentiality; or (b) knowingly makes a false statement about whether the person has breached an obligation undertaken in the certificate of confidentiality.” It then goes on to describe the consequences in terms of fines.

I think it’s really important that we have not only agreements around confidentiality, but that there are consequences for any breaches. Then clause 79 goes on to describe people who are obtaining data without the necessary authorisation to obtain it. So they are misrepresenting themselves or the authorisation that they have. And, again, it describes this as an offence which has the same fines attached. So there are many other clarifications there around what the obligations are and what the consequences of not meeting those obligations through this part of the Act are. And, indeed, to repeat myself, it’s pretty important that there are consequences if there are breaches here so that the public can know, and that the Statistician has powers. I think, again, it’s an unlikely event. Generally, those who are doing research are coming from reputable research backgrounds. They are often known to the statistics agency because they conduct ongoing research and they’re doing it for the very purposes laid down in the Act, which is improving the information available to New Zealanders for decision making, for holding decision makers to account, and so forth. Incredibly important work that provides the conditions for the betterment of our society. But if there are breaches, there do need to be clearly spelt out obligations and consequences, and this is what this part of the Act deals with.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair, and my apologies to my colleague Joseph Mooney, who obviously had more to actually ask on that particular issue. But I go back to the search warrant issue where the Minister has answered by saying that this is a part of the ability for the Government department to actually do a search warrant, and this is, apparently, the modernisation. So I asked the Minister if he could actually answer when was the last time a search warrant was executed to collect data, and what did that data get used for in the usefulness for the Government Statistician. I think it is really important to find out what circumstances warrant executing a search warrant on an individual’s business or premises when it is for statistical or research purposes. I just don’t understand why something which we normally associate for criminal offences—for example, to activate a search warrant—is needed to get statistics data. I’d like to get an answer on when was the last time it was actually activated and what useful data they collected, and what that data was used for by the Government.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to quickly direct the Minister’s attention also to clause 80, which says that “A person who is authorised under section 48 to access data research commits an offence if the person—(a) knowingly contravenes section 54(1)(a) or (b)”, and clause 54(1)(a) or (b), for those watching, is accessing and using the data only for the research for which access is authorised, and complying with any conditions imposed by the Statistician. So that, on the face of it, as a good protective measure.

What I’m interested for the Minister’s thoughts on is clause 80(1)(b)(ii), and that’s if they knowingly publish or disclose data, “being reckless as to whether the reasonable steps required by section 54(1)(c) have been taken.” Clause 54(1)(c), for clarity, is that they must “take all reasonable steps to ensure that they do not publish or otherwise disclose data in a form that could be reasonably expected to identify any individual or organisation;”.

This is an interesting point, and I’m interested in the Minister’s thoughts on how this will play out in an era of constantly increasing computational power. When the Statistics Act 1975 was passed, about 6 million transistors could fit on a microprocessor. Today, it’s around 114 billion.

Stuart Smith: Say that again?

JOSEPH MOONEY: When the Statistics Act 1975 was passed, about 6 million transistors could fit on a microprocessor. Today, it’s around 114 billion—so 6 million to 114 billion. This computing power can then be increased further through networking computers, and it’s increasing exponentially.

There’s another point here that’s relevant. I asked the Minister this earlier, but didn’t yet receive a response to this specific point. The specific point is about how this bill appears to be focused on de-identification rather than anonymisation, and de-identification has a lower standard than anonymisation. So, as an example, as more facts are included in the public record—for example, date of birth, broad location, genders—this, combined with other facts, makes it increasingly easy to narrow candidates to a single person or a small group, and the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties has provided a couple of examples. It’s been shown in research by the former US Federal Trade Commission’s chief technology officer, for example, that 87 percent of the US population can be uniquely re-identified based on a five-digit Zip code, gender, and date of birth.

New Zealand census meshblocks typically used in research here are smaller and make re-identification even simpler. Even using meshblock data on religion to identify which streets have higher presences of particular groups such as particular religious groups could be not a good thing in the wrong hands, and second data sets can be combined with existing public data, sometimes in unexpected ways. For example, in 2019, the Australian state of Victoria released an anonymised set of data from myki public transport cards. Researchers were able to use a tweet made by a Victorian MP about catching a train to obtain his entire travel history. Similar approaches have been used to de-anonymise medical records in the Australian medical system and locate US service personnel and base locations.

So it’s reasonable to assume that efforts to unravel de-identification of New Zealand’s personal data will only increase will only increase and become easier over time. So in terms of this definition in clause 80(1)(b)(ii) about being reckless as to whether reasonable steps to ensure that they only publish or disclose data in a form that can be reasonably expected to identify any individual or organisation, how does the Minister see this playing out in an era where the computational power is in increasing exponentially, and the different datasets are becoming increasingly available and can be linked to these datasets that have been collected for specific purposes under this bill?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): In response to Joseph Mooney’s question—and the succinctness of my answer should not be interpreted in any way as dismissing it—“very carefully”, I think, is the answer. He’s outlined the problem, I think—a challenge facing modern societies—and I am convinced that the protections and the awareness is there, but, you know, I think that’s the answer. Technologies will change, and we do need to be careful. The framework laid out here is designed to do that.

I do want to go back to the point raised by Melissa Lee, just regarding search warrants. She asked for some further clarification, and I think it’s useful for the committee to hear a little bit more about that. I agree with the member. The power supports the ability of the Statistician to make mandatory requests for data for official statistics from businesses, and that data informs some of our most significant statistics, like the Consumers Price Index as an example. It can only be exercised with the consent of an authorised person or after Stats NZ has obtained a warrant from a judge or other court. It’s not a power that’s used lightly. The member asked when this was last used. I’m advised that people who’ve been around a wee while are not aware of it ever having been used. But it is there, because it backs up the requirement to comply with requests for data. I’m sure the member, and other members in this House, would agree that the likes of the Consumers Price Index are incredibly important economic indicators that we would want to see collected.

The reality is that Stats NZ collects data by consent. It doesn’t want to be in a position of being an enforcement agency; it wants to do it through having good relationships, and that is how things work. None the less, having a regulatory backstop, effectively, is a good idea. It’s the old story about policing by consent. If the police are pushing things through, they can lose the support of the public unless they’re doing it with the will of the public and in a way that fulfils the purposes and people can see fulfils the purposes. They want the relationship, and they work hard, in my observations of Stats NZ, to build relationships; for example—and the member has raised questions around this before—around the census, building relationships with the communities. I know Rachel Boyack, my colleague who was here earlier sitting behind me and is now a wee way across, has raised questions about the relationship that Stats NZ has with minority-pocketed communities around our regions and making sure that those are being developed for the purposes of Census data collection.

Mandatory powers only achieve so much, but here they are to underscore the importance of this and to encourage, or backup, the requirement to comply with the request. I do thank the member for that question.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 163 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendments to Part 6 be agreed to.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can I clarify which tabled amendment this is? I know one was ruled out of order but I didn’t hear which one was ruled out of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): This is the tabled amendment deleting references to “research”. It’s her amendment to Part 6. So let me just begin that question again.

The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendments to Part 6 be agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendments to clauses 71 and 76 be agreed to.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Part 6 as amended stand part.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 6 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 107

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 12

ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Part 6 as amended agreed to.

Part 7 General and miscellaneous provisions

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to Part 7. This is the debate on clauses 90 to 105 and Schedules 2 to 4, “General and miscellaneous provisions”. The question is that Part 7 stand part.

The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s amendment to insert new clause 99A as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 185 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 44

New Zealand National 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 75

New Zealand Labour 65; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Dr Elizabeth Kerekere’s amendment to insert new clause 99A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 196 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment. The question is that Part 7 be agreed to.

Part 7 agreed to.

Schedule 1

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Schedule 1 stand part.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendments to Schedule 2 be agreed to.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Schedule 2 stand part.

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

Ayes 107

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 12

ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Schedule 3 stand part.

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

Ayes 107

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 12

ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 163 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendment to Schedule 4 be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Schedule 4 as amended stand part.

Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to our final debate, which is on clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on the title and commencement. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 179 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that clause 2 as amended stand part.

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

Ayes 107

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 12

ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill

In Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill. I remind members that you are able to participate remotely. If you are on Zoom and want to take a call, please type “call” into the chat. You should also be able to use the chat if you want to raise a point of order. If we receive new tabled amendments, I’ll advise members so that you can refresh the House Papers page to see the new amendment. Finally, it will be helpful for members to ask multiple questions if you’d like to have them for the member in charge during their call to respond.

Part 1 Amendments to Sentencing Act

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 10, “Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002”, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): The three-strikes law is unique in New Zealand because it prevents judges from properly considering the context of offending and the individual circumstances of offenders at sentencing. Given the distorting effect the three-strikes law has had on sentences, strong evidence of its effectiveness would be needed to justify its ongoing existence. Instead, there is little evidence the three-strikes law has worked as intended to deter or prevent any kind of serious crime. There is, however, clear evidence of the disproportionate impact the law has had, including requiring judges to impose sentences so extremely excessive they breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Further, we know that the three-strikes regime exacerbates the overrepresentation of Māori in the prison population. Māori are almost nine times more likely to receive a first strike than those of other ethnicities, and over 18 times more likely to receive a second strike.

The courts already have equivalent sentencing options available to protect the public from people who commit serious offences, from limitations on parole eligibility through to the possibility of life imprisonment without parole. For these reasons, it is the Government’s view that discretion should be returned to the judiciary, who are best placed to respond appropriately to serious and repeat offending.

This bill was introduced on 17 November last year and was referred to the Justice Committee. Submissions were received from a wide range of submitters, including those with firsthand experiences of the three-strikes regime. Submitters included victims of crime, legal practitioners, criminal justice advocacy groups, and strike offenders themselves. I thank everyone who took the time to make a submission and, as well, the members of the committee for their careful consideration of this bill, chaired by Ginny Andersen.

In their report on the bill, the committee noted that the clause preventing people from bringing a claim for compensation arising from any effects of the three-strikes law should be more clearly worded. This is to make sure that the interaction of the clause with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is clear. Even in the short amount of time since the bill was drafted and introduced, the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal have found sentences imposed under the regime to be in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This Government does not and would never direct the judiciary in their consideration of how these breaches should be responded to, and the amended clause makes this even clearer.

There were no provisions in the bill as it was introduced that would provide, however, for a right to resentencing or other sentence adjustment measures for people who have been sentenced under the three-strikes law. As part of its examination of the bill, the previous Minister of Justice, the Hon Kristopher Faafoi, asked the Justice Committee to consider whether sentences imposed under the law should be reviewed in some way. The committee has not recommended any provisions be included in the bill that would provide for the reconsideration of any sentences handed out under the three-strikes law.

I’m sure that the Opposition has plenty of questions—and colleagues who have sat through the select committee process—so I’ll be on hand to answer questions as they arise.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister for her introduction. My first question will relate to what’s changed in her thinking. When the Ministers first introduced this bill, they—and I quote from Minister Faafoi’s first reading speech. His quote was “It’s bad legislation, and we know that because it hasn’t worked.” And his main argument was that the three-strikes legislation hadn’t worked, and that’s why we were going to repeal it. The slight problem with his argument, however, was that there was no evidence whatsoever that they could draw on to say that it hadn’t worked, because the advice that we got from the ministerial evidence brief from the Ministry of Justice, from the Police, from Corrections—all combined in an evidence brief—was “There is no substantial international or New Zealand evidence on the effect of three-strikes law on crime.” Oh dear. So we have a Minister bringing in a bill, saying, “We’re bringing this bill in because the current regime, the three-strikes regime, hasn’t worked.” And then the officials come out and say, “There is no substantial international or New Zealand evidence on the effect of three-strikes laws on crime.” They went on to say the existing evidence is mixed and more robust research is needed to understand the true effects of these laws.

And, now, so having basically waffled and—I think, quite frankly—misled the House, because the Minister said it hadn’t worked and all the evidence showed it didn’t work, and then we were told, “Hang on, there is no evidence,”, we now hear from the Minister, who’s subtly changed her argument, which is to say, “This bill, the three-strikes legislation, so changes things that it shouldn’t remain in place without clear evidence to the effect that it’s working, and, therefore, we need to repeal it,”, which is a rather circuitous kind of logic, but I suppose there is a strange logic to it.

So my first question to the Minister is: am I right in assuming that the basic purpose or rationale for this repeal Act has changed? And I suppose people might be wondering, “How does this all fit in to the context that we face today as a country?” Where we all look and I, as I was waiting for this piece of legislation to come up, was looking at the New Zealand Herald website and was saddened to see a video of a smash-and-grab attack on a shop not more than a few hundred metres from my home in the Epsom electorate, where people have smashed into a jewellery shop and people from the community have fought back and there’s been fighting on the streets in our house—in our neighbourhood, not in our house, thankfully; in our neighbourhood—and many New Zealanders are confronting that reality day in, day out. And all New Zealanders are conscious of the rise of violent crime in our communities, and this Government has presided over a more than 20 percent decrease in the prison population at the same time as a more than 20 percent increase in violent crime. And people are legitimately asking the question: “Well, how do those two things work?”

Should the focus of Government, right now—looking at the situation, looking at the prevalence of crime in our community, looking at the rise of violent crime, looking at the increase of gang membership and gang activity on our streets, looking at the more than 500 percent increase in ram raids associated with youth crime in particular, looking at all that, my fundamental question to the Minister is: why has she and her Government then come to the conclusion, given all that, that the priority for legislative change is to reduce sentences for our worst repeat serious criminal offenders? Where is the logic? “Looking at the situation today, the main problem we face is that we’re too tough on our worst repeat criminal offenders.” So the first question is a broad logic question.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Tēnā koe. In response to my colleague across the House, there’s a couple of his comments I’ll just respond to briefly. First, in reference to the introductory remarks of my colleague the Hon Kris Faafoi, who introduced this legislation, the quote that my learned friend across the aisles raised is that this is bad legislation and that the legislation hasn’t worked, and he made numerous references as to why and how that statement is incorrect. During the select committee process, the Ministry of Justice presented a brief of evidence—2018 it was referenced. And what we say, and I’m not sure if the member had the opportunity to review this evidence himself but I am assured it was certainly provided. What we did see, if we’re looking for evidence that this legislation has worked, is to the contrary: we saw a stark rise in sexual offending, we saw a stark rise in—sorry, I’m just trying to find a graph that I can easily provide to the House; I did have it, but now I’ve lost it. Yes, thank you. We saw a stark rise in serious assaults with a seven-year maximum penalty, and in sexual assaults in particular.

Moreover, on this side of the House, we have a fundamental respect for the three distinct branches of Government, and the judiciary has a very important role to exercise their discretion, and it is their discretion which is fundamental to the administration of justice. At each of the distinct levels of the court—from the District Court to the High Court to the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court—each court found that the three-strikes sentences, when they were having to give effect to them, had breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. On this side of the House, we fundamentally believe in the administration of justice. We believe in the exercise of the judiciary. We have sound sentencing legislation, and we’ve had this legislation in place for a lengthy period of time. And for a party on the other side that prides itself on being one that upholds law and order principles that are fundamental to the administration of justice in this system, I am startled by the approach that they are taking with respect to some of the comments just made by my colleague. We believe in the independence of the judiciary to make sound decisions. The statements made by my friend would suggest that the judiciary cannot do its job effectively or appropriately or doesn’t do it well.

On this side of the House, we don’t agree with that. That is the nexus of the argument, Mr Goldsmith, that you are advancing. What we have found is that there has been a significant disproportionate impact on otherwise marginalised groups in our communities. In one instance, I read a judgment that found that but for this legislation in place, I think the gentleman received a maximum penalty of 10 years in accordance with the legislation, but the appropriate sentence for the offending that he had committed would have been in the vicinity of three years.

So I take it back to the comments that my colleague from across the House made in reference to the Hon Kris Faafoi’s statements that this legislation hadn’t worked. It hasn’t worked in the sense that we’re sowing trends of violent crime trending downwards, which was, of course, one of the intentions of the previous Government’s approach that would be an indicia of success. It hasn’t worked in terms of upholding some of our fundamental constitutional principles. We’ve seen the judiciary at every level refute and make stark comments about the implications on the New Zealand Bill of Rights’ impacts. So, with all due respect to the remarks made, and having regard to the evidence that was presented in the select committee process, I do not think that I can find myself in alignment with the views put forward—and that’s what they were: they were views, not fact—of my friend across the House.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Correction—Data and Statistics Bill

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before we go on, I just need to correct the vote on the last bill, the Data and Statistics Bill. On the question that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s tabled amendments to Part 3 be agreed to, the result was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 2 and Noes 117. The correct vote is Ayes 12 and Noes 107.

Bills

Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002 (continued)

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much. I want to start broad and then get quite specific, including addressing some of the views of the Minister. The first point to make is that everyone has views. It’s rather presumptuous to say that, therefore, they are the facts. The problem we have, when we’re discussing this three strikes legislation, is the contradiction between growing crime, including violent crime, and this bill, which is removing one of the ways of exacting consequences and increasing consequences on recidivist and violent, in particular, criminals. I think the first point, particularly for listeners at home, is to understand that three strikes does not apply to the young kid stealing a sausage or some lollies. This is serious violent offending, and my colleague Paul Goldsmith noted the robbery today in his Epsom electorate. The Minister may or may not know that in my electorate, in Tāmaki, we’ve had multiple—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to report progress on this bill.

House resumed.

Report of Committee of the Whole House

Report of Committee of the Whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Data and Statistics Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has considered the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill and reports progress. The committee has also considered the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill, and reports no progress. The committee has also considered the Plant Variety Rights Bill and reports it with no progress at the moment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 12.57 p.m.