Tuesday, 30 August 2022

TUESDAY, 30 AUGUST 2022

TUESDAY, 30 AUGUST 2022

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

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

SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered for presentation. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

Peki Waihanga—New Zealand Artificial Limb Service, annual report 2021

Inland Revenue Department, Tax, foreign investment and productivity – long-term insights briefing, and associated technical appendices.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the petition of Marisa Bidois

report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Our observations on local government risk management practices

report of the Justice Committee on the International Treaty Examination of the Agreement between New Zealand, on the one part, and the European Union, on other part, on the exchange of personal data between the European Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and the authorities of New Zealand competent in fighting serious crime and terrorism

report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Junming Mai, the petition of Patrick Szetey, the petition of Seann Paurini, and the petition of Trish Castle.

SPEAKER: The report of the Controller and Auditor-General and the international treaty are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK:

Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022/23 Platform Economy and Remedial Matters) Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The growing economy is continuing to create jobs. Yesterday, Statistics New Zealand reported that the number of filled jobs in July rose 0.5 percent—or 10,863—compared with the previous month, to reach a record high of 2.31 million. Our economic plan is working, despite a challenging global environment. Unemployment is near record lows, and wages are beginning to rise above inflation to help deal with cost of living pressures.

Ingrid Leary: What did the Stats New Zealand report say about which industries are creating jobs in the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The gains are broad-based. On an annual basis, the biggest gains we have seen are in construction, professional services, retail, public administration and safety, and manufacturing.

Ingrid Leary: What did the Stats New Zealand report say about which age groups are benefiting from the jobs created in the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The jobs market is supporting young New Zealanders; 15- to 19-year-olds made the largest contribution to the increase in filled jobs, making up 16.7 percent of the increase. This follows from a near 17 percent increase in June.

Ingrid Leary: What reaction has he seen to the Stats New Zealand report and its impact on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Other than the warm embrace from the other side of the House, Westpac’s economists have said that the pace of growth in the job market has been steady in recent months and has now fully recovered from a dip in the early part of the year during the peak of the Omicron wave. On the strong growth in youth employment, Westpac’s economists said that there is still significant scope to bring more people into the labour force. And BNZ’s economists said these employment indicators point to a higher jobs level in the September quarter compared to the June quarter.

Ingrid Leary: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, to choose just one, the Xero Small Business Index for July shows jobs continue to grow, rising 4.7 percent on a year ago—the third successive month that jobs growth was above the average of 3 percent. We are striking a balance by investing heavily in skills and training, while also making it easier for businesses to attract workers from overseas to get the skills and expertise they need.

Question No. 2—Energy and Resources

2. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she consider it appropriate for the Crown Minerals Act 1991 to continue to promote exploration for fossil fuels when, in 2021, the International Energy Agency’s executive director stated, “If governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas and coal, from now—from this year”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Following our decision to end the issuing of new offshore oil and gas exploration permits in 2018, the Government initiated a two-part review of the Crown Minerals Act (CMA) to ensure it was fit for purpose as New Zealand transitioned away from fossil fuels. Tranche one gave effect to the policy to end offshore petroleum exploration and confine any future onshore development to the Taranaki region only. Tranche two is wider in scope, examining the changes needed to enable New Zealand’s petroleum and mineral resources sector’s contribution to a productive, sustainable, and inclusive economy. It also addresses our decision to evaluate the current wording of the purpose statement. Public consultation has been completed and the work on this tranche is progressing. Decisions on tranche two of the CMA review will be announced in due course.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does she stand by her statement at the third reading in the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill about existing permits that “There are 100,000 square kilometres of permits out there for exploration. That’s the size of the North Island.”, and, if so, why are additional areas for exploration still being approved?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I stand by that statement in as far as it was correct at the time that I made it in 2018. There is no longer that number of permits that are remaining. I would point the member to the fact that the only permit decisions that have been made have been made under the legislation that was passed with unanimous support of all the parties that made up the last Government, including the Green Party, around permits that were granted under those decisions.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Do previous decisions to continue to allow exploration onshore in Taranaki take into account the statements made last year by the International Energy Agency director that no new oil, gas, or coal can continue if we are going to address the climate crisis?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There has been no further block offer to date after the decision that was made in 2018 to guarantee the permits for 2018, 2019, and 2020 to go ahead. There has not been an issuing of a subsequent block offer.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: How is exploring for new fossil fuels consistent with our climate commitments, when there are already more known fossil fuel reserves globally than we can use within the remaining 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The reason that our Government last term made the decision to end the issuing of offshore oil and gas permits was for precisely the reason that we could have a managed and just transition away from oil and gas exploration in Taranaki.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is the Government intending to amend the purpose of the Crown Minerals Act to reflect the Government’s commitment to taking action on the climate emergency?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I outlined to the member in the answer to the primary question, the purpose statement of the Act was part of the public consultation document. It’s very clearly set out in the consultation document. That consultation, of course, closed in January or February 2020. The decision was made after the lockdown concluded to prioritise the piece of work around decommissioning. But as I also told the member, the rest of tranche two, including the purpose statement, is work that has been progressing, and announcements will be made in due course.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will the announcements about changes to the purpose of the Crown Minerals Act be made soon, given it’s been over two years since public consultation closed and, obviously, there have been further developments in our understanding of the climate crisis and the need to act urgently to stop new fossil fuel exploration?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I’ve outlined both in the primary and in subsequent supplementary questions, yes, there will be announcements around tranche two imminently. I would remind the member that although consultation did close nearly two years ago, there have been significant events in New Zealand during that time and the decision was made to prioritise and pull out separately the piece around decommissioning.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. 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 our work to boost the incomes of New Zealanders and protect New Zealand families from the sharp edges of the global economic downturn we are experiencing. The list of things that we have done includes, of course, our work to support New Zealanders at the pump with the fuel excise reduction, public transport cost reduction, healthy food in schools, the cost of living payment, and the winter energy payment. We also saw, yesterday, Statistics New Zealand publish employment indicators which showed that gross wages rose 7.8 percent from a year ago. New Zealand is in a strong position to support households and businesses through this economic volatility. Unemployment is low, exports are growing, and Government debt is substantially below most other nations.

Christopher Luxon: Does she agree with the Auditor-General, who wrote yesterday that “Good stewardship of public money required greater care when designing and implementing the cost of living payment.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My view is that the cost of living payment demonstrates a much more targeted and focused way of supporting New Zealanders through this cost of living crisis than a tax cut for those on $180,000 or more, which is the Opposition’s policy.

Christopher Luxon: Is she concerned that according to the Auditor-General, “Inland Revenue does not know, and has said it may never know, how many ineligible people might have received the payment.”, and if so, does the Government have any plans to work out how much taxpayer money has been wasted as a result of the cost of living payment?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We stand by this Government’s effort to support New Zealanders through this cost of living crisis, and it seems a complete reversal of policy for the National Party, who called it a crisis, to then attack every single measure we have put forward to support New Zealanders. When it comes to the initiatives that we’ve put out, from the response from New Zealanders, I’m confident that those on $70,000 or less was the right thing to do in this period of time. I would absolutely stand by it relative to that party’s decision, for instance, to have someone on $300,000 getting a tax cut of $8,000, whereas someone on $45,000 would get $2.15 a week. That is an example of wasteful.

Christopher Luxon: Has she asked for an estimate of how much taxpayer money will be wasted as a result of the cost of living payment going to people who aren’t eligible, such as expatriates and backpackers, and if not, why not?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Two things. Firstly, we’ve already identified a number of people—31,000, to be precise—who will not automatically receive the payment this time, who did in the first round. That does not mean they are necessarily ineligible. It means that they will have to attest that they are. Secondly, I find it, frankly, rich to have someone on that side of the House who promotes an $8,000 tax cut for someone on $300,000 to accuse a $116 payment to hard-working New Zealanders as being wasteful when they are promoting those kind of policies.

Christopher Luxon: What actions did the Government take, if any, to avoid sending taxpayer money overseas when, as the Auditor-General has reported, “Inland Revenue told the Ministers of Revenue and Finance that it could not verify whether someone was living at a New Zealand address.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have continually—IRD, I should say—worked to refine the screening for what was very clearly an unchanged criteria. The member obviously, I will have to grant this, has not had the experience of in-Government administering superannuation, welfare payments, energy payments—things that do not always reach precisely those they should. The question is, here: was the cost of living payment the right thing to do? Absolutely yes.

David Seymour: Why didn’t the Government do something as simple as excluding people who filled out a non-resident tax return from automatically receiving the cost of living payment from the get-go?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, the way the screening processes are put in place here is a matter for the commissioner, and the commissioner has added not only that but even things like, for instance, IP addresses used for logging on to myIR. There’s a number of refinements that they have continued to make through each stage of this payment, and we are, of course, very supportive of them continuing to do that work.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister not have competent Ministers who would ask such basic questions in formulating the policy, or were they just rushed?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is correct to point out that the Minister is able to ask questions but not to issue instructions. I’m sure the member is clear on the statutory conditions under which the commissioner works.

Christopher Luxon: Does she understand that thousands of Kiwis actually had to go out to work and earn money that her Government is wasting, or does she just believe that taxpayers are a bottomless ATM for her Government to abuse?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely reject the assertion there. The very reason that we put in the cost of living payment was to support New Zealanders through the cost of living crisis that we are seeing globally as a result of international forces. I think I’d also like to remind the member that he previously hasn’t had an issue with overseas tax breaks—for instance, for the copious number of landlords who he wants to provide tax breaks to who do not live in New Zealand. The difference here is that we’ve worked hard to target those who need support the most. The member believes in universally wasting money at a time that we shouldn’t.

Christopher Luxon: Isn’t it the case that after spending weeks pretending that there was in fact no cost of living crisis, the Government rushed the design of the payment to try and get a good headline on Budget day and, because of that, ended up wasting millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely not. I again point out that some of the work on this, of course, formally started in April, and it was implemented in August. Secondly, I would say that if the member’s alternative is tax cuts for those on $180,000 or more—because that would result, for instance, in areas where there would be errors—then that is his prerogative. We believe that this was much fairer, targeted, and less likely to be inflationary.

Question No. 4—Health

4. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister of Health: What changes has the Government recently made to increase the ease of access to prescription medicines?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Last week, I announced that the Government is expanding the New Zealand e-prescription service to make it easy for people to get the medicines they need. Sending prescriptions electronically makes sense because it can be faster, safer, cheaper, and more convenient and, most importantly, can be done without using a fax machine. This change will be made through amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1977, and the Medicines Regulations 1984, with changes expected to be in place by the end of the year. That means controlled drugs can also now be prescribed and dispensed this way.

Sarah Pallett: What experiences have informed this change?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of GP practices using the official Government e-prescription service jumped from 415 in March 2020 to 1,038 in March this year, while the number of e-scripts issued went from around 624,000 to more than 1.5 million. This shows the e-prescription service is accepted and trusted, and is now the new normal.

Sarah Pallett: What is the New Zealand e-prescription service that GPs have been using, and how does it work?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The New Zealand e-prescription service is an electronic health information exchange broker, operated by the Ministry of Health. Doctors and other prescribers send prescriptions to the service through a secure channel, and they are then sent on to pharmacies to be dispensed, rather than having to be in hard copy that often needs to be faxed with a physical signature.

Sarah Pallett: What is the benefit for patients of e-prescriptions?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Electronic medicines management systems have been shown to significantly reduce the number of patients harmed by medication errors and adverse drug events, by eliminating illegible, ambiguous, or incomplete prescriptions; providing a single and comprehensive view of a patient’s current and historical drug record; and improving communication of real time information between prescribers, pharmacies, and nursing.

Sarah Pallett: Will e-prescriptions support the Government’s objective of reducing pressure on the health system?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes, the change we’re making for controlled drugs means e-prescriptions will reduce the number of times patients need to visit a GP for repeat prescriptions. For some chronic conditions, like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, prescribers will be able to increase the period of time covered by a single e-prescription. For medical practices, e-prescriptions are also an opportunity to cut administration costs, as they will no longer have to print, send, and store hard-copy prescriptions.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Is he satisfied that the Government’s design and implementation of economic policy has resulted in good stewardship of public money?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Our economic policy has led to strong outcomes such as the 3.3 percent unemployment rate, a larger economy than before COVID, inflation below that of countries we compare ourselves against, and some of the lowest public debt in the world. I am satisfied—to the extent to which the Government can control such things. We also always seek to refine our approach as we go, including during a crisis situation where action is being demanded and has to be taken. As I’m sure the member will be aware, if she has specific questions about the details and the design and implementation of specific policies in mind, she should address those questions to the Ministers responsible for those policies.

Nicola Willis: Does the Minister agree with the Auditor-General’s view that good stewardship of public money required greater care when designing and implementing the cost of living payment?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the Prime Minister has already covered this matter, Cabinet set clear criteria when it came to the cost of living payment. Implementation matters are continually refined as we go. The Government was responding to calls, in a cost of living crisis, to respond quickly and targetedly, and we did that.

Nicola Willis: So does he agree or disagree?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said, I believe that we did design the system well and the criteria were designed well and that, in facing a cost of living crisis, the Government acted swiftly to ensure that those who earn less than $70,000 were being supported. The member may prefer a policy that sprays money around to those earning over $180,000; we don’t.

Nicola Willis: Will he take responsibility and apologise for the failures in the delivery of the cost of living payment; and, if not, why not?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I noted to the member, if she wants to get into the detail of matters on a specific policy, there is a Minister responsible. What I can say is that the Government stands by a policy that was designed to make sure that those earning less than $70,000 were supported and in a timely manner. I would note that, from time to time in the administration of Government policy, there are payments that do not meet criteria set by Cabinet. A recent example in the Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill that we had to pass related to payments authorised in 2016 on paid parental leave. They had to be corrected when they weren’t implemented properly.

Nicola Willis: Is it acceptable that the Government does not know the scale of payments made to ineligible people; and, if so, what is he doing about it?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As already noted in answers in this House, Inland Revenue continues to refine the way in which the payment is implemented. Matters of detail on that need to be directed to the Minister responsible and the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, who is by law responsible for the administration of the payment.

Nicola Willis: Why is the Minister of Finance prepared to ignore the explicit admonishment of the public watchdog, the Auditor-General, who says that good stewardship was not provided over the implementation and the delivery of the cost of living payment? And do we take it that the Minister of Finance believes he knows better than the independent watchdog?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the second part of the question, no.

Question No. 6—Tourism

6. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Minister of Tourism: What reports has he seen on tourism recovery?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Tourism): Data from Statistics New Zealand and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment shows a strong uptick in international visitor numbers and overseas card spend, with June 2022 seeing 94,648 international visitor arrivals—the highest number since the border was closed in March 2020.

Rachel Brooking: What reports has he seen on Queenstown’s tourism recovery?

Hon STUART NASH: According to Stats New Zealand, Queenstown is performing close to 2019 levels of any major tourism destination, down only 20 percent in the week ending 21 August when compared to the same week in 2019.

Rachel Brooking: What reports has he seen for tourism recovery in the accommodation sector?

Hon STUART NASH: International accommodation guest nights totalled 437,000 for July 2022, up 135 percent compared to July 2021. I know there is still a long way to go to get back to pre-COVID levels, but these numbers show a strong growth in demand and represent a higher than anticipated winter tourism season.

Willow-Jean Prime: How has the Government supported the tourism industry throughout the pandemic?

Hon STUART NASH: Our Government has supported the tourism sector throughout the pandemic, with a $400 million tourism recovery package, the $200 million tourism communities plan, and the $54 million Innovation Programme for Tourism Recovery. I also recently launched a tourism industry transformation plan (ITP) which will help transform the tourism sector and strengthen its workforce.

Willow-Jean Prime: How will the tourism ITP support the sector?

Hon STUART NASH: The draft tourism industry transformation plan developed with unions, industry, and Māori outlines key actions to improve the sector, such as setting employment standards and improving the education and training for tourism. It’s out for consultation and we are looking forward to receiving feedback.

Question No. 7—Health

7. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: How many aged residential care beds, if any, have been disestablished in the past year primarily due to health workforce shortages, and what is the current shortfall in registered nurses across the aged residential care sector?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): In response to the first part of the member’s question, I’ve been advised that between July 2021 and June 2022, 438 aged residential care beds out of about 40,000 have been disestablished. For completeness, individual aged residential care beds at a facility level can be made unavailable for a number of reasons, including staff shortages, staff illness, or other staff absenteeism. Some facilities will stop taking residents and will gradually decrease the number of beds available over time when a staffing shortage persists. This can occur over a number of weeks or months, before increasing the number of available beds again as staffing levels increase. For these reasons, the numbers of beds that are available or unavailable on any given day are fluctuating at the provider level. In response to the second part of the member’s question, aged residential care nurses are employed by individual facilities, so information about the shortfall of nurses or vacancies cannot be verified. However, the most recent advice I have is that there is a shortfall of around 900 nurses in the aged residential care sector. I would also note that the New Zealand Aged Care Association has accepted a 5.5 percent price uplift on their funding contract for this year. The revised offer is effective from 1 September 2022.

Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm a letter was sent to him in June from the DHB lead for older people, warning of an imminent system failure in aged care due to a lack of staff, and, if so, why has he not acted to prevent the huge loss of beds he has just described?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I received a letter dated 3 June from Chris Fleming, who, in addition to being the then chief executive of Southern District Health Board, was also the lead chief executive on the health of older people. I replied to that letter on 28 June 2022, which stands in stark contrast to the information that that member has been peddling as if the letter was ignored. In any event, I took very careful note of the letter, and that is why a number of initiatives that I have announced recently—including a range of initiatives on 1 August—have taken place.

Dr Shane Reti: Why did he disrespect the concerns of the same DHB lead for health of older people, by referencing his letter on TV ONE last week and saying, “A letter from an advocate is not evidence of anything; it’s evidence of something being sent.”, and does he think arguing with experts in the sector who disagree with him is an appropriate way for a Minister of Health to behave?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’ve offered no disrespect to Mr Fleming in his then role.

Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm he has now received multiple letters from senior health officials, warning of a crisis in the aged residential care sector, asking for nurses to be put on the fast-track Straight to Residence pathway; and if so, has he advocated to the ministry of immigration for nurses to be put on the fast-track Straight to Residence pathway?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: In response to the first part of the member’s question, no.

Dr Shane Reti: Does he stand by his answers to written questions that, as Minister of Health, he is ultimately responsible for the state of our health workforce; and if so, does losing nearly 400 aged-care beds in one year due to a lack of staff mean he’s clearly failing in that responsibility?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No. I think the failure was nine years of the previous Government underpaying nurses and doing nothing about the future pipeline of nurses. And this Government is doing everything it can to make sure we have a health workforce up to the demands of the system.

Question No. 8—Immigration

8. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister of Immigration: What progress can he report on the implementation of the 2021 Resident Visa?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): I’m advised that, in fact, approximately 94,144 people out of 215,000 people have had their applications for the 2021 residence visa approved since applications opened last December. These people have key skills for our businesses and economy, including thousands of health workers, construction workers, and teachers. Residence visa 2021 (RV21) gives migrants certainty about their future here, allowing them to continue putting down roots while also helping to reunite families and build critical workforces.

Camilla Belich: How is the processing of resident visa 2021 applications tracking compared to initial forecasts?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: While the interest in RV21 has exceeded expectations, we are on track to meet our target of processing 80 percent of applications by June 2023. These new Kiwis will help to relieve some of the pressures in our labour market. Over the coming months, we can look forward to thousands more critical workers committing their future to New Zealand. RV21 is the biggest residency offer that any Government has made in recent history, and it’s providing much-needed certainty to workers and employers.

Camilla Belich: What processing improvements have Immigration New Zealand (INZ) implemented to ensure the effective delivery of the resident 2021 visa?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: INZ has recently undertaken a transformation programme and introduced their enhanced immigration online system, which RV21 is being processed through. The system involves much greater automation and allows an immigration officer to process hundreds of applications per week. INZ’s surge recruitment plan has resulted in 284 processing staff recruited since the beginning of the calendar year, leading to a growth in the visa processing workforce of 134 fulltime-equivalent staff.

Camilla Belich: How does the 2021 resident visa support the Government’s broader work to rebalance the immigration system?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Through the immigration rebalance, we’ve carefully designed a system that provides pathways to residence for a range of critical roles, while streamlining settings to make application processes more straightforward for migrants. 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, work, and settle.

Question No. 9—Immigration

9. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he think that his policy of making nurses wait two years to apply for residence is working, when migrant nurses already in New Zealand are leaving to go to Australia, and does he agree with the 64 percent of nurses surveyed by the Nurses Organisation that said the most important thing the Government can do to address the nursing crisis is to place nurses on the fast track to residence?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): In answer to the first part of the member’s question, yes. New Zealand’s residency offer is a highly competitive offer compared to most other jurisdictions, including the Australian Direct Entry system that she often refers to in very simplistic terms; noting that, for example, under that system, an applicant to be successful must be under 45 years of age, must have three years of work experience unless they have an exemption, and it’s currently taking 23 months to process 90 percent of those applications. Here in New Zealand, through the 2021 Resident Visa programme, we’ve given residence to 3,626 healthcare workers already, and under the Accredited Employer Work Visa system, which only opened up fully last month, we’ve already approved 200 work visas for people in the health sector as well. In answer to the second part of the member’s question, the member is, again, being very simplistic with the figures that have been presented. The survey from the Nurses Organisation did not ask for the single most important factor; it asked its members to identify a range of factors which might be helpful in terms of addressing workforce issues. I note the New Zealand Nurses Organisation’s own comments in response to the Productivity Commission report, in which they note that issues of pay and conditions are, in fact, more important than immigration settings—something that our Government is working on after nine years of neglect from that lot.

Erica Stanford: What is his response to the Tauranga aged-care nurse who told Radio New Zealand this week that, despite wanting to stay in New Zealand, she was having to move to Australia because, unlike New Zealand, they were offering her the certainty of residence?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: In my primary answer, I have already described how, in fact, the residency pathway that the member often refers to as being highly simple and easy to access is in fact a little more complicated than is presented. Here in New Zealand, the residency pathway for aged-care nurses is a simple one: it is a two-year pathway to residency, which is a significantly streamlined process, and it applies to all 13 groups of nurses. The member might actually like to consider very carefully the issues at stake when it comes to the aged-care workforce. Because while a pay differential remains in place, which has been in place for a number of years, a straight-to-residency pathway for aged-care nurses would in fact risk a very significant outflow of those very nurses into other parts of the healthcare sector, something that in fact key people in that sector have consistently raised.

Erica Stanford: In light of the answer to that question, then, why did the Minister not use a section of the Immigration Act to tie nurses to specific sectors of the nursing workforce for two years, for example, but giving them residence as soon as they land?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Because that particular pathway which is available under the Immigration Act would in fact require relatively draconian actions such as deporting nurses should they make a change in their conditions.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Will the Minister listen to nurses and the unions that represent them and commit to reviewing the residency criteria to put nurses on par with doctors, engineers, and other professions that are essential to our economy?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government has said that after one year of the settings being in place, which will occur approximately in the middle of 2023, we will be considering a full review of the green list settings.

Simeon Brown: I thought it was question time, not excuse time.

SPEAKER: Simeon Brown, all during question time there have been a number of interjections I should have pulled up as out of order. That one: out of order and at the wrong time. You can stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Simeon Brown: I withdraw and apologise.

Erica Stanford: What number of new offshore nurses would have to apply for a work visa each month for him to deem his policy is working, given that only 24 nurses have applied in the first eight weeks?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Quite clearly, the member’s question is a purely hypothetical one, but I do note that there have, in fact, been 8,787 job checks approved by Immigration New Zealand for the healthcare workforces and 190 work visas approved since the system fully opened last month. I look forward to further progress in the coming months and will consider any further decisions based on that.

Erica Stanford: If he can’t say how many nurses we need each month to make sure that this policy is working, isn’t it the case that he has absolutely no intention of changing this policy despite saying, “If we need to make adjustments to this policy to get the outcomes, then I’ll certainly be open to doing that.”?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD:No, that’s entirely wrong. What I’m commenting on is the fact that the system is currently attracting and retaining significant numbers of workers within the system, but we know that New Zealand—as other countries are—faces significant pressures across critical workforces, and we will keep open minds about what future settings should be to meet those challenges.

Question No. 10—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

David Seymour: Why won’t she apologise for her Government’s failures implementing the cost of living payment, as the Auditor-General has identified?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because we stand by the cost of living payment, but we also stand by the refinements that have continued to be undertaken by Inland Revenue, of which the Minister notified the public yesterday.

David Seymour: How does the Prime Minister judge that the failures are bad enough to require refinement but not bad enough to apologise for?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because the principle of the cost of living payment was absolutely the right one. We are experiencing a spike in the cost of living through, yes, of course, many global factors, but that does not remove the responsibility that we have as a Government to respond to that, and we have. We’ve reduced the excise that people experience at the pump. We’ve reduced public transport costs by 50 percent. We, of course, stand by the winter energy payment that we know has eased the cost of energy bills over the winter period for those on restricted incomes, and we implemented the cost of living payment. As I say, that initiative was the right thing to do, but we also accept there are ongoing refinements that have been undertaken by IRD which are also improvements.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance. The question was quite a narrow one about the Prime Minister’s judgment to apologise, given that revisions were necessary for the policy. There was a lot of content there that was not related to that particular judgment.

SPEAKER: Yeah. I probably should have intervened after about the first six words, because the question was actually answered very early on. The rest I took as a narrative or qualification of the answer.

David Seymour: Thank you. Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement in reply to question No. 3 earlier today that reducing taxes is “universally wasting money”, and can she please explain how letting people keep more of their own hard-earned money is a universal waste?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, the member is taking out of context the statement I was making. I was drawing the comparison that the Leader of the Opposition considers the targeted cost of living payment to be wasteful. However, he does not consider, at this time in our cycle, a tax cut for those on $180,000 or more to be wasteful.

David Seymour: How can the Government waste money that is not belonging to the Government, or does the Government believe that all money truly belongs to the Government and taxpayers are lucky they get to keep any?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member wants to get into a philosophical conversation over tax cuts versus tax credits. I think the most important point at this time is New Zealanders are going through a tough period, as are other economies around the world. We see it as our responsibility to act on that, and we stand by it. Was a payment that was going to go to 2.1 million New Zealanders ever going to have absolute perfection? No. But we take responsibility for continuing to refine it, in the same way that other countries who have undertaken similar payments have also seen groups who may have been ineligible receive it.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister believe that her Government’s policies affect people’s choice to live or not live in New Zealand, and, if so, will she own the fact that the country lost a net 11,500 people in the year to this June?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We as a Government are not going to take away people’s free agency to travel, live, work, and experience life abroad. I’m not sure whether the member across the aisle blames the Government of the day for his decision to, I believe, live in Canada. I certainly don’t blame the Government of the day for my decision to live in the UK.

Hon Michael Wood: Can the Prime Minister confirm that for every month since the year 2002, except for a brief period in 2017-2018, there has been a net outflow of New Zealanders from New Zealand?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. I note the member across the aisle is choosing selectively to speak on trends and patterns within immigration. I don’t think it’s unexpected that after several years of closed borders, at a time in a winter period where our young people, who traditionally would have travelled abroad, are seeking to do so. We, of course, have an expectation that these thousands of working holiday visas that have been applied for and taken up will, of course, over the summer months likely be accepted by those abroad, and we’ll see that inflow also.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister stand by the Small Retailer Crime Prevention Fund to help retailers harden their premises against crimes, and if so, how should retailers who fear attack go about applying to access the fund?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

David Seymour: Does she agree with the police Minister’s office that when deciding which businesses will receive funding, “Police is identifying eligible shops based on past victimisations.”, and, if so, is it sensible that to be eligible for ram raid protection, you first have to be ram-raided?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, the police are working alongside those representative bodies of retailers as well in developing the criteria. I have great faith in them working with those on the ground to ensure that the funding that is available, which we estimate should be able to support up to 500 retailers, will meet those in the most need, regardless of the criteria that they develop.

Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

11. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent announcements has he made about helping Kiwis to get a better deal at the checkout?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I recently announced the tool kit of regulatory powers the Commerce Commission and the Government will have available should the supermarket duopoly not reach good-faith wholesale deals with their competitors. If there is no proper access to wholesale goods, there is no incentive for competition to enter the market, and improved competition will mean improved prices for Kiwis at the till.

Naisi Chen: How will these regulatory measures work?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We’ve been very clear that the grocery sector needs to change so that competing retailers, whether they are independent dairies, smaller chains, or a new entrant, can offer a wider selection of products at competitive prices. That’s why we’ve called on the supermarkets to open up their wholesale arms at a fair price to would-be competition—if not, the tool kit we’ve designed gives the Commerce Commission the authority to take action, including demanding retailers provide wholesale supply at certain times, price, and range.

Naisi Chen: When can we expect to see these measures in place?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I expect to have a bill introduced by the end of this year, and passed into law early next year. Once it’s passed into law, the Commerce Commission will take on its watchdog role in a permanent and immediate way. Let me stress again that there is nothing stopping the supermarkets from brokering good-faith wholesale deals right now.

Naisi Chen: What reactions has he seen to the announcement?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It’s been very, very positive. The Warehouse Group welcomed the Government’s actions to make it a more level playing field, and are hopeful it will bring about meaningful change. Night ‘n Day’s Matthew Lane said the changes would create security of supply on products at more competitive rates. He said their savings would be passed on to consumers.

Naisi Chen: Has there been any other industry reaction?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes. The Food and Grocery Council was also very positive about the announcement, saying, “Forcing the duopoly to negotiate wholesale offerings to competitors on commercial terms is a significant but necessary step if Kiwis are to see better choice and lower prices.” It went on to add, “In a well-functioning and competitive wholesale market these steps by the Government wouldn’t be needed, and it’s just further proof of how broken and uncompetitive the grocery market is right now.” The Government agrees, and that’s why we’ve taken bold, swift action.

Question No. 12—Police

12. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: What is the total percentage increase of ram raids since the beginning of 2018, and how many businesses have had security systems installed through the $6 million crime prevention programme, funded by the Proceeds of Crime Fund, to address this increase?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): There are limitations to the data that Police hold. However, that data does show that there were 84 incidents in 2018, and 303 incidents in 2021—the most recent full year on record—an increase of 260 percent. Police are taking the issue extremely seriously and investigating every incident. Since 2017, there have been 768 prosecutions for a range of ram raid - related offences, and 324 youth referrals. In answer to the second part of the member’s question, the small retail crime prevention programme has undertaken 21 assessments of security needs of retailers, and a further five are expected this week. I’ve made it clear to the police that we expect to see much faster progress.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question did ask, “How many security systems have been installed?”, not “How many reviews have been undertaken?”

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m happy to elaborate further. We don’t have data on how many of those have been installed available at the moment because, in many cases, that installation work is being done by a third-party provider.

Simeon Brown: Oh, it hasn’t been done yet?

Nicola Willis: They can’t deliver anything.

Hon Mark Mitchell: How many ram-raided businesses—

SPEAKER: Sorry, sorry. Sorry to interrupt. Timing again, Mr Brown and Nicola Willis.

Hon Mark Mitchell: How many ram-raided businesses has the Minister visited since becoming police Minister?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I haven’t visited any businesses myself. That is, of course, the appropriate role for the police.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why has the Minister not taken the time to visit the victims of these ram raids?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: My focus, in the few months that I’ve had as Minister of Police, has been on visiting as many police stations as possible and engaging with the police. I have not been going and visiting individual businesses or conducting my own investigations.

Hon Mark Mitchell: How many times does a business need to be ram-raided to receive support from the fund?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There aren’t hard and fast criteria about that. It’s based on a risk assessment.

Estimates Debate

In Committee

Debate resumed from 23 August on the Appropriation (2022/23 Estimates) Bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): All right, thank you, members. Just keep the noise down, please. The House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2022/23 Estimates) Bill. The Standing Orders provide for 11 hours of debate on the Estimates. There are four hours and 56 minutes remaining in the debate.

The Business Committee has determined to organise the debate by portfolio, so there’ll be no sector-specific debates. All Votes are available for debate, but only specific Ministers will be available each day to speak to the indicated portfolios only. The Government has indicated that the Minister of Immigration, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Housing, and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety will be available today. Each debate will be led by a call from the chairperson or a member of the committee that considered the Estimates most closely related to the Minister’s portfolio.

This debate expires after 11 hours, at which point questions will be put that the Votes stand part of the schedules and on the provisions of the Appropriation (2022/23 Estimates) Bill. The time for the debate has been allocated to parties on a proportional basis and may be taken as parties see fit during the debate. New Zealand Labour has two hours and 24 minutes remaining, New Zealand National has one hour and 34 minutes remaining, the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 38 minutes remaining, ACT New Zealand has 21 minutes remaining, and Te Paati Māori has 11 minutes remaining.

The Estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of appropriations. A compendium of the reports of select committees on the Votes is available on the Table. The question being debated is that the Votes contained in the Estimates of appropriation for 2022/23 stand part of the schedules.

Members, we start with the Minister of Immigration. The Minister is available from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m.—sorry, Ms Marja Lubeck.

Immigration

MARJA LUBECK (Chairperson of the Education and Workforce Committee): Thank you, Mr Chair. Nice to see you in the Chair to take my call in this Estimates debate. I take this call as the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee. Our select committee met on 29 June, 5 July, and 27 July to consider Vote Labour Market. We heard in total from three Ministers responsible for the appropriations in Vote Labour Market. We also heard evidence from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and we received advice from the Office of the Auditor-General with regard to Vote Labour Market.

Budget 2022 is seeking $2.802 billion for Vote Labour Market. This compares with the estimated $2.673 billion that was spent in 2021-22. It is just over 16 percent of the Vote appropriated to Vote Immigration. Our committee heard from the Minister of Immigration, the Hon Michael Wood, and the Minister, it is fair to say, impressed us with his knowledge of a portfolio he only just recently had taken over. For 2022-23, the Minister of Immigration is responsible for appropriations totalling just under $464 million for immigration services, approximately two-thirds of which is to be funded by third parties through immigration fees and levies; $8.6 million for policy advice and related services; and just over $4 million for regulation of immigration advisers, of which $935,000 is to be funded by third-party revenue.

Just a little bit on the main reasons for changes in appropriated spending: there were no changes between 2020 and 2021, compared to 2021 and 2022. The increase in settlement and integration of refugees and other migrants primarily related to the Government’s response to the crisis in Afghanistan—$26 million—and there were changes between 2021-22 and 2022-23. The decrease in settlement and integration of refugees and other migrants primarily relates to the end of time-limited funding for the Government’s response to the crisis in Afghanistan—$18 million. The decrease in assessment and processing services primarily relates to the end of time-limited funding for closing offshore offices—$12 million—and implementing the accredited employer work visa and supporting systems, a total of $5 million. The decrease in services for the attraction of migrants primarily relates to the transfer of just under $2 million from Immigration New Zealand to New Zealand Trade and Enterprise for the provision of investment attraction services, and the end of time-limited funding from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to support Pacific Island country involvement in the Recognised Seasonal Employer programme—$2 million. But it’s important to note that the funding for 2022-23 is still significantly more than it was before the pandemic.

I’d like to touch on some of the areas the committee paid particular attention to in our review of the Estimates. Our committee considered the accredited employer work visa, and from 4 July 2022 this visa is the main pathway for migrants on employer-assisted temporary work visas. All three stages of the new accredited employer work visa are now live, with applications open for employer accreditation, job checks, and work visas. There are three stages to this: employers have to be accredited, passing a job check, and then inviting a migrant worker to apply for the job. The Minister told the committee that the visa is an important step in moving away from an over-reliance on cheap migrant labour. The Minister said this reliance has not been a good thing for the New Zealand economy or for migrant workers. The Minister told the committee that previous targets for processing migrant worker applications for the accredited employer work visa remained in place, and he explained that an additional 230 staff were hired to assist with visa processing and also a site opened in Christchurch to increase capacity. We heard that good progress was being made in processing job checks for the accredited employer work visa applications received so far.

We also asked how Budget 2022 will support refugees. From July 2022, the Government increased the refugee quota from 1,000 to 1,500 per year, and we’ve also doubled the number of family members that we will accept into New Zealand, under the refugee family support category, to 600. The Education and Workforce Committee concluded its deliberation by recommending the appropriations for the year ending 30 June 2023 for Vote Labour Market be accepted. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I stand as kind of the reserve coming off the bench and into the game because of the inability of my colleague Erica Stanford to ask the questions of the Minister, but rest assured, I’m well primed and perhaps somewhat interested and knowledgeable in this area.

As the chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee said, this is very much about the visa processing, so a lot of my questions are going to be about the performance of Immigration New Zealand in discharging that responsibility with the appropriations that they’ve been given. I do note in the documents for Vote Labour Market that it does have a summary of the proportion of the costs of running the immigration system that is funded by third-party revenue—that’s applicants—which is now just over $219 million of $464 million. So less than half of the revenue that is coming in to fund the costs of running our immigration system is now being paid by applicants. Now, as I recall, pre-COVID, that was much closer to about 75 percent, and it’s no surprise that given the way the borders have been over the last 2½ years, that has happened. But I do think the committee would appreciate some kind of commentary from the Minister on where the target is in terms of the proportions and whether that 75 percent target is still the Government’s goal, what has happened to the memorandum account, and how much in deficit it is, because, ultimately, that’s going to either need to be funded by applicants in the future or the Crown—that is, the taxpayer—who may be a little reluctant, actually, to fund that level of deficit.

But I want to also start, in my first couple of questions, on some answers that the Minister gave in oral question time today regarding Resident Visa 2021 (RV21)—the residence visa programme—and there’s three questions, basically. Firstly, he said, I think, that Immigration New Zealand were on target to meet the 80 percent of the Resident Visa 2021 applications by its target date of June 2023. Can he confirm to the committee that, in fact, that wasn’t the original target date and that there has been some significant slippage from an initial target date of 1 December this year; if so, why did he purport that Immigration New Zealand was on target and why didn’t he qualify that by saying that is a significant slippage?

He also said that—I think the number was 94,150-something have already been approved for RV21 visas. My question is: how many of those 94,000 applicants approved for residence under that policy were already onshore—were already here in New Zealand? He went on to say that 3,626 of them were health workers. So my final question in this stanza is the same: how many of those 3,626 health workers approved for residence so far under RV21 were already here?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just briefly touching on some of the points raised earlier around the funding model, I wanted to get an understanding from the Minister as to whether he thinks the current model of where immigration is going is, effectively, reliant on visa fees in order to continue operating—is it fit for purpose?—and whether the Minister thinks that that kind of approach actually takes Immigration New Zealand’s purpose away from providing a public service to one that is, basically, like a business arm of the legislation, and therefore actually puts competing interests in terms of the delivery of services and, therefore, that is impacting decisions both in terms of visa processing and other policy outcomes.

I wanted to touch on, I guess, some of the recent decisions as well in terms of visa replacements that have been offered to working holiday visa holders. I just wanted to get an understanding whether the fact that the Minister decided to reissue thousands of visas, potentially, to working holiday visa holders does not come a little bit, I guess, in conflict with the refusal to do the similar thing for migrants who’ve been stuck offshore, many who do have those longstanding ties to Aotearoa. I just wanted to check in terms of aims and consistency of policy goals whether there may be a bit of a contradiction here, because I understand that the decision to reissue those visas was for the purpose of enabling alleviation of the labour shortages.

Also, I wanted to understand with the immigration rebalance that is under way and that it is a major goal—it’s part of this next year—I note that when the changes to the rights of partners of temporary work visa holders was being discussed—and therefore a decision was made in terms of restricting those rights of the partners—there were concerns expressed at a Cabinet level in terms of the increased risk of family violence due to this policy change, and that coming from a place of pushing people into financial dependency. I wanted to understand whether the Minister agrees with these concerns and what he will do about it in this year, and whether these changes actually align with Te Aorerekura—the National Strategy to Eliminate Family Violence and Sexual Violence.

I also wanted to understand when the review of the family violence visa eligibility will be undertaken in this year, and when does the Minister expect it to be finished? I also wanted to get an understanding of whether the Minister acknowledges that the changes to partnership visas may actually end up driving people to work under the table, and how does this complement the work that the Minister is doing to end migrant exploitation?

In regards to the parent category visa, I wanted to get an understanding of where the Minister expects to finish a review of the parent category visa, and just whether the Minister could acknowledge that during this process. During the lockdown, there were many parents who spent a significant amount of time here in Aotearoa during the lockdowns in the period when our borders were closed and are now facing those pressures of having to go back to their homelands, often in precarious conditions, and if we had finished that review, maybe these parents actually would already be arrested and some would be facing that prospect. I just wanted to get a sense of what message he’d be sending to those parents.

I also would be keen to get an understanding of how the Productivity Commission’s report, particularly regarding the recommendation to end the employer-bound visa practice, aligns with his goals in the immigration rebalance, which continues this sort of policy.

Finally, just on the working holiday visas that have been issued and extended, with the reliance on working holiday visas—which are open work visas and actually allow people to work for jobs that pay low wages—whether the emphasis on, basically, increasing the number of migrants in those kinds of jobs contradicts the attempts that he’s making at restricting the working rights of partners, and whether, again, there may be a contradiction of lack of coherency with that kind of approach.

Finally, I wanted to get an understanding of when he expects the review of partnership work visas to make them more culturally appropriate to conclude, as per Labour’s manifesto promise. And just acknowledging that the culturally arranged marriage visa isn’t working and that the overwhelming feedback is that the living together requirement is not fit for purpose and doesn’t acknowledge the cultural diversity that people may be coming from when making this application. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): I thank the members for their questions, of which there were rather a lot there. I thank the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee for her report, and the diligent work of the committee, and might I just say I found them to be a very impressive bunch as well. We did have a good discussion and worked through a good range of questions in the Estimates hearing there.

If I can first turn to a number of the questions that my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse has raised—and he raised a number. Firstly, he asked about some of the fundamental funding questions within the system, which have obviously risen to the surface over the past couple of years. For those people who aren’t so closely engaged with the immigration system, it is very important to note that, for the most part, this has been a system which is funded by the people who use it. This partly goes to a question raised by Mr Menéndez March as well, and we do think that is an appropriate and equitable way of funding the system, for the most part.

The alternative to that would be funding from the general tax base, and that would put an additional burden and mean that there would have to be trade-offs made in terms of other things that the Government chooses to spend its money on. So certainly for those parts of the system which are primarily about economic migration—that is, migration whereby a migrant worker is looking to take up an economic opportunity and advance their economic interests in New Zealand, and an employer is looking to get complementary benefits out of that—we do believe that it is fair and appropriate for those people to make a contribution simply to the processing of those visas and making sure that the system can work through that and also subsequent oversight of the system in an appropriate way.

What Mr Woodhouse rightly pointed out is that over the past couple of years, with many visa categories being significantly reduced because of closed borders, the revenue coming into the system has had to reduce. So in a way that is similar to other parts of Government’s operations that are third-party funded—and wearing one of my other hats, for example, civil aviation—the Government has, effectively, had to step in over the past couple of years and bring in Crown funding to ensure that critical areas can continue to operate. Mr Woodhouse asked specifically about the memorandum account, which is, effectively, the account that the system works from; money goes in, money goes out from there. It did decline to a position of having a closing balance of minus $18.2 million as of June 21 last year. That has somewhat recovered to minus $14.7 billion as of 21 June this year.

Members will be aware that we had phase one of a funding review that was completed around about the middle of this year. There were a range of changes to fees within the system that kicked in from 1 July. That was about stabilising the funding situation somewhat, and there were increases to a number of the fees that we put in place. Phase two of the funding review, which will be a more fundamental and systemic review of the funding settings to make sure that immigration is funded in a fair, equitable, and sustainable way in the years ahead, will kick into place early next year. I’ll be getting initial advice about the scoping of that probably within the coming few weeks to the next month or so. So there’s considerable work that we’ll be getting into in that space.

Mr Woodhouse asked a number of questions, as well, around the 2021 Resident Visa (RV21). As I did comment earlier on in question time, this is a very, very large programme. I think it’s important that members don’t lose sight of that. It is the biggest residency programme that has been run in New Zealand, and earlier on I pulled up some figures that illustrate this. If we go back over the last 10 years, the biggest year for residency approvals in that 10-year period—before the most recent year—was 2015-16, when there were 52,052 residency approvals. Quite commonly, like in 2017-18, there were 37,948 residency approvals. In the 2021-22 year, primarily driven by RV21, we had 83,203 residency approvals. So it is a very, very large programme which does put significant pressure on the overall processing capabilities within the system. There’s a team of around about 100 people who are purely focused on RV21 processing, and the overall Immigration New Zealand processing team has been increased by around about 134 fulltime-equivalents over the last year to take account of that, but also the additional demands that are coming on as the accredited employer work visa and other categories begin to open up with the reconnection process that is in train at the moment.

Mr Woodhouse did point out that the original goal of 80 percent of the RV21 visas being processed was pushed back from the end of this year to June. That was, effectively, taking into account the fact that earlier this year the Government brought forward the reconnection staging to complete by 1 July this year. So, originally, reconnection was not going to be completed until October of this year. That was brought forward to July because there are important reasons for the benefit of our economy and society to do that, and we believed it was appropriate to put resource into that. Effectively, the trade-off there was a small push out in terms of RV21 processing, but I would just note to the committee that the RV21 processing is actually reasonably well ahead of where we expected it to be at this point. We’re at about 40 to 45 percent of the total applications. About 215,000 applications have been successfully approved by this stage. So it’s going pretty well overall, but we do balance it against other needs within the system.

In answer to Mr Woodhouse’s question about how many of those workers were onshore, I’ll see if I can get a precise number to come back with later on in these discussions. The answer is: the vast majority. One of the criteria was about people who were onshore and were settled here. It was about recognising the contribution that those people had made through the COVID period, providing security and stability for them, and also for New Zealand more broadly. I would just note that I think that does make an important contribution both for those people but also for our economy and parts of the economy where we do have labour shortages, because it provides security and stability; it ensures that those people can really put down roots and can continue to make a contribution in the areas in which they are.

Mr Menéndez March asked a number of questions around the working holiday visa, and we did announce some changes a couple of weeks ago in this area which are about providing a little bit more capacity, particularly for the coming summer season. It’s important just to put this into proportion. So in the pre-COVID period, we were looking at overall working holiday visa numbers over the course of a year, sort of in the 70,000, 75,000 area. Our expectations over the coming year, because international connectivity is still much reduced on what it was, is that we will be looking at significantly less than that. So even with the increase to the capped schemes that we announced a couple of weeks ago—an additional 12,000 across those capped schemes—the likelihood is that the total number of working holiday visas arriving onshore will probably still be a little less than we had in the pre-COVID period. So it was a pragmatic recognition from the Government that we do need to provide a little bit more support into that sector, that the nature of people taking up those working holiday visa employment opportunities tends to be people who move into employment in those particularly seasonal and often tourist areas where it is actually quite difficult to attract year-round labour very often. So we think there is a niche that it fills. But, as I say, this is a little bit of a rebalance. We’re still probably going to have fewer people overall than we had in the pre-COVID period.

I don’t think there’s any particular conflict in that policy in respect of our other policies. I note some people who did miss out on, for example, RV21. Those people still do very often have pathways, now that reconnection has commenced, to be able to enter New Zealand. It might be different pathways to what they had before, but, effectively, New Zealand is open and there will be further progress that we may make with other visa categories over the coming period as well.

The other key issue that Mr Menéndez March raised was around partner work rights, and he’s raised the set of issues around family violence risk. I think it’s really important, in this area, that we do just, firstly, be really clear that family violence towards anyone in this country, whatever their status, is entirely unacceptable, and it’s with the people who are committing those offences that the responsibility lies. I just think we need to be very, very clear about that. It’s not driven by any particular policy that the Government has in place. The responsibility lies with the perpetrators. Noting that, I have asked officials for further advice about the application of the family violence visa. As the member is aware, it applies to people who are a partner of someone who is resident in New Zealand, but not to other more temporary visa categories. I have asked for further advice about that, noting the very important issues which are at stake. I’ll just leave my comments there, and there are a few other things I might pick up in a further call, but I welcome any further comments and questions from the committee.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll just kick off by saying I’m curious, and I’d like to know how the Minister can reconcile talking up the 2021 resident visa during question time today—as it’s simple and relatively open and, most importantly, it doesn’t bond people to a single employer—while simultaneously emphasising and standing by the fact that nurses can’t have a fast track to residence because they might leave the sector upon getting residency. I’d just like to know if the Minister thinks he can have it both ways.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): The short answer is yes, because, by and large, the resident visa 2021 relies on people having been working in New Zealand for several years, in the same way that the two-year pathway to residency does.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the Minister for what was a comprehensive suite of answers. We’ll try and sharpen it up a bit in the question side so that he doesn’t need to go quite as extensive on the answers. I will come to the question of the processing, because I think there’s some interesting data there.

But I want to just focus in on health and this chronic shortage of nurses that Dr McDowall and the whole industry are talking about. In the context of the accredited employer work visa, which the Minister trumpets with, I think he said over 8,000 visas applied for—190 of them were approved in the health sector—can he confirm that only 24 of those were for nurses in the past eight weeks, and, if so, given that the critical purpose visa was processing nearly 60 nursing work visas per month, that, actually, the accredited employer work visa is processing at only about the rate of 21 percent that it was prior to the thing that it replaced?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): I think that the comparison that the member makes doesn’t tell a complete story. The nature of the accredited employer work visa is that it fully opened up in early July. It works in three phases: the employer needs to become accredited; secondly, there is then a job check where the employer, effectively, applies for approval to be able to recruit—and that’s closer to 9,000 now, as I understand it—in the sector; and then, after that, individual employees are able to apply, and work visas are issued. It, effectively, is only in about the last couple of weeks that we have started to have any real numbers of the work visa applications coming into effect. So, while the member is technically correct, that category has been open since 4 July, just the sheer logic of employers working their way through one, two, three steps in the system means that mostly those applications have come in relatively recently. We’re starting to see them coming in at a much faster rate—even in coming days—so I think it’s a little too early to make that judgment. Broadly speaking, I have confidence that it’s going to be, actually, a much simpler system than we’ve previously had in place.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I call the Hon Michael Woodhouse—and just for members, I’m quite happy, while the questions are short like this, to allow a member to ask two or three on the trot, and then move on to another member to do the same thing. If they’re going to be long questions, then we may rethink that—just so you know.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think that’s a really good example of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. Because one of the hallmarks of our immigration system was, I think, that it was fair, consistent, and timely. And the fact that we have slowed this process down so extraordinarily by turning one category name into another is not fair, it’s not consistent, and it sure as heck isn’t timely. Is the Minister the only one who doesn’t see the crisis in the health sector? If the New Zealand Nurses Organisation are now overwhelmingly saying we have a crisis, and, in fact, the resident visa is likely—as Jem Traylen alluded to in her BusinessDesk article this morning—to make the problem worse, not better. Because with residence they can go to Australia, and that’s the opposite of what we were trying to do. Now, I’m not undermining the call for nurses to be on the green list because what’s going to happen is that nurses are not going to come in the first place. So if the Minister stands by his statement that he would make changes if the outcomes for nursing and healthcare are not being achieved, why will he not act sooner than 12 months after the green lists open to add nurses to that list?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): The member’s assertion that the system is slowing up considerably is simply not accurate. So the average processing time for employees to become accredited is approximately six days, at completion. Applications to work through the job check process is taking an average of 10 days for completed job check applications. At the same time, we are still having people coming through the critical purposes visa as well. So we continued to have, I think over the last few months, about 150 health workers per month coming through that pathway. So it’s not like one stopped and there’s then been a big gap as we get the new system up and running. The two have, effectively, overlapped to ensure that there continues to be a flow.

In respect to the second set of questions that the member makes, I think, frankly, the logic is very confused. The entire line of the National Party has been, apparently, that we should be speeding up access to residency. Yet his line of questioning was to the effect that that might be a bad thing to do because, if we did so, it might mean that people can leave the profession, leave the country more quickly. There is some truth in what he’s saying at the back end, but they can’t have it both ways. That just speaks to some of the genuine complexities that we’re trying to work through as we get the system working well.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. And just acknowledging what the Minister talked about regarding working with officials to look at the eligibility of the family violence visa so that it could potentially include partners of temporary work visa holders, and that is a very overdue change.

But I wanted to unpack whether the Minister thinks that he has a responsibility, as part of the commitment to Te Aorerekura, to ensure that policy settings being put in place do not increase the risk of family violence. Because while we can all agree that perpetrators are the ones responsible, Government also has a role in not putting in place policies that put migrants into a position of financial dependency, and these were concerns raised at Cabinet. So I wanted to understand whether the Minister thinks that his policy settings could play a role in an increased risk of family violence due to creating situations of financial dependency.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): I just entirely reject, and quite profoundly reject, the possible assertion that could be inferred from Mr Menéndez March’s questions, which is that visa settings can cause family violence. As I said in my initial answers, the responsibility for family violence rests entirely with the perpetrators. Having said that, and I’ll repeat again, we remain open to ensuring that our visa settings provide as much opportunity as is possible for people to be able to leave those situations. But they in no way have any bearing on the incidence of family violence occurring in the first place.

To answer a couple of the other questions that Mr Menéndez March asked earlier on: in respect of the parent category, this is one that I have asked officials to prioritise work on. The parent category was initially closed in 2016 under the previous National Government—temporarily paused, at least. It was our Government’s intention to open that in early 2020, at almost exactly the same time that the borders were closed. So it’s been approximately six years since that category has been fully open, and I have asked officials to accelerate work on that, and I am keen to see that we get appropriate sittings in place there. I’m very much aware of the importance that that pathway can provide for families to settle well and have a sense of comfort about the wellbeing of their elders. So there will be further work that’s going on there relatively quickly. I do note that the parents and grandparents visa category is open; it doesn’t provide a more permanent pathway for people’s parents and grandparents to come into New Zealand, but it does enable them to come here for periods of six months at a time, and we have had very, very strong interest in that since it reopened in July.

In respect to the member’s questions around the Productivity Commission report that was put out by Ganesh Nana and his team several months ago, look, that is something that, again, I have formal advice coming through from officials and I expect to get relatively soon. I have to say that I thought that there were some very, very useful observations made in that report, and that I’m favourably inclined to some of the general recommendations about ensuring that the system is as transparent as possible, that there’s as much certainty about settings as possible, and that it’s as driven as possible by data and evidence. This is a sector that can be very strongly driven by the politics of the day and by sector lobbying; we live in a political environment and some of that, you know, just goes with the territory. But I think we want to ensure that this is a system that’s, as much as possible, driven by genuine economic need and a humanitarian focus. So I’m very keen to explore those areas without committing to any specific actions at this stage.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I want to ask about your earlier comments that the new application process to get new staff is simple, and just around the accredited employer work visa system, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Minister has actually spoken to businesses to talk to them about the process involved, because there’s two things here. One is the process itself, and we’re dealing in the context of a 50-year shortage of staff in New Zealand. If I look at Queenstown, for example, there’s a limited workforce available; although I acknowledge it’s not just a Queenstown issue, because I see it here in Wellington and I’ve seen in Auckland there’s also significant workforce shortages.

So the first step for employers to become accredited—I know from talking to big businesses who can employ someone to do that for them that that’s relatively simple for them. But for smaller employers, they don’t have the resources to do it because they’re literally on the front line trying to keep their businesses running.

After accreditation, there is a tsunami of compliance. Employers will need to advertise for two weeks to check there are no New Zealand citizens or residents available for the job. If it’s not considered that they have adequately done that process, Immigration New Zealand will reject it. There’s then a long list of requirements to advertising the job, requiring a massive amount of detail. After the ad has been up for two weeks, the employer can then apply for a job check. They need to set up a structure in the company to bring in the migrant worker, and then some staff members have to undergo employment relations education courses.

Once an employer gets through those steps, they are then given a job token to hire a migrant worker. Talking to businesses, I have heard it can take up to two months to get that job token, and a job token, I understand, also has an expiry date—so there’s a certain period of time. So I have spoken personally to businesses who say they’ve got someone available who can do the job, they’ve got a job vacancy that desperately needs to be filled, but it can take up to two months for Immigration to process it.

My question also is whether the Minister is confident that Immigration New Zealand has adequate staff to process to this structure, which, I would suggest to the Minister, is quite complicated and complex.

I note that in my region, businesses like restaurants, etc. are having to close a couple of days a week, regularly, because they can’t get staff. Some restaurants are actually looking potentially at having to close permanently in the next few months because they can’t get staff. Fruit pickers are incredibly concerned they’re going to have another season like the one they’ve just had, where, for example, many cherry orchards had to drop about 40 percent of their crop on the ground. They can’t afford to do that again. How is the Minister confident that he’s going to get the workforce that they need to harvest these crops?

I was talking to other contractors who just can’t get the staff they need—for example, digger drivers to clear sites to build houses. So this process—I would ask, is the Minister truly confident that it’s actually a simple process? Has he talked to businesses, both big and small, about the process and how they’re experiencing it, and is he confident that Immigration New Zealand has adequate staff available to process the applications received?

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just earlier today, the Minister talked up visa automation again and new systems, and how it’s been so useful for accredited employer work visa applications. I’d like to know if he thought it was useful, given the Advanced Digital Employer-led Processing and Targeting programme wasn’t actually doing automated lodgement so that Immigration officers can do their jobs, leaving support officers having to manually complete lodgement for eventual assessments in ANS.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I see the Minister’s stacking up the questions. So I’ll add to Mr Mooney’s question and the Minister’s own reply stating that at least the accredited employer visa is being processed in a timely manner. On page 139 of the education and workforce appropriations, there is a set of performance measures, one of which is that 85 percent of visitor and student visa applications be decided within 15 days. Now, for reasons which elude me, the Immigration New Zealand website’s statistics page has those metrics at 75 percent and 90 percent; it doesn’t line up with the Budget. Nevertheless, visitor visa: at the moment, 90 percent of them are taking 51 days or more to process. Student visas: 67 days or more for 90 percent of them. Essential skills visas: 49 days. And whatever “essential skills lite” is, that’s taking 85 days. And skilled migrant category visas, even though they’re closed, is taking 46 months. None of that, to me, suggests anything other than a significant slow-down in the processing time frame. Now, I don’t blame the staff at Immigration New Zealand; I blame a really convoluted process and a confusing set of metrics that they need to meet in order to satisfy things like the labour market test.

So my question to the Minister is: does he accept that over the last four years or so, even allowing for COVID—and I’ll come back to the numbers of visas being processed—timeliness has dramatically dropped on his and his predecessor’s watch?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): I’m happy to answer questions from Messrs Mooney, McDowall, and Woodhouse and I thank them for them. There are a number of questions which run across all three members’ contributions which, effectively, relate to the relative simplicity of the accredited employer work visa (AEWV) and other settings and whether we can have confidence that they’re set up in a way that’s appropriate and allows for an ease of processing and, therefore, timely outcomes for people who engage in the system.

In answer to the very specific question from Mr Mooney: have I spoken to businesses and others about working through the system? The answer is, yes, I’ve spoken to a range of businesses about that. And I’ve also sat down with staff from Immigration New Zealand in my own office one night and said to them, “Take me through the system from beginning to end, in terms of the online system and how it works and what it’s actually like to engage in it.” I was, broadly speaking, impressed by the simplicity of the online system, and I would genuinely encourage other members to have a look at it and acquaint themselves with it. My understanding is that for the accredited employer application process, we’re often hearing that it takes about half an hour for people to work through that process online. It is a very simple kind of Dropbox online system for people to apply into. As I say, the processing times for that are an average of five to six days. So, yes, I have confidence that the processing of those is working its way through very smoothly.

The job check stage, which is the next one that follows—those completed applications are coming through in an average of 10 days at the moment, which is right on the target that we had for the straightforward applications. The answer, really, that I think I can give to Mr Mooney is: well, what would you take out?

Joseph Mooney: The job check.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: If you think it’s too complicated, what would you take out? And the member answers “The job check.” That simply will be a point of disagreement between this side of the House and that side of the House. The job check is a fundamental part of the system, because we do believe it is appropriate that there is a basic check to ensure whether or not there is a New Zealander who is willing and able to do that job before migrant labour is accessed. That is a core component of the immigration rebalance, and one that we believe is appropriate.

And here’s the other bit. Actually, that labour market test is significantly simplified over and above what was mainly previously in place where, quite often, in addition to advertising, there was also a requirement to engage with the Ministry of Social Development to see if there were workers who could be available from that source. So, broadly speaking, it is the same or simpler than the previous job check settings. But I’ll come back to that fundamental: we think it is appropriate that there is a basic check in place to ensure whether or not there is a New Zealander available to do the job, and that might just be a point of disagreement—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: No, it’s not.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: —between this side of the House and that side of the House. Mr Woodhouse says it’s not a point of disagreement; Mr Mooney seems to suggest that we should drop that requirement, so I’ll leave that for them to work out.

Joseph Mooney: What about the tokens?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The third stage—the tokens are available for six months once they are issued. So there’s a reasonable period of time for the employer to then go out and to recruit. Effectively, that stage is then in the hands of the employer to undertake the recruitment, and then we will process work visas, and the processing time frames in place for that are 20 days. As I said, at the beginning of that process those applications have really only started to flow in over the last couple of weeks. But based on step one and step two of AEWV, the processing time frames have been at or have been under what was indicated for straightforward applications when the process went through.

Mr Mooney asked a very specific question around fruit pickers. That, obviously, is a different part of the system. The Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) labour force is the key one that we look to, to deal with that particular set of issues. Of course, it is worth noting that, year on year, the Government has continued to increase that workforce. For the coming year, I have that decision in front of me to make over the next little while, and I’ve asked employers, unions, and other stakeholders to really sit down and try and get on top of a good understanding of what an appropriate number would be for the coming season. But I want them to also look alongside that at some of the very real challenges in that sector, including labour standards. That is important if this scheme is to retain social licence. RSE is important for those businesses. It does have the ability to be a win-win-win for all concerned, but we’ve got to get on top of those issues—the sector has to get on top of those issues for that system to have social licence and for us to be able to look those workers in the eye and say that we’re going to treat them decently and fairly. That’s something we strongly believe in, on this side of the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. For the avoidance of doubt, the Minister and I are exactly in lock step on the need to make sure that there isn’t a Kiwi available to do the job. I have no argument with that, only he’s obviously been in his bubble for the last six months, because there aren’t any. If he goes to Mr Mooney’s electorate of Southland and speaks to the good people of Queenstown, goes to Jacqui Dean’s neighbouring electorate in Wānaka, or goes to Rotorua or Taupō, he will not find them—you can’t kidnap staff right now, and the same process that is being gone through to find a chef in Queenstown, as I understand it, under the accredited employer work visa would be also adopted for a nurse. Now, the job check must be done on an industry, geography, and occupation basis, or otherwise Immigration New Zealand is repeating that process needlessly, time after time after time, and it’s that that’s winding up the employers and grinding their gears.

Now, I heard the Minister say he was impressed with the simplicity of the system. With that being the case, can he confirm that Immigration New Zealand has stood up an incident management team (IMT) to manage what has been described to me as an imminent regulatory failure in the visa system? And it’s a problem with the ADEPT system, which staff are now calling the inept system. Can he confirm that Immigration New Zealand now has an IMT to manage that risk?

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to contribute in this small way to this debate on the Estimates, looking into the immigration portfolio, and I would note that the Minister—one of his first outings, I think, as Minister of Immigration was when he came to our committee as part of these Estimates hearings.

The questions that I have for the Minister are around COVID-19 and the unprecedented time that he has become the Minister of Immigration. Obviously, we’ve seen the shutting of the borders for an extremely long length of time, and resulting changes to travel availability and also workforce shortages. So the things I’m really wanting to ask the Minister today are around his role as a Minister of Immigration in, really, what is an unprecedented time in New Zealand’s history because of the global pandemic that we are a part of.

My questions are really related to two things: the first thing is borders more generally, and the second thing I wanted to ask about was working holiday visas, also noting that this issue of workforces in certain areas has been raised by other members when they’ve been asking questions to the Minister. I do note that I did see a report by Radio New Zealand that one employer—I think it was in the member for Southland’s area—didn’t advertise, and, obviously, we would encourage employers to advertise if they want to make sure that they are attracting workers to their jobs, but noting the real concerns brought up by members on the other side, which I do think need to be addressed.

So my first question, really, is: with the border having fully reopened on 31 July 2022, can the Minister outline how the expenditure outlined in the Budget will support Immigration New Zealand continuing to process the applications when we move back to a more pre-pandemic level of processing visa applications? My second question, in relation to working holiday visas, is just to note that when the borders were shut, we only had a very, very small number of working holiday visas that were issued—I think it was around about 1,681—and that compares to a very high number of working holiday visas, obviously, when the borders were open. I think that was around—it’s noted in our report from our select committee—about 50,000 to 70,000, but the Minister is free to correct me on those figures if they’re incorrect.

So I just wanted to ask the Minister: in relation to working holiday visas, what is the plan to increase those numbers, if, indeed, that is the plan, and are there any campaigns with other ministries—say, with the tourism sector and with the Minister of Tourism? I understand there’s been some joint campaign work done in that area, that was mentioned at the Estimates hearing. So I was just, really, wanting to know if the Minister could expand, really, on those two areas—first of all, the border, in terms of the unprecedented nature that we’re in at the moment, and his reflections as Minister of Immigration in that area, and also looking to working holiday visas in general and bringing those numbers up to the pre-pandemic levels—if that is indeed the case—and what plans we have in place for that.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. As much as I’d like to hear a whole lot of propaganda from the Minister, I thought I would just ask some questions!

The Minister has repeatedly stated that he isn’t a fan of carve-outs and that they can make a system incoherent—I believe was a word he used—and fragmented. So how can he reconcile that with the fact that the accredited employer work visa (AEWV) scheme and the latest residency categories are full of carve-outs and complexity? Can’t he just admit that policies like this—that require carve-outs—are simply like that because they don’t reflect the reality for businesses; they simply represent Labour’s ideology?

Further on this topic, and also to add to the Hon Michael Woodhouse’s contribution, just like the job check, does the Minister seriously think that an employer would go to the trouble of dealing with the immigration system when there is a surplus of Kiwis to do the job? Why in God’s name does a hospital seriously need to prove that they can’t find Kiwis?

The final thing I will just note, semi-related, is that the AEWV scheme gives quite a significant amount of power to the employer. And, for better or for worse, does he truly believe that this will reduce migrant exploitation?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): Working through a number of the questions that have been asked by members more recently. Mr Woodhouse asked about an incident management team being set up within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). Yes, that is right that over the past week, that has been set up. Effectively, what it enables is for a range of resources from within MBIE to be able to supplement Immigration New Zealand to ensure that that system is working as smoothly and as efficiently as possible.

As I’ve said earlier on in this debate, if we actually look at the core metrics in terms of processing where the advance digital employer-led processing and targeting programme (ADEPT) is being fully applied—for example, at both front end and back end for the accredited employer work stage of the process—we’re actually processing very, very quickly and below anticipated time frames. But our Government has, effectively, said that this is a real priority—our reconnection with the rest of the world. Ensuring that the new visa system rolls out smoothly is one of our top priorities. So, working with MBIE, we’re making sure that all of the resources of the system are there to ensure that at each of those stages, we’re getting the processing that we want.

Again, I’ll come back to what I perceive to at least be a pretty fundamental contradiction between comments and questions that have been raised from the opposite side of the Chamber. We heard from Mr Woodhouse before: “No, no, no—of course it’s appropriate that we check that there is a New Zealand worker available.” But every other comment from members of his own party and Mr McDowall is to sort of guffaw and write off the utility of working through that process, and we’re just hearing very blunt statements that there are no workers available. We know it’s a tight labour market. We know there’s low unemployment. We know that at times employers are going to need to access migrant labour. But, again, we say that that is a basic and reasonable thing, for a period of two weeks, to just firstly check if there’s a New Zealand worker available to do the job. Mr Woodhouse sort of tries to make political hay out of the fact that we’re doing that, but then he stood up five minutes ago and said that we should still do that.

But here’s a point of a clarification that might also help members on that side of the Chamber. For green-listed roles—which is where there’s been a specific assessment about the shortage of those roles, about the highly qualified nature of them—that step does not apply. There is a not a labour market test that applies.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: And nurses aren’t on it.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Mr McDowall didn’t seem to be aware of it. No, the member is wrong, and this is a consistent either conceit or misunderstanding of the Opposition. Nurses are in the green list—there are two parts to the green list. That labour market test does not apply to roles under the green list, so that has been recognised within the system.

Other questions which came up from Camilla Belich, who asked about the working holiday visa scheme—she’s right that it, obviously, ebbed to relatively low levels while our borders were primarily closed. We are now beginning to see that build up again. So at last reading yesterday, I think we were up to about 4,700 working holiday visa holders who are onshore. That is something that is quite highly seasonal, so we do expect to see that continuing to build as we begin to come out of winter and into the warmer months where more New Zealanders do travel to New Zealand. The changes that we have made both extend visas for people who are onshore but also allow, for the capped schemes, for there to be a doubling in the numbers.

A number of the countries that we interact with—the UK and the US, for example—have an uncapped scheme, but for many other countries, it’s a cap of 100, 200, 400, or whatever. For this season coming, those caps will be able to be doubled, which enables access to a pool of up to an additional 12,000, which I think will assist significantly in those areas.

Mr McDowall asked the question about whether the system simply reflects the Government’s ideology. Well, it does reflect our values and our beliefs about the role of an immigration system within a country’s economy and society. We are moving forward with the immigration rebalance because we want the system to focus more on the genuine skills that we need across the New Zealand workforce and to be less of a funnel for what was quite often low-skill and low-wage labour that was operating under the old system, which made it rife for migrant exploitation in many cases. The whole point of the accredited employer work visa system is that, right at that beginning, that accredited employer check is about making sure that at the front end we are ensuring that employers who are entering into the system to recruit migrant labour are upstanding and don’t have a rap sheet for those sorts of abuses that we would not want to see taking place.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, I do appreciate the candour of the Minister in confirming that an incident management team (IMT) has been stood up at Immigration New Zealand. And, despite him candy-coating it, IMTs are not set up when things are going well; they are set up when things are heading over a cliff, and that’s exactly what’s going on at Immigration New Zealand. I stress that I don’t blame the good people at Immigration New Zealand; they are being asked to jump through unnecessary and complicated hoops.

Here’s why I say that: five years ago, there were, in January 2017, 1,844 staff at Immigration New Zealand. Now, there are 1,980 staff. And we shouldn’t be surprised at that; Government departments have grown all over the place under Labour. Only here’s the thing: from 2017 to 2022, in the major categories of student, visitor, work, and resident visas, they are processing nearly a half a million fewer visa applications. So they’ve got more people taking longer to process fewer visas. And that is a system that is on the rocks.

So I implore the Minister to wake up and realise that the moment the borders do properly open—because we’ve only had, I think, what, 4,000 working holiday makers; there’s only 5,000 international students. That’s going to go up tenfold. And then, visa-required country visitors could go up to a quarter of a million or more, as they were pre-COVID. The moment that happens, either he’s going to have to double staff again or he’s going to have to make the process of issuing visas the way it used to be; what Immigration New Zealand say is “back in the good old days”, when they weren’t burdened with bureaucracy.

So I’m going to finish my contribution with imploring the Minister to wake up and realise that nobody wants overseas workers just because they’re overseas workers. Every single employer I talked to, public sector and private, would much rather employ a Kiwi or a New Zealand resident—because it’s easier. Because they don’t have to jump through these hoops.

And so the idea that we’re hell-bent on flooding our economy with migrants is just a nonsense, it’s a strawman argument to pander to the unions, and it’s having a detrimental effect on this country, Minister. The Minister has the power to fix it by streamlining the process, by processing more applications with fewer staff, and getting back to those core principles: a fair, a consistent, and—above all—a timely process.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s great to contribute to the Immigration Estimates debate. I want to start with migrant exploitation. I know that the member from the ACT Party has touched on it, but over the last few months, the Education and Workforce Committee has initiated an inquiry into migrant exploitation. It’s an ugly practice, and seeing the National Party get very passionate about the migrant workforce and bringing migrants—I appreciate their passion. But under nine years of the National Government, tens of thousands of migrant employees came to New Zealand, but nothing was done to protect them from exploitation—nothing was done to protect them from exploitation.

So my question to the Minister is: he talked about preventing migrant exploitation; can he talk more about some of the work that’s being done in this area?

The second point that I want to touch on is that I commend the Minister for his dedication to take the quota back to full potential, which is 1,500 by July 2022. I want to ask the Minister what work he is doing to reunite these new Kiwis—those who are already here in the country—with their families. I’m talking about the family reunification. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): I’d like to address questions from both Mr Woodhouse and Mr Omer in what will be my final contribution before we get to the end of this debate, and I thank members all around the Chamber for their questions and their contributions.

Firstly, addressing the points raised by Mr Woodhouse, he called literally for us to go back to how it used to be and to “streamline the system”. Well, consistently through this debate, we’ve had a discussion about how the system works, and I’ve yet to actually hear specifically what it is that they would change or streamline or take out of the system. At times, I’ve heard that they want to take out the job check, which is checking whether or not there’s a New Zealand worker available. We’ve had differing answers there. Mr Woodhouse has actually said that should stay in there; so we haven’t actually heard yet what they should take out.

In respect of streamlining, it’s worthwhile noting the accredited employer work visa (AEWV) is that. It takes the place of six different visa types, which, by definition, were more complex, and meant that the processing system was more complex and time-consuming. It is bringing them into one much-simpler category which is easier for employers to engage with, so I think that does need to be noted significantly.

In respect of the staffing levels, one useful bit of information—which I accept may not have come through in numbers that members have seen in front of them—is that the numbers aren’t necessarily apples with oranges. The numbers in previous years only included onshore; they didn’t include the number of offshore staff. A number of the offshore processing offices have closed, and, effectively, those people have been brought onshore, so the numbers don’t necessarily match up, as you would expect.

Again, I’ll come back to the fact that the core categories under AEWV, which have now been set up for sort of six, seven, eight weeks, are now processing at rates that are at or below the thresholds that we set. We said 10 days for an accredited employer and 10 days for the job check. We’re at or below for both of those—so, actually, there’s good progress that’s been made there—let alone the resident visa 2021, where we’re considerably ahead of the processing time frame, with 95,000 people successfully approved under that category.

I really thank Mr Omer for his questions, and, frankly, I’ll say this: I think it does show the difference, a little bit, between the approach and attitude between that side of the House and this side of the House to the immigration system. On that side of the House, it is almost purely and exclusively about labour units and how they work within the economy. Mr Omer asked some very good questions about the other important—

Hon Scott Simpson: The Minister’s better than that.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, the members have had nearly an hour to ask any questions about the humanitarian side or about the refugee side, and it’s not something they’ve shown any interest in whatsoever. So I thank Mr Omer for standing up and asking those questions.

Our Government is enormously proud of the work that we have done to reduce and drive out migrant exploitation, and it’s one of the things that I will continue driving forward. It’s our Government which has set up the AEWV, which puts that check in place at the very front of the system. It’s our Government which set up an 0800 number for migrants to report migrant exploitation. It’s our Government which gave the Labour Inspectorate and Immigration New Zealand new powers to be able to work together to conduct investigations and to drive out migrant exploitation. It’s our Government which set up a migrant exploitation visa so that migrants in those situations can have a safe harbour to escape those exploitive situations. It’s our Government, under Minister Priyanca Radhakrishnan, who will be moving forward with a migrant exploitation bill later on this year to ensure that exploitative employers can’t continue popping up and carrying out those activities.

So I absolutely stand behind our record in that area and it is in stark contrast to the previous model, which, in study after study, has been shown to make it more likely that these things happen because it, effectively, acted as a large funnel for generally low-wage, vulnerable workers to come into the New Zealand workforce. Our rebalance is about addressing that and stopping the scourge of migrant exploitation.

Equally, I’m proud of our decision to increase the refugee quota to 1,500 per year. This is a country of opportunity, and we should be playing our part in what is a difficult and challenging and sometimes traumatic world for people in conflict zones. When I meet people from those refugee backgrounds who have made their lives here in New Zealand, they are people who have often gone on to make a beautiful contribution to our country because of that opportunity that we have offered. What we’ve also done in recent times has been double, from 300 to 600, the refugee family reunification category, which enables resettled refugees to be able to support additional members of family to be able to come to New Zealand to help with their resettlement in this country, and that is going to make a big difference. It’s something we’re very proud of.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I note that this debate did start at 2.55 p.m.

Health

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we now have the Minister of Health. The Minister is available from 3.57 until 4.57.

TANGI UTIKERE (Chairperson of the Health Committee): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair, and thank you. I rise as the chair of the Health Committee to speak to the Estimates for Vote Health.

Mr Chair, can I just briefly acknowledge your elevation to the deputy speakership. It’s my first opportunity to do so. I also wish to thank members of the Health Committee for their diligence in reviewing the vote, along with Ministers Andrew Little and Ayesha Verrall, who took the opportunity to appear in front of the committee.

The position of the Health Committee is to recommend that the appropriations be accepted. When we delve into things a little bit further, we see that in 2022-23 the total appropriations sought for health totalled just over $24 billion. The vote has been significantly restructured in comparison to previous years, and that is due to the shift to the new health system from 1 July of this year. Separate appropriations for each district health board, as was the previous approach, no longer continues, and the select committee notes that for the 2022-23 period, two main appropriations cover services by the two new agencies, Te Whatu Ora and Te Aka Whai Ora, which accounts for more than 80 percent of Vote Health.

The Estimates identify that $11.71 billion has been set aside for delivering hospital and specialist services, and $7.9 billion has been set aside for the delivery of primary, community, public, and population health services. I also note that our hearing with the Minister of Health was timely in that it was nine days prior to the commencement of the new health system. Funding is provided for within Vote Health for the initiative known as Service Integration for Locality Provider Networks, and we heard from the Minister that these localities will work with others to set local priorities and that Te Whatu Ora will reflect these in the New Zealand Health Plan and will report on those outcomes that have been achieved.

The committee was also, and is still, interested in how resources will be allocated to locality plans and also iwi Māori partnership boards alongside any ongoing role that primary health organisations and Whānau Ora may have with distribution of funding. The Health Committee heard the Minister acknowledge the extraordinary pressures that some hospitals are facing and cited innovative ways that the sector was trying to alleviate some of those pressures. On the health workforce development front, the Minister also advised the committee that Budget 2022 had a large emphasis on developing Māori and Pasifika workforces following the valuable role that they played as part of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, and he added that, as part of that response, Pacific and Māori providers had shown incredible leadership and that the provision of $49.9 million over four years would support Pacific, primary, and community care provider development.

The select committee also had an opportunity to scrutinise the proposed funding of $166.1 million over four years for emergency road ambulance services, $90.7 million for emergency air ambulance services, $45.7 million in 2022-23 for new mental health initiatives, and funding to build the capacity to treat more people experiencing eating disorders. There were two new appropriations that have been established in the vote, and these related to the purchase of new medicines—specifically, $29 million to cover Pharmac’s operational costs and $1.186 billion for purchasing medicines funding that had previously been allocated to DHBs.

The select committee heard that Budget 2022 proposed an additional $191 million over two years to increase Pharmac’s medicines budget. Now, we heard that this was one of the biggest funding boosts that Pharmac has had in a Budget and that there would be capacity within the health system to administer the additional treatments that would be funded.

The committee also reported back on our analysis of the COVID-19 - related appropriations, and our report, in this regard, touches on new COVID-19 variants, COVID-19 Protection Framework settings and vaccines, measures to protect tamariki, and the care in the community model. This, of course, was also alongside our scrutiny of isolation and quarantine management.

Finally, I thank committee colleagues and the Ministers who appeared at the committee. As I have previously indicated in the committee’s report, it is the position of the Parliament’s Health Committee that we recommend the relevant appropriations be accepted.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. In the Health Committee we explored as part of the Estimates health funding and Budget 2022, and, indeed, because it’s a two-year appropriation, we also looked further into Budget 2023. I have a range of questions both looking at this year’s Budget and next year’s Budget, which I’ll start with.

First of all, the $1.8 billion in this current year’s Budget has around $520 million of consolidated debt—consolidated DHB deficit debt—which is now hard-baked pretty much for ever. I’m wondering if the Minister can speak to that: how we’ve come to the end of DHBs with just over $500 million of consolidated debt.

The second question would be on pay equity. I believe that the Minister—it may be in the public domain or it could be from another important source—is saying that’s a $520 million cost. I’m interested to know, if he’s able to share that, what is the cost of the back-pay disagreement around pay equity that is currently in play.

My third question is also a pay parity question. Is there any assessment of the pay parity for the aged residential care sector, separately for primary care, and then, thirdly, for the NGO or community nursing sector?

Fourthly, holiday pay: the remediation of the Holiday Act is reportedly a $1.4 billion appropriation. Has that funding been put aside? Is it taken into account in this year’s Budget or next year’s Budget? What is the time for that? Is there any funding that’s been put aside to date for that very large cost, which will come to bear?

I then want to go on to the $1.3 billion tagged contingency for next year. That’s an awful lot of money unallocated for a tagged contingency, and, coming into election year, it will raise the question as to whether that’s just a slush fund. Can the Minister comment as to what that $1.3 billion tagged contingency will be used for, and, furthermore, the tagged contingency this year, which is about $500 million—has that been drawn down already? What is it envisaged that that is used for?

I think there’s a range of questions. I don’t want to lay them all out because I know the Minister wants to talk to them. So, hopefully, I can come back to the second set that I have, but I lay those on the table for now.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for his questions. I’ll see if I can get through all of them. I might just seek a point of clarification, but anyway.

I know the member acknowledges that this is effectively a two-year Budget for health, and the underlying principle there is we wanted to start to give some longer-term certainty to the sector, not only to the two new entities, Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand and Te Aka Whai Ora—the Māori Health Authority—but, actually, to the many organisations that they fund through the various funding contracts. As I say, that gives certainty to the sector.

The member quite correctly points out that there is a $520 million contingency, which I think the member described as a consolidated debt. It is to reflect the expectation of the financial performance outcome of the DHBs in their final financial year, so the year ending 30 June 2022. But the reason it’s a tagged contingency is we don’t quite know where that is going to come out once the full financial wash is played out. We’re expecting those results fairly soon. But that is what it is there for. It was a projection of the deficit for the financial year ending 30 June 2022, based on previous financial performance in both previous financial years and the way the financial year ending 30 June 2022 had progressed since 1 July 2021.

On the issue of pay equity, the member notes my statement about a $520 million annual additional cost to payroll, and that is correct. That’s what I’ve said and that is the figure—that’s the advice I’ve received. That’s held in a tagged contingency for State sector pay equity, so that is held separately.

The member asked for the cost of back-pay. The estimates I’ve received for that are anywhere between $660 million and $1 billion. I think part of the thing that we’re conscious of is that if there has to be a two-year back-pay for nurses, then it’s likely that other parts of both the health sector and possibly parts of the State sector—but certainly the health sector—will be wanting to seek that. I can report to the committee that in relation to the midwives’ pay equity claim, there have been substantial negotiations and they’ve pretty much reached the point where the last remaining aspect of that is a lump sum payment, and the midwives have made it clear that they wish to hold off until they see what happens with whether or not the registered nurses will get their two-year back-pay claim. So whatever that figure is, there will be a precedent effect that will almost certainly influence other claims. So that is significant, that is real, and that is why we do take seriously the action that the New Zealand Nurses Organisation is taking.

I am confident on the basis of the advice I’ve received that there is no agreement on two years’ back-pay, and that is why it is important for what was then the DHBs, now Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand, to defend themselves against that claim. Hopefully—it would be my strong hope—the parties are able at some point to resolve it without the litigation running its full course, but that is in the hands of the parties together. It’s not something that one party or the other can determine.

In relation to pay parity, I think the member asked separately for the cost in relation to aged residential care, primary care, and the NGO sector. I don’t have them separated out. What I do have on the basis of the best information that we’ve received is a cost for all of those sectors of between $200 million and $300 million, but I haven’t got those separated out.

In relation to the Holidays Act remediation, the member points out the $1.4 billion which is, effectively, a tagged contingency. I can report to the House that considerable work has been done on that. That money is available. It won’t come out of Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand’s baseline. It has been put aside separately, again, as I say, as a tagged contingency. That work is still continuing. It’s a strong hope of all of us, I think, that it can draw to a conclusion if not by the end of this year then certainly early next year.

Finally, in relation to the member’s reference to a $1.3 billion tagged contingency, I have to confess I’m not quite sure what that relates to—yes, I do. I’m very thankful to Margie Apa, the chief executive of Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand, who just advised me that that relates to the cost pressure for 2023-24, and that is reflected as a tagged contingency because we won’t know more precisely what to estimate for that until next year.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister for those replies. Two sets of questions—the first is: in October 2021, he was the lead sponsor in a substantial proposal to Treasury to, amongst other things, build 152 ICU beds, and then three months later, that had morphed into an announcement for 23 ICU beds. The question is, what happened? He was the lead sponsor making application to the Treasury for a substantial amount of money and the initial reply to me from the Minister was, “Documentation relating to individual bids may be received by officials in a variety of formats from a variety of contributors. However, it’s a fundamental principle of our democratic system of Government that is for the elected Government of the day to decide what is or is not funded regardless of officials’ preferences.” Am I to take from that that it was officials who recommended 152 ICU beds be built, and that despite having his name on the front as the lead sponsor he was unable to get that over the line with Treasury, resulting in 23 ICU beds being announced in the Rapid Hospital Improvements Programme in December?

The second set of questions is around the Whangarei Hospital build—$572 million put aside, appropriated. And the question I have is some clarification of the chronology here. So $911 million was the preferred build that went to the Capital Investment Committee in June and was declined. They were told, purportedly, that there’s $711 million of reserved funding. In the Budget documents, there’s, I think, $520 million put aside—is that balance of about $200 million - $250 million a contingency? And if so, where in the Budget documents does that contingency sit?

And can he confirm that to pull back from the preferred offering, which was taken to the Capital Investment Committee, and sit inside that reserved ring-fencing of $711 million, that several things will need to happen. First of all, the bed numbers will need to be reduced, I’m hearing, by about 128; that the ward tower will not be built; that the existing hospital will not be remediated; there’ll be no changes except as required on level one of the medical wing to accommodate the link bridge; medical wards, surgical wards, and outpatients remain in the surgical wing while the emergency department and ICU are decommissioned—a substantial scale down from what was presented to the Capital Investment Committee.

So a range of questions there. Can he talk through that chronology? Is it correct that they were talked down from the $900 million to $711 million? Is that ring-fenced funding? If so, why did the books only show $500 million; where’s the other $200 million? If he could talk to that range of things over two questions it would be much appreciated. Thank you.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Just on those two issues. I suppose the starting point is to be clear, too, that when it comes to infrastructure proposals, what were previously the DHBs had their kind of preferred starting points. But with all these things, and the reason why we had a capital investment committee, we still have a capital investment committee, and why Te Whatu Ora – Health New Zealand has an infrastructure and investment committee—and the process of establishing that will take over that role eventually—is precisely because the role of the Capital Investment Committee and, ultimately, its replacement, is to evaluate proposals against need. And so it may well be the case that up to now, and maybe even in the future when it’s individual hospitals as part of the Te Whatu Ora – Health New Zealand network, hospitals will put up what they would like. But it is for the financial decision makers to evaluate that against assessed need. And so when it came to, for example, the ICU bed expansion project, we knew because of various evaluations and analysis that our per capita rate of ICU beds was lower than countries we often compare ourselves with, and we knew that we needed to expand the number of ICU beds.

I have to say a lot of this debate happened in the kind of febrile atmosphere of COVID and the Delta outbreak and whether we had enough. A crisis was declared by some people, and, in fact, there was no a crisis. We managed through that process, but it didn’t get away from the fact that we did need and we do need additional ICU capacity. When the officials went through their assessment about what was needed and what was deliverable—not just in terms of creating physical space and the building that was needed, but also building the workforce that was needed—we landed on an additional 85 beds, which we thought we could achieve by 1 July 2024, and we could build both the physical structures and the workforce to go with that so that we had those fully staffed additional ICU beds. And that adds quite significantly to our share of ICU beds across the hospital network.

In terms of Whangarei Hospital, a similar sort of thing happened. We know that Whangārei Hospital is well overdue for replacement, and the work on preparing for that and planning it and designing for it has been going for some time. The way the process works is that what was then the DHB was required to put up a business case—there’s various stages of business case development that ultimately results in a final detailed business case, and we’re not there yet with Whangarei Hospital, but there were initial kind of concepts put up or initial business cases put up and the role of the Capital Investment Committee was to question that and interrogate it and push back on what they thought was not needed. That has led to various iterations. It’s now led to an amount being set aside in the current health capital envelope of about $711 million. And there’s still ongoing work on developing the final design based on final assessed need for Whangārei. The advice I had at one point, certainly, was that in some of the original proposals that went out, they actually were overspent. There was capacity being sought that certainly was not expected to be needed for some decades, and there was a question about whether it was appropriate to make that investment now.

It is true to say that in many of the large hospital builds, it is increasingly the case that shelf space is provided for. That is to say a physical space—a concrete wall if you like, a concrete shell—but not fitted out for immediate use, simply on the basis that it is reasonably anticipated that maybe within 10 or 15 years that space is going to be needed on the basis of population growth. But it is cheaper to build the superstructure now and do fit out later, as opposed to build for current capacity needs now and then when capacity is exceeded and new capacity is needed, build another superstructure which is very time consuming and very expensive. So that approach is being used. I suspect it’s being used in Whangārei as well. But there is still going to be an assessment about what is actually needed in the short to medium term, and possibly in the longer term, but without overspending on the investment in that respect.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a few questions for the Minister today on a range of topics within the Estimates debate. I firstly wanted to discuss mental health, in particular the acute mental health services. I noted that in this Budget additional funding of about $100 million was provided for over four years, particularly for acute services, and we have heard in the Estimates during the Health Committee that this funding was mainly about treating people with acute needs in community places and to provide more beds for people who recover in the community following an acute episode. We also heard that this was to aim to treat around 1,300 people. My question to the Minister is: we know how many people are aimed to be helped through this funding, but how many more fulltime-equivalent mental health specialists are expected to be needed or contracted through this funding to provide those services? How many people are expected to be employed above what the current rate is?

My second question is regarding the locality planning, and we see that $4.8 million has been allocated for this year, and $27.6 for next year, and I understand that the Minister expects around 60 to 100 localities to be planned for under Pae Ora legislation. Is the Minister any clearer about the expected number of localities that will be in place once locality plans have been made? And with the funding, is there any variation on how much funding will be used based on how many localities are ended up, or will all of that funding be allocated no matter how many localities will actually be discussed?

My third question relates to the Māori Health Authority, and I see that we’ve got $163 million set aside to provide hauora Māori health services. My question is: what is the estimated number of people that the Minister expects will be able to use these services? How many services do we expect to see be established through this fund, and how many people do we expect to use these services? And also, how many people do we expect to be employed who will be able to provide these services under the $163 million that’s been set aside?

My fourth question then revolves around Pharmac, and I see that we had quite an increase to the Budget about how much money would be set aside in the Pharmac budget. But I wondered whether the Minister had any estimate on how many new drugs would be procured versus how many drugs that are already funded would be expanded. Does the Minister have any estimate on any new drugs that would be funded versus an expansion of drugs that are already funded?

And then my last question is: with the staffing numbers for the Māori Health Authority, Health New Zealand, and the Ministry of Health, is he aware of any increase in the number of staff following the establishment of the Māori Health Authority, Health New Zealand, and the Ministry of Health as a package together, or is it the same number of staff that we had under the district health board model? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member for her extensive array of questions covering a number of issues. I’ll do my best to respond to all of them.

So in relation to the additional $100 million of mental health spend, I should add, too, that it also includes $10 million for workforce development. There’s some for acute services and meeting that acute need, particularly in child and adolescent mental health services, which we know is under significant strain at the moment. That’s about getting additional professionals. In that respect, I should also add, though, we know there are a number of positions that are funded at the moment but not filled, so part of the recruitment effort that Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand is going through is to fill those existing vacancies but also to beef up some of those services. I can’t put a specific number on it and there still needs to be some evaluative work on exactly what is required in that respect. So there’s a combination of recruiting into existing funded positions, so that won’t be an additional cost, plus some additional positions that will be needed to expand capacity for child and adolescent mental health care.

There are other aspects to the $100 million, too. There’s money going into eating disorders—we know we have to step up our capacity there—and then additional funding for more community places for those who have been, as I think the member acknowledged in her period when she was posing these questions, for those who’ve been through an acute episode but who need a safe place to continue their recovery in the community. We need more of those places, so there’s money set aside for that.

In terms of localities, the member may have misheard me, perhaps. She referred to 60 to 100 localities. I actually said 60 to 80; my expectation was 60 to 80 localities. I don’t have any greater clarity on the numbers. I can say, however, that in addition to the nine prototypes that were announced early this year, an additional three are now almost ready to go, as I understand it, but I cannot give the committee any clearer numbers in terms of expectation on that.

The member asked if there would be a variation in the funding used in relation to them and therefore whether the total amount would be spent regardless of the number of localities. It may well differ from one locality to the next about how they go about setting themselves up. I expect a locality that covers a smaller geographic area won’t require, necessarily, the intensity of input from whoever is going to lead that network than one that covers a bigger area, but the reason why we announced the original nine as prototypes is because we are still feeling our way in terms of putting some of these processes together. I was in Nelson on Friday; the level of enthusiasm by, certainly, primary healthcare givers about wanting to be engaged in developing those processes and developing the collaboration that they identify they need and want to be part of at a more community level, that enthusiasm is very high. So I have great confidence about that.

The member asked about the Māori Health Authority, Te Aka Whai Ora, and an estimate of the number of people who will use their services. There will be ongoing engagement between Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand and Te Aka Whai Ora - Māori Health Authority. In terms of funding kaupapa Māori health services, other specific Māori health services, some of that will be in money directly allocated for Te Aka Whai Ora, and others will come through Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand as they make decisions about who is best placed to commission particular services. And that will be kind of worked its way through over the next couple of years. On that basis, it’s therefore not possible to say, of the services commissioned by the Māori Health Authority, how many will use them. There’s a certain number of services at the moment that have been commissioned before, previously by the district health boards (DHBs). I expect Te Aka Whai Ora - Māori Health Authority will pick those up and will commission those directly. But I expect also there will be additional services that they will pick up with money provided through Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand. It’s therefore not possible also to answer the member’s other question, which was how many will be employed, because it will depend on what particular services are commissioned and over what time.

In relation to Pharmac—I appreciate I’m running short of time in this particular slot. Again, I know Pharmac is working with others through additional either indications for existing treatments that they fund or procuring new treatments. They are working very closely, I know, with the Cancer Control Agency on all of those things, new indications and whole new treatments. So again, even at this point, it’s not possible to say exactly what the number will be. I imagine that will become clearer in the next sort of two to three months. I met with Pharmac yesterday to ask for progress on how that is going. They said they’re kind of at the final stages of making some decisions about that, so we’ll kind of see how that goes in that respect.

And then finally, the member just asked whether there’s going to be any increase in the establishment of staff, as I understood the member. Through all those entities, the Ministry of Health, Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand, Te Aka Whai Ora - Māori Health Authority, and any of the other, and then Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand on the basis that they’ve got all these former DHB staff. Apart from additional capacity or capability that this Budget is expected to fund, I’m not expecting there to be a dramatic increase. The Ministry of Health has some additional funding by way of a tagged contingency. As they go through their review and work out exactly how it is they need to staff up and what the skills mix is that they need, having transferred a number of functions into Te Whatu Ora and Te Aka Whai Ora, it remains to be seen exactly what their final staff complement will look like, but it will be a smaller ministry than it was a year ago.

In terms of the other entities, I’m not expecting, in terms of establishment numbers, significantly bigger numbers. There are a lot of vacancies in front-line operational roles, as we know, throughout the hospital network that are vacancies of positions that are already funded, and then there will be any additional positions that will be funded through additional allocations this year, as I said, particularly in the mental health area, where we have to grow our capacity in some of those more acute services.

So I know that doesn’t provide any numbers for the member, but it does give an indication about where modest additional numbers might appear. But we do have a large health workforce. The public health workforce numbers 80,000-plus, and so I’m not expecting a dramatic increase in that, given the number of vacancies that we are carrying, even just at the moment.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Thank you. Tēnā koe te Minita. Just a couple of questions, I’m going to try and pull them out really quickly—not like housie but short of—specifically around inequities and Pharmac.

In respect to the report that came back from Pharmac, what changes have been made to the powers and functions of the Māori advisory board following reports that they found it challenging to engage with the organisation at the right level?

A medicines strategy has been mooted as helping to identify inequities. Will the Minister be directing the ministry to develop an updated medicines strategy in consultation with stakeholders, including Māori, Pasifika, and disabled people? On its contents over the next 12 months, actually—to add to that question—was a budget bid put in that would have been sufficient to totally clear Pharmac’s options for an investment list or wish list, and, if not, why not? Does the Government have a target for when they intend all drugs on the wish list to be funded by?

We saw the COVID process—vaccine and drugs were able to be actioned within two to three months. Does the Minister think that it’s acceptable that we’re still lagging behind comparable countries on funding lifesaving medicines, and, if not, why aren’t we seeing the urgency that our whānau with life-threatening conditions need? And just to add to that, we know that—and I hope you can do shorthand—Pharmac has a chronic shortage of Māori representation. How many Māori are members of Pharmac’s staff? How many Māori, Pasifika, and disabled people are on Pharmac’s pinnacle advisory committees? Thank you.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for her questions. Just on the last question she asked: I’m sorry, I don’t have specific figures on that. What I can report, however, is Pharmac is aware that the number of Māori, for example, in their workforce in advisory positions—in fact, right throughout the organisation—is disproportionate. Māori are underrepresented in that workforce, and they know they have work to do in that respect and that was evident from the review. But I’m also confident that now, with the effort that they’re making as a consequence of the review, in terms of their relationships with other entities and specifically in relation to its workforce issues with the ministry, that they know they need to get on—in terms of recruitment—and work harder to recruit more Māori in a whole range of positions through that organisation.

Which I guess comes back to the member’s first question, which is in relation to the Māori advisory board. I’m not aware of changes to the functions and powers of that board. What I do know is that with Te Aka Whai Ora now being established, it’s my expectation that Pharmac will establish a very close relationship with Te Aka Whai Ora, because we know, in terms of its equity performance, Māori have done particularly badly in that respect. If you look at the cancer treatments that they have given priority to, they’re typically cancer treatments that are not the ones that Māori are more statistically susceptible to. So in my engagement with Pharmac yesterday, I made it clear that in terms of strengthening relationships, I expect them to draw on, for now, the skills and mātauranga that will be reposed in Te Aka Whai Ora - Māori Health Authority.

In relation to a medicines strategy, I can confirm for the member that it is my expectation that the ministry will lead a medicine strategy—or lead the development of one—that came out of the Pharmac review as well. It’s appropriate that the ministry provide that leadership, drawing in Te Aka Whai Ora, Te Whatu Ora as well, and, naturally, Pharmac as the procurement agency for it. And putting together a medicine strategy will necessarily entail good quality engagement with Māori, with Pacific, with the disabled community, and with other relevant health communities and so on as well. So I think that has been made pretty clear following the Pharmac review.

In terms of the options for funding list, the last assessment I saw—if funding were to be provided to fully fund the options for funding list, it would add about $450 million a year to funding for Pharmac in order to do that. Pharmac’s current budget is roughly $1.1 billion to $1.2 billion; that has increased 44 percent since we have been in Government. So we have increased it and we’ve had a significant increase this year and in this budget—$71 million this year, $120 million next year; those are quite significant increases. I simply don’t think we would have the means in a single year to increase its baseline by $450 million. That is the challenge, always, with an area like health, but all of the health budget within Government but within health itself: making the decisions, setting the priorities, and making the trade-offs for where funding goes. I think one of the challenges we have as we think about health funding is, you know, there’s a lot that a lot of people would like us to do. There’s a lot we would like to do, but there are always going to be limits, and it’s a question of how we articulate those limits; how we make those decisions on those limits. But Pharmac is required to work within the limits that it has got and it is doing that.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and if I could just thank the Minister for his time today in Estimates. We are looking at the amount allocated in Vote Health. I want to look specifically into mental health. It’s fair to say that we don’t have many opportunities to drill down into the numbers and to understand the plan for them. In fact, successive attempts that I’ve tried in the Health Committee, I was blocked by Labour MPs for calling in the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission to do a briefing on their first report. In fact, that is the context for Vote Health and the Estimates for this year. The backdrop is that report from the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, which was very interesting, because the Government spent a lot of time and energy setting up that commission with legislation in the House, yet its first report they blocked. At the Health Committee, I was joined by ACT, the Greens, and the Māori Party supporting that briefing, because what we wanted to drill down was to understand that, yes, you can just throw about numbers, but how did we get in a position where the numbers are not shifting the dial? Because that report did say there’d be no material improvements. But also, when you dig down into that report, it says there was leadership needed and a well-managed plan to execute change.

I think why this is important is because not only did we have that report, we also had the report from the Auditor-General, who said, quite clearly, that there were no performance measures in place to whether the public is receiving value for money for mental health. I think we’ve got to look at that report from the Auditor-General about the evaluated framework, the report from the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission that said there was no plan, and, of course, what we also know is that it wasn’t that long ago that Official Information Act documents revealed Ministry of Health officials running a risk lens over mental health statistics as to not embarrass the Government.

So my question to the Minister, taking in the context of those quite damning reports and statements, is: what has changed? What will give this House confidence that the money that was announced in 2019—because, of course, that is some of the Estimates for this year—plus the new money as well. What has changed? How will we know in the House here that that money will actually make a difference, that there’s actually leadership, a clear plan, and, ultimately, that will execute change? And also, for the Auditor-General, what has changed around performance measures so that the public knows that they will get value for money in the money that we are talking about today?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for his questions and, perhaps, slightly more rhetorical than, I think, some of the data. I think the member takes some of the comments in some reports out of context. The Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission made comments about acute services earlier this year and was concerned that not a lot had changed. But the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission was very complimentary about the Access and Choice programme—that’s the programme that was funded out of the 2019 Budget and the roll-out of which is continuing. I think the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission has been very supportive of that.

I mean, ironically, the member refers to comments about leadership being needed. It was this Government that re-established the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission because the previous Mental Health Commission had been abolished by the previous Government in 2012 because, apparently, they didn’t like being called out on what was a mental health system that was not meeting needs there. That might explain why the country went for years without the emerging mental health crisis not actually being attended to at all.

So we did a number of things: we put in place the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, we made the $1.9 billion investment—this all followed the review that was conducted in 2018. That was the act of leadership. The act of leadership was with my predecessor, but one Dr David Clark accepting the advice that, actually, the big gap—the big gap—in front-line mental health services was for those with mild to moderate mental health needs. That informed the integrated primary mental health care programme that is now seeing 1,000 fulltime-equivalent roles funded right across GP practices, community health services, kaupapa Māori health services, and youth one-stop shops, and we haven’t finished yet; we’ve still got more to go. As I get around and meet the people in those roles, but, most importantly, meet the people using those services, they are highly complimentary about what is being done; the difference that it is making to people’s lives.

I think what is interesting is to see that the demand in the number of referrals to acute mental health services has been somewhat static over the last couple of years, even when we’ve had COVID-19 and lockdowns and disruption to people’s lives and their social lives, and, we know, an increased impact, particularly on younger people, on their sense of mental wellbeing and their mental health—we haven’t seen a huge increase in referrals to acute mental health services. It’s conjecture at this stage because we’re still waiting to see evaluations. But the sense is that even at 1,000 fulltime-equivalent contracted roles, of which about 850 are filled, that is absorbing impact that would otherwise have been sent off to those acute services.

So I’m confident that the leadership that is needed that the member referred to is there and has been there and continues to be there. I’m very pleased with the continued roll-out of the integrated primary mental health care programme. That has been the subject of review not only by the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission but also by the Implementation Unit run out of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, which said, at least in that respect—and they were more critical about the infrastructure needs of mental health, and I am too—when it came to the integrated primary mental health care programme, that was being implemented on track and as expected. We will continue that. There will be struggles. We’re trying to draw from a workforce that we’re struggling to draw from across other mental health needs as well. But we are getting there.

The member notes—and I take from the fact that he notes, that he’s critical of—a comment about officials running a risk lens over the release of data. I agree with the member—I agree with the member—and I agreed with him at the time: officials do not need to be and should not be running risk lens about the disclosure of statistical material, about data. We all need to know that data. That’s what helps us improve systems and allows members opposite to provide the scrutiny that they ought to be providing. I can assure the member that I am satisfied that in the disclosure of data, in the release of data, that is now happening, as that member would expect and as I expect, to ensure transparency of what is happening. In all those respects, I am satisfied with what is happening.

I would, finally, refer the member to the Kia Manawanui long-term mental health programme. One of the things that came out of the 2018 review was the need for a longer-term horizon, a 10-year horizon. We’ve done that with that programme, and aspects of what was laid out in that 10-year programme are being implemented as we speak.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to drill down a bit. Out of the $100 million investment over four years for specialist mental health and addiction package, the $27 million for community-based crisis services talks there about a range of residential, home-based, and co-response teams. Because, of course, the first thing Labour did in 2017 when they came in was they cancelled National’s mental health co-response service and redirected—

Hon Dr David Clark: Rubbish!

MATT DOOCEY: —the $8 million. Well, that’s on file and that was actually your legacy, David Clark. You were the health Minster at the time that cancelled that project and the police have gone out every year and said they urgently need the co-response service. Under that health Minister’s watch, 50 percent of mental health crisis calls were not even being attended by the police and that’s what we’ve lost—five years of that pilot that could have been rolled out to most of New Zealand now, and, because that Minister redirected the $8 million, the pilot in Wellington had to use $700,000 of its own baseline funding. Of already stretched baseline funding, they had to find that money for their pilot. That’s the evidence we build upon today: five years of lost opportunity.

I didn’t expect to go for so long but my question to the Minister is: how much of that $27 million will be tagged to the co-response teams and what sort of coverage does he expect from that?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Madam Chair, thank you. I thank the member for his question. I won’t repeat the response that my colleague Dr David Clark provided, but I accept his advice in that respect in relation to who did what in the early stages of this Government.

Can I just say to the member that there has been ongoing trialling or piloting of joint responses to mental health needs in the community and Capital and Coast DHB, police in Wellington - Hutt Valley, and the Wellington Free Ambulance had a system going and that’s been evaluated. So that did happen. But I can say that of that $27 million - plus for community beds, if you like, under the $100 million appropriation in this year’s Budget, that is really focused on beds in the community and the support and recovery support that is needed for those who’ve had acute episodes. It is not intended to provide responses pre-admission to acute services. So I hope that clarifies that for that member.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora, e mihi atu ki te, ki a koe, e te Māngai me te rangatira, e te Minita.

[Hello, and greetings to you, Madam Speaker, and to my esteemed colleague, to the Minister.]

I have two questions, or two groups of questions. The first one: as a member of the Health Committee—the very hard-working select committee that it is—we started the term with 53 petitions. We have cleared that backlog pretty much, but the bulk of them were about, of course, Pharmac funding particular types of medicines, particularly for people with rare disorders but also for things like cancer; something that has been approved for one use but has the potential to be used for multiple uses. I bear in mind a recent petition, one we’re dealing with at the moment, from Carmen Shanks, on cystic fibrosis. I acknowledge her and the work she has done in sharing her stories with us, and also Cystic Fibrosis New Zealand and the advocacy they’ve done in this area for Trikafta.

When we’re looking at the review that’s been done and the Government’s response to it, I wonder, when you’re looking at the broader picture of how we do equity, is there any proposal that you will look at those things and think, “Well, if somebody with cystic fibrosis”—for example—“has access to this medication which means they’re not going to hospital every few months for, usually, one to two weeks at a time”—which has been estimated through that petition at $40,000 a time, or $60,000 estimated for a lung transplant. It’s a massive, massive pressure on the health system for that. So I think that in that bigger picture, the potential to offset, rather than just have the contained amount of “This is Pharmac funding, this little box here.”—to say, “Right, we’re going to save substantial money over here. How can we do something that just acknowledges the impact it will have in the longer term?” So, yeah, I’m interested to hear about that.

Then the second one is always about the commitment to trans and non-binary healthcare, the intersex guidelines. I’m interested to see where the progress is up to with that, and just acknowledging also we weren’t successful in the advocacy at the time of Pae Ora to get a rare disorders strategy being written, but now it looks like that is going ahead. We’re still advocating for the medicines. So I acknowledge my colleagues across the House who have been advocating strongly for that. It looks like that will need to go ahead in order for things to work. So I’ve accepted we’re not having a rainbow strategy just yet. But, again, where are things up to, especially given the recent commitment to intersex healthcare and providing guidelines inside the health service? Kia ora.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member Elizabeth Kerekere, too, for those questions, and I’ll do my best to assist. I’m just conscious, on the second question the member has asked, my colleague the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall has portfolio responsibility, and she is, unfortunately, unwell at the moment.

Hon Members: She’s here.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Oh, she’s here? She’s handed in her sick note! She will very quickly hand me a couple of little points on that—except to say I can say, in two respects, Dr Verrall has been at the forefront of ensuring that some of the intersex medical care that, I think, our system had not been providing particularly well previously has now stepped up, and there is now, I think, a more solid commitment within the system as a consequence of Dr Verrall’s leadership in that respect.

In terms of a rainbow strategy, I acknowledge the points that the member made through the debating of the bill, and it’s timely in a way that the member should raise that when we’ve just seen that the RainbowYOUTH organisation has had to sort of pause themselves for a few weeks while they come to terms with some tragedies that they are dealing with. They are an organisation that we do want to support, and continue to support, because they do very important work for young people, and it confirms, I think, that it’s an area that we do need to be across just as much as we can.

On the point about Pharmac and the way it makes its decisions about medicines, particularly new medicines, I can confirm for the member that, in terms of the range of factors, when the Pharmacology and Therapeutics Advisory Committee, I think they’re called, make their decision about whether it’s appropriate to have a drug—it’s a different committee that decides whether or not to fund it—they do take into account those factors: the social factors, if you like, too; what it will do for sufferers of particular conditions, as well. But the committee that then decides on the funding has to sort of look at that with what they’ve got available.

In terms of the comments the member makes about funding some drugs for some indications and not others, that is one of the challenges that we’ve got, and that’s one of the issues that Pharmac is going through right now with the additional funding that they’ve got, particularly in the cancer space. We know that Keytruda is a classic example. It’s funded for some indications but not for others, but we know that it’s efficacious for other indications. So that’s one of the assessments they’ve been going through right now, to make sure that we are up to speed. If I go back to the work that the Cancer Control Agency did under the leadership of Professor Di Sarfati, who now turns out to be the Acting Director-General of Health, the work that was done on the gap between cancer treatments here and like-minded countries, particularly Australia, Canada, and the UK, showed that we’ve got a gap that we need to fill, and I’m confident that Pharmac is focused on that.

In terms of cystic fibrosis and the funding of Trikafta, I know that Pharmac has been devoting some attention to that. It is on their options for funding list, and in fact they’ve expanded the coverage. A few months ago they indicated that they would fund it, where they were able to, for those 12 years and over; they’ve now extended that to six years and over. I do note that they are actively considering proposals from Vertex, the pharmaceutical company that supplies Trikafta. So that is all well under way.

Just going back to the rainbow health issue, too, just to acknowledge that there is work going on delivering models of care for transgender patients and making sure that those patient needs are properly taken care of. There are eight primary care centres funded to do that. Just to know that there is some attention being paid to that, but I know the member is very keen to see a specific strategy, and I’m confident that one day we will have something discreet to point members of that community to, to say “This is what you should expect.”

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, before I take the next call, we have three minutes left, and then I will call time on this part of the debate.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, you’ll be unsurprised that I take a keen interest in the women’s health strategy, and I was just wondering: what progress has been made by the new health entities in forming the women’s health strategy? And also wondering if you could outline what impact these wider strategies will have at a local level. Thank you.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Madam Chair, thank you. The statutory health strategies that have to be developed that are in the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act require those strategies to be developed, I think, in time for 1 July 2023. I think the member can be confident that work is under way to pull together not only the New Zealand Health Strategy but, specifically, statutorily mandated strategies as well. In the meantime, I know that, again, my colleague the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, who has portfolio responsibility for women’s health, is actively leading a number of initiatives to improve women’s health and the way our health system responds to women’s health needs, in a range of areas, in terms of cancer screening and what have you, and in terms of maternity action, and those sorts of areas—but in women’s health generally. But the reality is, you know, we do have a requirement to produce a women’s health strategy, and I’m confident that that will be done by the initial deadline of 1 July next year. I know that one of the approaches that will be important is to engage with appropriate advocacy groups to make sure we have a women’s health strategy that fully encompasses the needs as identified by women health leaders today.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we now have the Minister of Housing. The Minister of Housing will be available to the committee from 5 p.m. through till 6 p.m., the dinner break. So we’ll just take a moment to get organised.

Housing

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee): Thank you, Madam Chair. As the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee, it is my pleasure to lead off the Estimates examination for Vote Housing and Urban Development. Firstly, I’d like to acknowledge our committee, including the clerks; the officials from across the Vote; the Minister of Housing, the Hon Megan Woods; and the Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness) the Hon Marama Davidson for appearing before the select committee.

Vote Housing and Urban Development has a total Vote of $4.577 billion in 2022-23, an increase of 36 percent from last year. I’m pleased to read the report for the breakdown of figures that make up this significant Vote. We interrogated the public housing wait-list growth, learning that the list has slowed but is still significant. The Minister advised that the wait-list is contingent on many interrelated factors. The Minister said that the Government remains on target to provide 18,350 new public and transitional houses by 2024.

We discussed the proportion of private versus public housing. We observed a three-way split in housing developments between the market, affordable, and public housing. The Minister noted this proportion was necessary for creating strong and mixed communities. She also said there has been significant building at a nationwide level, including housing in communities that had not seen new public housing for decades.

We asked the Minister about Kāinga Ora’s building programme. In March 2021, the Government announced a housing reset including $3.8 billion for the Housing Acceleration Fund to unlock more land. Kāinga Ora was granted an additional $2 billion of lending to acquire and develop land to increase housing supply. We noted from June 2021 to May 2022 that there was a net gain of 21 new houses. The Minister told us that the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund funding was going into infrastructure development and that there will be 1,815 homes completed shortly. The Minister emphasised that a decade of under-investment by the previous Government and inadequate infrastructure had been a sizable barrier. We heard that the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund represents the biggest Government spend in infrastructure since the 1970s. We heard that 35 proposals are being considered and are expected to increase homes by another 35,000. The Minister acknowledged significant constraints and delays through COVID, in particular in Auckland, but said she is still pleased with the pace of delivery.

The Minister told us about three large-scale projects in Porirua, Mangere, and Mount Roskill with significant numbers of houses being developed. We asked the Minister about the cost of building and maintenance. Kāinga Ora advised that the cost to build had risen by 40 percent over the last five years. We noted that there had been an increase in Kāinga Ora staff, and the Minister advised us that the function and role of staff had expanded significantly.

We asked the Hon Marama Davidson about the Homelessness Action Plan, with a review being issued in March 2022. The Associate Minister noted that there had been good progress but more focus on young people and kaupapa Māori solutions was needed. We observed that over half of homeless people are under 25. Emergency and transitional housing was discussed, including the Rotorua emergency housing situation. We heard about the response for this situation with the Rotorua housing hub pilot Te Pokapū.

We asked about Māori-led housing solutions. The Minister updated us on Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga. We heard there are a number of partnerships with iwi across the country, including a mix of affordable, public, and papakāinga housing, and increasing employment and skills training.

Finally, Budget 2022 proposes $208 million to help people into homeownership with interest-free loans through the Progressive Home Ownership scheme. It also provides $138 million for first-home grant subsidies. We recommend that Vote Housing and Urban Development for the year ending 30 June 2023 be accepted. Thank you.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I want to thank the chair of the Social Services and Community committee, Angie Warren-Clark, for outlining that, it was an interesting session.

I have a series of questions for the Minister of Housing in relation to Budget 2022. The first is the Budget appropriates $355 million for a reset and redesign of emergency housing, and the various Budget papers note that the emergency housing system has not been working as intended. Treasury notes that it is costly, associated with poor outcomes, and I think everyone in the Parliament can agree on that. So a couple of questions in relation to that reset and redesign: number one, $355 million over four years is a very large sum of money. It’s worth nothing that we already spend an extraordinary sum of money on emergency housing, so what is the intended use of that money? Where is the money going to go?

The second is that the Budget papers note, and I’m referring to the February 2022 paper that’s been proactively released—that paper notes that decisions would be made in March 2022 around that redesign. Have those decisions been made, and, if so, what are they and have they been communicated? Because we’re now in August and, as far as I can see, we don’t have any real, substantive progress on that. So what’s the money for, in terms of the reset and redesign of emergency housing, and what progress can the Minister report to date in relation to that appropriation? I have further questions on other issues, but perhaps I’ll just leave that there for now to kick-start the debate.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): It’s probably useful to signal members that it’s my intention, through the course of the hour that I’m here for this committee, to let questions bank up. I will answer the question that’s there, but I think probably a better use of the time in that way. The $355 million that the member asked about in his question—for the redesign of the emergency housing—yes, this work has been progressing, in terms of it is under way. It provides to take the first steps—the focus of that redesign being on improving the wellbeing of people in emergency housing, improving the suitability of accommodation and support for the people in urgent housing need, and also enabling Māori-led or kaupapa Māori solutions to address urgent housing needs. When we look at the breakdown of the number of people who are in emergency housing, we see a predominance of Māori, way above what the population would be. The intention is to target that towards Hamilton and Wellington. This will need to be place-based. It will need to be working with the local communities for approaches that make sense in that location, just as we’ve been working with local providers in Rotorua.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m interested in exploring a little bit, today, with the Minister, the Government’s approach to accessible housing and particularly in light of the fact that New Zealand’s just had their review at the United Nations on how well we’re doing on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I note that our Human Rights Commission and their summing up to that community said, and I’ll quote, “They look forward to the committee’s recommendations about how the New Zealand Government must act to support affordable and accessible housing options, including substantially increasing the target for universally designed new-build public housing.” So I’m interested in the Minister’s response to that.

And I want to just step through my reading of where the Government’s policy is at around accessible housing in New Zealand and ask the Minister how she believes that could come anyway near meeting our obligations under that convention. So my understanding is that Kāinga Ora has a target of 15 percent universal design for new builds. Labour Party policy is 25 percent, but that target is 15 percent. Our public housing makes up quite a small share of overall housing stock, and there’s an estimate of about 2 percent of our housing stock being accessible at the moment, when 25 percent of the population have disabilities.

A concern has been raised with the Green Party via Lifemark, who are the organisation in this country who accredits universal design, where they’ve said that Kāinga Ora’s measure of full accessible design allows a house with stairs into that house to be said to meet the full universal design standard—something that they would not consider near full universal design. So they’ve raised concerns of kind of “disability washing”. Also recognising that the Minister has not committed to protect funding for retrofitting Kāinga Ora houses or homes in the face of increased funding pressures within that organisation. The Government has not bothered to incentivise universal design through KiwiBuild, or create a preferential ballot for disabled people to the accessible homes that might be built through KiwiBuild, and hasn’t even bothered to collect data on how many houses choose to incorporate universal design standards through the KiwiBuild scheme—despite a significant amount of Government money and resource going into that scheme—and the Government has not updated the building code to improve the accessibility of residential properties.

All of those things combined, to my mind, to create the situation that we hear, of disabled people showering at work, of disabled people being stuck unable to find accessible homes, of being unable to visit friends or family because their homes are not accessible, of having very real and tangible limitations on their ability to participate in our society and live with dignity. So I’m very keen to hear the Minister’s justification of those policies or, hopefully, a commitment to change them.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. I, firstly, wanted to touch on the first-home grants. We know that in these Estimates, the Government has set aside more money for first-home grants and changed the caps for first-home grants. I’m interested in knowing how many Kiwis the Minister expects will be eligible and will apply for the first-home grants in this year and how many people would be expected to be housed that weren’t housed because of the first-home grants and the increase to the cap.

I’m also interested in whether the Minister has any modelling to suggest that the change of house prices falling might see more or fewer or the same number of people applying for the first-home grants in this estimated year ahead. Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I want to ask the Minister about the Affordable Housing Fund, which was appropriated in Budget 2022—$350 million in total. I note, for the committee, that the Treasury didn’t invite the bid for the appropriation on the basis that existing baseline funding could be used to undertake a pilot programme with a focus on market affordable places. This is from the advice to the Minister of Finance: “It is unclear what value supporting community affordable rentals would have over supporting additional public housing places. A smaller quantum of funding would also encourage the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development to support the development of the sector through better value for money measures.”

So I suppose my question for the committee is: what prompted the Government to appropriate the $350 million? Because it is yet another tranche of funding in the housing space, and one could argue—as indeed the Treasury does—that a more effective use of the money would be supporting public housing places, either provided through Kāinga Ora or indeed the community housing sector. So my question for the Minister is about why they went for that option and such a large quantum of money, scaling up over four years.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I’ll address the three areas of questions that have been put here. First of all, around the accessibility question, the Kāinga Ora target is indeed 15 percent. In terms of delivery on that, some of the COVID lockdowns meant that stuff that was contracted after that target was put in place is yet to be delivered into this year, so most of that delivery takes place from here on in, just because of the contracting cycle within there. The member is also right to identify it is Labour Party policy this term to have a target of 25 percent. I’d like to point out this term has not concluded.

In terms of the definitions which Kāinga Ora uses, in terms of how it is that we have, obviously, both universal design and accessible design that we are building to; they are very different, as I’m sure the member will be aware. In terms of the universal design, it is possible—although I haven’t been in a universal design, and I’ve been in a lot of our new-build Kāinga Ora homes—but I can’t remember a universal design home that I’ve been in that does have stairs. I’d be interested in having more information about that. I’m assuming what the member is referring to is a property that is on ground level that may currently have stairs but has the ability to have a ramp added, which will make it an accessible property. But I’m interested if there is more information about that. Of course, our chair of Kāinga Ora, Vui Mark Gosche, is someone that is utterly, personally committed to the issue of accessibility in housing and makes it an absolute priority for the organisation.

In terms of the commitment for the funding of the retrofit, this is work that we are still working through. I think it’s unfortunate that some people use that information and caused a lot of anxiety in the community, who thought there was going to be no accessible houses built. That is far from it. The question we have is: how do we fund the delta in terms of maintaining our properties? One of the consequences of a decade of not having redevelopments of homes means that we have an additional operating expense of $70 million a year for maintenance on our homes—it costs $4,000 to maintain a home that is a new build; it costs $16,000 to maintain one of our older, undeveloped or redeveloped homes. So, in terms of that delta, there is a legacy from a decade of failing to fund housing properly in this country and, indeed, not only putting the funding in but extracting $580 million in dividends from Housing New Zealand along the way. So I hope that addresses the accessibility questions.

We then had questions around the First Home Loan and First Home Grants, and in terms of the number of people, and what we do hope to see is—and the modelling that we have suggests that changes could support—up to 7,000 additional first-home buyers to access the First Home Grant, and 2,500 additional first-home buyers to access the First Home Loan in the first year. There are a lot of “ifs” and, obviously, as with every model, there are assumptions that are built into that. In terms of how falling prices may factor into that, I guess what we’ll see is, actually, more houses could potentially fall under the caps, so there could be more choice. It’s also, I think, a really salient underscoring of why it was that we chose not to do the indexation to market prices. This was a policy option that I originally was looking at to see if that was a better way than having the ad hoc taking back to raise those caps. What we saw was that we could just see a whole lot of volatility—really hard for people to know what their access would be around that—and that is why we have instead opted for a regularised review of those caps.

Then we had a question around the Affordable Housing Fund, in terms of why it was that we put this in, and why we put this in over adding this to our public housing delivery. I think the member also asked whether the money could have been better used directed to community housing providers (CHPs). Of course, the Affordable Housing Fund is largely a fund that is directed to CHPs. We have explicitly said that we want to partner with councils, we want to partner with CHPs, and we want to partner with iwi in delivery on this. The purpose of this, and why I think it underscores a difference between the two sides of this House on housing—the question of why you have to put another scheme in place. Well, the answers are really simple: it’s to repair what I think was one of the most fundamental pieces of damage that was done to our housing system under the previous Government. The sell-off of State houses had the—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Where did they go? Where did they go?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —effect of not only making—so I’m a being asked by interjections, rather than someone taking a call: “Where did they go?” Well, I’d like to know the answer to that as well, Mr Brownlee, because I know—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: They’re still there.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —a number of tenants that could be put in them. It is simply not true to say they are still there. The National Government finished Government in 2017 with 1,500 fewer public houses than they started with, even accounting for transfers to CHPs. So, if you are generous and you say that you’ll account for the transfer to CHPs, there were still 1,500 fewer public houses in this country when National finished office than when they started. Added to that, they failed to build over that period of time.

What I’m saying about the Affordable Housing Fund and why that is required is that one of the effects of the sell-off of State houses was to pit CHPs or the community sector, councils—what we used to call social housing in this country—against the then Housing New Zealand, in competition for the income-related rent subsidy (IRRS). Of course, the operating money of the income-related rent subsidy, and the operating supplement that goes alongside public housing, is the constraint on numbers. When we talk about number of places added, it is usually around IRRS places that are funded—18,000 by our Government, over the course of our time in Government.

What this, effectively, did was squeeze away what we used to have that sat between State housing and market rental homes. That affordable social housing that used to be a mainstay of so many of our towns and cities has been lost. And it is one of the reasons we are in the current housing crisis that we are. So when Mr Bishop asks why it was that we had to reintroduce this fund, I think it underscores how little understanding there is of the complexity of the housing crisis that we face today, and the causes and genesis of the shortages that we see, and where they lie.

We are a Government that are intent on fixing a decade of carnage in housing that was led by the National Government, and we remain committed to it. We will pursue a suite of policies that work together. The Affordable Housing Fund fits very neatly with the measures that we’ve subsequently put in place around Build to Rent. We will fix a housing crisis by taking a systematic approach and funding it adequately—not flogging off houses.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Well, that was a very interesting long political rant from the Minister, but I have a question for her around Kāinga Ora.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Good.

CHRIS BISHOP: “Good.”, she says. Well, that’s good—you can defend it. The briefing that has been released from 17 June from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MHUD) to Kāinga Ora notes that Kāinga Ora debt will increase to $28.9 billion, forecast, in 2033.

Matt Doocey: How much?

CHRIS BISHOP: $28.9 billion by 2033. It will have $2.4 billion of accounting losses from July this year through to 2026, and negative net operating cash flow from the 2024-25 year. There is clearly concern from the MHUD officials—quite rightly, I think—at these facts, and I’ve only read out three of them from this very detailed briefing. The talking points provided for the Minister for her meeting with Kāinga Ora talk about financial sustainability, and there is actually a suggestion in the briefing that Kāinga Ora may be breaching its obligations under the Crown Entities Act 2004 to be a financially sustainable Crown entity. I think this is the briefing that, essentially, led to the questions from my colleague Jan Logie around the home heating programme and accessibility improvements, because it was that briefing that led to the suggestion that there may be cuts to various accessibility improvements, which I think is a legitimate question from Ms Logie.

So a couple of questions for the Minister: is she as concerned about the metrics in this briefing from her officials as they are, and, if she is, what has she done about it subsequently with the Kāinga Ora and the MHUD officials? Can she give the House an update on that?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): The briefing the member is referring to was actually a piece of work that I instigated as Minister—as any responsible Minister would—around the financial sustainability of any agency that they have responsibility for. I think it’s worth noting that this was a paper that was taking the 60-year - long view of financial sustainability of an agency. It asked the very fundamental question: if we do nothing, if we just keep going down the track we are now, what does that look like in the future? Given that we are a Government that is building, that we are a Government that is investing, and that we are growing the asset in this stage, I wanted to dig deep into what it was.

I think one of the interesting things when I read the media comments of shock and outrage about this from the member who’s just resumed his seat is, if he’d actually listened in the Estimates hearing, the chief executive of Kāinga Ora shared all this information with the committee. It was really clearly laid out in the conversation that we had, and so I was somewhat shocked to see the member’s shock at that briefing as it came out, because clearly this was a piece of work that had been going on for some time.

As I intimated in an earlier contribution, when you extract $580 million out of an organisation in dividend and fail to invest in an asset, you don’t redevelop housing; you’re left with operating costs that are $70 million a year higher because of that failure to invest in the asset—not even adding to the asset, but actually just maintaining basic asset-management practices around maintaining the assets that you do have. Of course a Minister has to ask what does the long-term funding sustainability look like, what do we need to do in terms of rent maxima, and what do we need to do in terms of the operating supplement, and that is exactly the piece of work that is ongoing and that I continue to talk to officials from both Kāinga Ora and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development about. I think in terms of asking what has happened as a consequence of that probably under-appreciates the rebuild of public housing in New Zealand that has had to go on for the five years that we have been in Government, where you’ve had a sweated asset that hasn’t been invested in and there hasn’t been the thinking or the funding there to ensure that we do have an enduring housing system, and that is not something this Government is interested in continuing.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I want to ask specifically about Kāinga Ora’s (KO) debt policies, because the briefing notes, at part 23, say that Kāinga Ora have a preference to issue debt privately rather than through the Crown. Of course, because of the new fiscal rules announced for this Budget, debt held on entities like KO and also the New Zealand Transport Agency is now included, when it wasn’t previously, in the fiscal indicators and so, of course, quite rightly, I think the officials have said there may be merit in further investigating Crown debt as an option as opposed to KO borrowing privately.

There’s a couple of questions that arise from that, because it does actually make a material difference to a number of different things. The first is: what is the basis-point difference between Kāinga Ora borrowing privately on its own balance sheet and debt issued by the Crown, if indeed there is one—and I suspect there is—so what is it? And secondly, what advice has the Minister sought, if any, about a different approach to Kāinga Ora debt into the future as a result of the new fiscal rules and also as a result of this briefing?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): The difference is 60 to 70 basis points between core Crown debt borrowing and Kāinga Ora borrowing, and it’s a conversation I continue to have with both agencies.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a question to the Minister regarding the Affordable Housing Fund. In this Budget, in particular, we’ve estimated $119 million to be spent on the Affordable Housing Fund to develop new-build affordable housing for rent or homeownership. I understand this happens through two pathways: through a rental pathway and a build-ready development pathway.

My question to the Minister is: how many homes does the Minister expect to be built or provided that wouldn’t have been under this fund? And also, how many community organisations have already applied under this fund? Thank you, Mr Chair.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Just a quick follow-up with the Minister around the definitions of “universal design”, as well as another point. I think the Minister’s response about ground-floor apartments with steps but the ability to put a ramp over that—that is my understanding of what Kāinga Ora are calling “full universal design”. But my question to the Minister is: how comfortable is she with that, when Lifemark—who’s quite an established and recognised organisation in our country, running the universal design accreditation—that would not meet their standard for full universal design. So here we are having our public housing provider setting a new standard for full universal design that’s inconsistent with the community organisation who’s seen as the leader in this area’s definition, because, for me, that’s quite problematic.

And I do just want to also ask the Minister if—I guess, trying to understand and not having been through the select committee hearings because I sit on another committee—the point around Kāinga Ora funding. And I absolutely echo what the Minister said about the previous Government’s lack of basic maintenance and what a huge problem that has created. I suspect it wasn’t just the National Government; it may have been previous Governments before that compounding this problem. But is it fair to characterise what we saw in that report as saying, “OK, we have this funding shortfall now because of that reality, and we are in a situation of having to trade off retrofitting houses for accessibility.” Because, if that is the case—and I really hope it’s not—that, again, for disabled people feels as if their needs are being put down the list and again are losing out. So I’d love to get that corrected. Thanks.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Sorry, I thought the Minister was going to take a call in response to that. I want to ask about interest deductibility, which has been a vexed issue in this House. I think that both sides’ positions are well known. So we had this strong view from the Government previously that they would remove interest as a legitimate expense for rental properties. And I was surprised, as I think many people were, to see one Friday, two or three weeks ago, the bringing back of interest as a legitimate expense for large corporate build-to-rent developments. Now, I support that. I support the build-to-rent sector. A couple of days later, actually, I was out at Kiwi Property Group’s development at Sylvia Park, a very exciting development next to a train station near a shopping mall. A fantastic development, and so anything we can do to support that is a good thing. But, of course, it does raise the issue of equity with non-corporate—some may call them mum and dad traditional property investors—who, quite rightly, feel like the Government’s U-turn on interest deductibility doesn’t apply to them, because it doesn’t.

So my question to the Minister is: does she recognise this unfairness? And then, secondly, if she does, is there a policy intention to backtrack even further and bring back interest deductibility for everyone?

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Tēnā kōrua. Ka te tū ahau ki te pātai atu e pā ana ki tā tātou whare, e te tuahine, me kōrero i ngā wā katoa.

[Greetings, Mr Chair. Thank you. I stand to ask questions about housing to you, sister, questions that should always be discussed.]

How many recommendations—tēnā kōrua—out of the 20 from the cross-party inquiry into homelessness that was initiated by Labour, the Greens, and the Māori Party in 2016 have been implemented by this Government, if any? How many homes out of the 1,000 that were committed to Māori at last year’s Budget through Whai Kāinga have been built to date? A couple more questions: of the 41,000 whānau homeless in Aotearoa, how many of them are of Māori descent? How many children and rangatahi attending primary school or high school in Aotearoa are homeless, and what resources have been committed to specifically address Māori homelessness? Kia ora koutou.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness)): Tēnā koe. Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you very much to the member Ms Debbie Ngarewa-Packer for a really important question. So I first want to acknowledge that I don’t have, right in front of me, the information that relates directly to that homeless inquiry, out of Parliament’s homelessness inquiry that I was very proud to be a part of, alongside Te Paati Māori and Labour. What is very clear—and I know Minister Woods will talk to the Māori-specific housing that was absolutely asked for throughout that inquiry and across communities—is that is one of the upstanding approaches that this Government, that we haven’t ever seen before. And I know that Minister Woods will pick that up because Minister Henare is not here, but in terms of preventing further homelessness, where, as the Minister already mentioned, it is disproportionately Māori and Māori whānau who are impacted on by homelessness, more Māori-led housing, not just responses to homelessness, is one of the key prevention approaches for preventing even more Māori homelessness.

In terms of the homelessness-specific response to Māori, I know how important it was that my Budget 2022 allocation of $25 million specifically—now, that’s not all of Māori housing, that is specifically for kaupapa Māori tangata whenua responses and approaches to homelessness—was something that the community made really clear, that iwi and Māori made really clear, was going to be important in ongoing and enduring work when it comes to providing the correct wraparound support, the social services—not just the whare and the housing itself, but the actual wraparound support. Further to that, in the rangatahi homelessness space, it, again, is rangatahi Māori who are disproportionately impacted on and are facing some of the harshest homelessness challenges. So, again, $20 million-plus for more supported youth housing and for youth-supported transitional housing was something that the community again made really clear; it was brought through in that previous homelessness inquiry out of Parliament also.

So I am really proud to be picking up those particular solutions as part of the homelessness action plan, and bringing that focus for Māori and rangatahi homelessness to the fore in Budgets and also in immediate action and long-term actions in the Homelessness Action Plan, which I’m hoping to further expand on once I pass back to Minister Woods as well.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I’ll start with the questions around the affordable housing fund that were put by the ACT spokesperson for housing. The affordable housing fund is an innovation fund. So in terms of how many, that is something that we’re going to work through with each of the providers. What we’ve done is we’ve made this geographically targeted to areas that are experiencing the most housing stress—so that’s Auckland, Tauranga, Western Bay, Rotorua, Napier, Hastings, Wellington urban, and Nelson Tasman. Now, a really good reason why we simply don’t know is that it depends on a number of factors like what kind of leverage is going to come in from some of the councils or community groups or iwi that might want to put money into that themselves, and the expansion that we’ll be able to get out of that. I’m pleased to say that we’ve had 60 applications that have come in, to date. So this is a fund that is being well regarded by many across the sector.

In terms of the questions from the Green Party about the detail in the paper about the financial sustainability of trade-offs with things like accessible housing fund; no, that’s not the context. The paper is a long-term piece of work that we have to do about how it is that we get financial sustainability around public housing in this country. It was missing for nearly a decade before it, and how do we rebuild it? It’s a fundamental piece of work. The paper talks about if you just continued in a business-as-usual approach, these are the kind of trade-offs that you’d have to make. But it’s actually an interesting paper and I suggest it’s worth a read.

The questions around interest deductibility from the National Party, and the spokesperson for housing once again being surprised. Once again, I’m surprised at the surprise, because we first started talking about the work that we were doing around Build to Rent when we announced the housing package in March 2021. We signalled in the media and our speeches in the House and everywhere we could that we were continuing to do work around Build to Rent and further measures that may be taken. Indeed, I answered questions in this House around Build to Rent and what further work the Government was doing. We first started working with the sector in January 2021 on this as a piece of work, and have been working through about how it is that we could arrive at a good definition around it.

In terms of the spokesperson saying this has now created an inequity for smaller investors, I think one of the things that I would point those smaller investors to is that there is a 20-year carve-out of interest deductibility for new builds. It is a consciously put lever to stimulate more supply in our housing market. I would remind the member that the average ownership of someone who owns multiple dwellings in New Zealand is seven to eight years. So most of the people that are falling within that category are getting interest deductibility; the 20-year carve-out gives them that. So I think that I’d like to see some more substantiation around those claims of inequity, given that the evidence simply does not stack up behind it.

I’d also like to use the opportunity to update Te Paati Māori on the progress that we’ve been able to make with Māori housing. I think one of the things that has become abundantly clear to us is that, in our mainstreamed programmes, we are not shifting the rates of Māori home ownership, we are not shifting rates in terms of KiwiBuild, in terms of the number of people owning a home; that what it required was targeted intervention that was specifically for Māori, by Māori, and that those solutions needed to be put in place. My colleague Minister Henare is leading, I think, a magnificent piece of work in this area, and we’re seeing some really good progress across this. So of the thousand new houses—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What’s your progress?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —that were announced in—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What progress?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Just hold your horses, Gerry—in Budget 2021, I’m pleased to report that 700 homes have been approved and all contracted. So there’s really good progress. That is, of course, a multi-year programme. So that is, I think, really a phenomenal success that we’re seeing there and really shows the pent-up nature of the ideas and the aspirations that existed in our communities. Of course, the prototypes that we’ve signed with a number of iwi is—we’re getting very large numbers. So if I point to the Ngāti Kahungunu prototype, which was the first that we signed up to, not only is it delivering housing but it’s delivering skills training; it’s really looking at how a whole community can benefit.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: How many houses?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Ngāti Kahungunu; 131, Gerry. So of the 700 homes that were scheduled to be repaired, 236 of those have been approved. So that, again, is good progress. But the capability building in terms of building the by-Māori part of the sector has been a really important piece of this work. You don’t just manage to contract 700 out of a thousand houses in the first year without doing some capability building in the sector as well. So I’m really pleased with the number of providers that we’re starting to see and the spread that we’re starting to see across the country there, as well. Of course, there was also money for infrastructure for 2,700 additional infrastructure-enabled sites. We know the complexity of building on land that is owned by Māori—not only whenua Māori but land that is owned by Māori—is often the infrastructure that is there, and there have been 885 infrastructure-enabled sites through the funding that we put in in Budget 2021.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness)): Thank you, Mr Chair. If I could please pick up again on the really important question that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer asked about children and tamariki attending school who are homeless. What I have got here is children in emergency housing as at 31 July: 3,813. Why I bring that to the floor is because we should never ever be desensitised to, or normalising, anyone having to live in unacceptable conditions, but, of course, especially any tamariki.

So I did want to pick up on two points. First is, there has been a continued lack of data in this space, and an agreement that we need better information, especially when it comes to tamariki. So one of the immediate actions underway in the Homelessness Action Plan is to improve evidence and data on homelessness. So, for example, we have an indication of some who are in cars, because that is when they put their hand up to a public housing register, but we are aware that that doesn’t pick up all of the information that we need. So there’s an agreement and a necessity to improve that data.

Secondly, thank you again, Ms Ngarewa-Packer, because it’s absolutely going to require a collective effort across Government, and my ministerial colleagues agree that it is unacceptable that any people are sleeping rough or living in overcrowded housing, and that we all want warm, safe, affordable, quality housing for New Zealanders, people, where they can put down roots. So the Homelessness Action Plan is under way across all of its immediate actions and continues to work across all of the longer-term actions, including—I just wanted to pick up one particular example where the flexible funding package for whānau with children in emergency housing gives the flexibility to help families with children in emergency housing with a range of needs. I’ve heard from providers and our agencies that sometimes that can be for transport to school, for school items, and so on and so forth. Now that’s really important, but we will never lose the goal of not wanting any children to have to access that fund. That is the collective goal across Ministers and across the work of Government. Thank you.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to follow on from the Minister’s response about the Housing Acceleration Fund and the 60 applications that the Government’s had through to date. I wondered, of those 60 applications that have been made, how many have been approved and how much money has been allocated from the fund and already spent?

My second question relates to the healthy homes standards. I note that the Government has tens of thousands of homes to bring up to scratch for the healthy homes standards before July next year, and I note that the Kāinga Ora director of maintenance, contracting, and asset services a few months ago said in the media that the pace of work to bring these homes up to standard had tripled in the last year, increasing from 180 homes per week a year ago to around 550 homes per week a few months ago. I wondered, given that we have a competing demand for the same trades across public and private build projects, how we can be guaranteed, as taxpayers, that this money that’s being appropriated is being spent wisely and we’re not spending far above what other people in the private sector would be paying for their homes to be brought up to the healthy homes standards. How can we be guaranteed that the Government is not wasting taxpayer money by trying to meet these deadlines by next year?

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. A couple of questions for each Minister. The first is to Minister Woods in relation to build-to-rent housing. So the interest deductibility stuff’s a good step forward, but if you talk to those in the sector, they will tell you that there are a couple of other changes required to the Income Tax Act and the Overseas Investment Act 2005 to really get build-to-rent housing going. Of course, I have a member’s bill—shout-out and a plug for that—in the ballot, in relation to that. I wonder if the Government’s intention is to make those technical tax changes as well, and, if so, when we can expect to see a bill in relation to that.

The second issue is in relation to comments just made by Minister Marama Davidson. A very interesting comment in relation to the data on families in cars, because, of course, the Government’s own data shows that there’s been a, roughly, fourfold increase in the number of families who are living in cars when they apply for the social housing register at point of the application; 108 in December 2017 to 480 on 30 June 2022 is obviously appalling. The Minister said, “We’re working on better data collection.”, and that piqued my interest, because I wonder if she could expand a little bit further on what exactly that means.

One of the enduring frustrations of housing has been getting better data around homelessness. I note that the member, when she was in Opposition, made quite a lot of the 41,000 figure. We heard Debbie Ngarewa-Packer mention it in her contribution in the debate. There was a cross-party inquiry, and the 40,000 figure was bandied around quite a lot. I’ve been asking questions to the Minister of Statistics around definitions of “homelessness” and any work that Stats New Zealand’s doing, and I think the short point is that he doesn’t want to know about any of it, for a variety of different reasons. So we do need better data, is my overall point. She’s right.

Hon Marama Davidson: Agreed.

CHRIS BISHOP: OK. Well, how does that look, what are you going to do about it, and what is that better data going to be? I think we would all look forward to that.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness)): Thank you. One thing I want to raise from your kōrero, Mr Bishop, is, yes, we need data—some of that is raw numbers—but I just want to highlight that the Homelessness Action Plan also encourages Government to forge stronger relationships with our community leaders. Now, something that has been missing for decades, in fact, is community narrative data. So while numbers can tell us something and some outcomes, what has been missing and has the opportunity to really better inform the richness of our work and solutions, is the community insights and narratives. So it might not just be, yeah, we’ve put someone into a whare and we’ve wrapped some support around them. Some of the kuia, for example, at Manurewa Marae describe how they can’t always easily put into their tick-boxes the impact of a person who is starting to trust people turning up to her door with her young children in her whare when never ever before was she even feeling able to engage with services.

So that sort of narrative, Mr Bishop. I hope you’ll look forward to us working together collectively across the House: community leaders and sector experts giving us those valuable insights as to the lived experiences. The drivers of homelessness can really only be dug into with the voice and the understanding of the lived experience. So that is one of the extra additional pieces of information about that data improvement that I wanted to raise.

Also, Mr Bishop, for homelessness, it’s important that we understand the system barriers and the opportunities for intervention. So, again, not just numbers of people in any particular situation, but at what point have things fallen down? At what point has the system, despite people doing their best, put up further barriers, or even just not given the more rounded support? Again, it’s important that improving data recognises the different needs across different communities. So the Homelessness Action Plan, for example, is digging down into what it is that young rainbow people are encountering in homelessness and across the system, what it is that disabled people are coming up against, and so on and so forth.

So, yes, Mr Bishop, there is an improvement of raw data and, I guess, numbers and being able to pick up population numbers and impacts, absolutely. But it’s data and evidence work that there is a programme to deliver to also improve how we know that what we are doing is actually effective at all. That includes improving the tools to measure progress towards the action plan vision. So thank you for the question. I just wanted to offer up those additional pieces of information as well.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): My question is to the housing Minister. I’m really intrigued by statements that the Minister’s made about the way in which the Housing Acceleration Fund is going to enable the unlocking of up to maybe 8,000 homes, and I wondered whether she could talk to us about why there is value in this targeted approach that we’re taking—as opposed to the more generalised approach that other parties put forward—to housing development.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I’ll start with the question that was just posed by my colleague Dr Emily Henderson around the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund and the value that we’re seeing from this, and why we can say that very targeted approaches like this, and working with communities, are much better than blanket funding that you say you’re going to give per house, for example. For example, in Ōtaki we’re actually seeing—I think it’s Ōtaki that we’re seeing—some of the houses, it’s as low as $8,000 to $9,000 as the contribution that needs to go in to enable the infrastructure for those homes. This differs across the country. Taking a much more simplistic, one-size-fits-all, and just saying you’ll give money in an untargeted way to councils for each house built, doesn’t allow you to get the economies of scale that you get when, actually, you’re enabling a whole community and you’re doing area-wide solutions with infrastructure, because that can be leveraged across multiple properties.

In terms of the other questions that we’ve had, we had a question around how many of those 60 applications for the Affordable Housing Fund have been funded. Applications closed last week, so that’s still at the appraisal stage. So they’re working through, but are very pleased to see a very strong number of applications coming through in that round. And they’ll be, obviously, notified in due course, as they work themselves through a robust appraisal stage, figuring out the difference that we can make in many of our towns and communities and cities with that funding.

One of the questions was also how can we be sure that we’re not just simply paying above the odds in terms of our insulation and heat pump insulation projects—the fact that we are going in and we’re making sure that our public houses are warm, safe, dry places for people to live. In terms of the procurement process, this was, of course, done through a competitive panel process. We are doing it at bulk, so, actually, we are able to get some of the economies of scale across this, because we’re giving secure pipelines of work to providers. I know, visiting a number of our insulation providers around the country—I know, certainly, in Christchurch, Community Energy Action have been in the position, because of the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme of taking on apprentices in this area and training young people in this. So I think we’re seeing long and good pipelines of work leading to benefits way beyond just us having warmer, drier homes, which, actually, I think is a pretty good benefit anyway.

Mr Bishop asked about when the bill—I believe it is extremely imminent, if not already there. So it is on its way. He asked about some technical amendments that he has in a bill that’s been launched, and, I’m sorry, Mr Bishop, I haven’t read your bill. It hasn’t been drawn, so I wouldn’t know what’s in your bill, so I couldn’t comment on that.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness)): Thank you, Mr Chair. It was just a very quick caution, Mr Bishop, to just remind us that for people sleeping in cars, there was an incorrect number issue that was “point in time” as opposed to cumulative. So that really skewed the numbers. But, again, one person is one too many in a car, but I just wanted us to be cautious about the difference between a point-in-time figure and a cumulative figure that adds up. Thank you.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I’d just like to give an update on my very imminent—in fact, the tax omnibus bill was tabled today, so those provisions are actually currently before the House.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I wonder if Ms Davidson could expand a little bit further on what she means by that.

Hon Marama Davidson: Yeah.

CHRIS BISHOP: She says yes. I’m not sure she understands precisely what she just said. I mean, what exactly does the Minister mean by that? Because the data that has been publicly released by the Government pursuant to written questions which have been looked up through the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) data, is it really—

Hon Marama Davidson: I just said a caution.

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it’s either right or it isn’t. I mean, it’s publicly available data that’s been released through written questions laid before the House. What exactly does she mean by being cautious about the use of the data? I mean, no one is pretending that it’s anything other than what it is, which is that it is the number of people, including children, who apply for the public housing register. When you apply to MSD, they ask you where you’re currently living, and if it’s a campground or a boarding hostel or car or whatever, that information gets recorded, and rightly so. It got recorded under us and it gets recorded under this Government too, and so I’m not quite sure what the Minister is saying. Perhaps she can expand on exactly what she is saying.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume at 7 p.m.

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

Workplace Relations and Safety

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we now have the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. The Minister is available from 7 p.m. to 7.45 p.m. I call on the Hon Paul Goldsmith. My apologies. The convention is that I usually call on the chair of the committee. I call on Marja Lubeck.

MARJA LUBECK (Chairperson of the Education and Workforce Committee): Thank you, Madam Chair. I should be faster off my feet.

Thank you. It’s a pleasure as the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee to take a call in this debate. Our select committee met on 29 June and 5 and 27 July to consider Vote Labour Market. As I said a little bit earlier during this debate, we heard from three Ministers responsible for appropriations in Vote Labour Market. We also received advice from the Office of the Auditor-General with regard to Vote Labour Market.

Funding from this Vote, particularly, goes to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), WorkSafe New Zealand, the Employment Relations Authority, the Remuneration Authority, and the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust. In 2022-23, the Government is seeking $2.8 billion for Vote Labour Market. This is a 4.83 percent increase from the 2021-2022 estimated actual expenditure of $2.673 billion. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, the Hon Michael Wood, is responsible for the appropriations of $246.7 million. This is a 5.8 percent increase from the 2021-22 estimated actual expenditure of $233 million.

We spoke with the Hon Michael Wood and WorkSafe New Zealand about the 2022-23 appropriations. The Minister addressed the committee on the broader themes and challenges that he’s working through in his portfolio. In particular, we spoke on the Fair Pay Agreements Bill, a bill the select committee is currently considering.

We heard from the Minister how he is working hard to ensure that the Fair Pay Agreements Bill will support employers who are raising pay rates by preventing others from undercutting them. The Minister said that employers with higher pay rates are less likely to be affected by fair payment agreements because they are about minimum standards. The Minister described the bill as the Government’s biggest legislative priority. He said the bill is aimed at stopping the race to the bottom, where employers compete on wages rather than on innovation or by offering better service or products, and it does this by establishing minimum terms and conditions for employees.

The Minister said that the last two years of the COVID-19 pandemic have really demonstrated to us why fair pay agreements are so important—like we have seen in the public transport sector, for example, where the operating model has resulted in worse terms and conditions for bus drivers. The Minister said that the case has been built that good minimum standards are needed for our low paid workers, such as our security guards, supermarket workers, and our cleaners. Budget 2021 gave MBIE and the Employment Relations Authority $3.7 million over five years to deliver the fair pay agreements system. Budget 2022 supplements this with two appropriations over four years, totalling $21.5 million.

On minimum legal entitlements and the Labour Inspectorate, we heard that the Minister is open to increasing the number of labour inspectors in future, so that we have more accessibility and availability for complainants. However, the Minister said he would prefer people are well informed in the first place about their rights so that they don’t have to make complaints.

We asked how the Budget will support WorkSafe to continue to respond to COVID-19, and the Minister responded: WorkSafe will receive $7.7 million in operational funding and $700,000 in capital funding to enforce workplace requirements under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. Through a newly established COVID-19 inspectorate, WorkSafe is able to closely examine whether workplaces are providing appropriate COVID-19 support. This dedicated inspectorate will prevent resources being diverted from WorkSafe’s other health and safety work.

This is the largest appropriation in the workplace relations and safety portfolio. Health and safety was increased by $8.3 million to $140.3 million, which is 58 percent of the total vote. WorkSafe spoke to the committee about the systemic changes that are needed to improve health and safety outcomes. They’ve commented on the power imbalance between employers and employees. People get injured if a worker is scared to speak up about risks or hazards. Employers are encouraged to create workplace environments where workers participate in running the business as well as this will improve health and safety and productivity. On the preventative approach, the Minister said that while enforcement is important, a significant part of WorkSafe’s focus is preventing workplace deaths and injuries by embedding good culture and practice.

I finish by thanking the Minister for his time in addressing the committee. Thank you.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Here we are, we’re talking about the Estimates for workplace relations and safety. I want to start off with workplace relations—in particular, where this Budget has about $143 million sent to WorkSafe New Zealand. Like just about every other area of Government spending, they have increased spending in this area by about 50 percent since they came to office five years ago. It was about $89 million back in 2017; now it’s $143 million, so there have been big increases in spending.

There’s also been a 25 percent increase in staff, and yet 12 years after Pike River and nine years after the Act in 2013 to establish WorkSafe, what we’re seeing is adverse trends over the past four years in the three key areas that WorkSafe was measuring itself against: first, on fatal injuries, which has been static or very slightly worsening, but largely static since 2016; on serious non-fatal injuries, but serious injuries, they have increased since 2017 from about 14 per 100,000 people to 18 per 100,000 people—this is not just because the population’s increased; it’s as a proportion of the number of people—and the third key area that they were basing themselves on was working injuries requiring people to be off work for more than a week. That has slightly increased, and it certainly hasn’t reduced.

Now, the goal was to be reducing these significantly. So serious injuries, non-fatal injuries, have increased significantly. Fatal injuries and being away from work for more than a week have been static or very, very slightly increasing. So the question is that we’ve got a 50 percent increase in funding, 25 percent more staff, and yet we’re not making particularly any progress; in fact, we’re getting worse on one of the core measures of improving safety.

It’s not, of course, just the $143 million that we’re talking about here; we’re talking about the safety of New Zealanders at work, which is a very important thing, so that people know when they go off to work they’ve got a good chance of coming back to their families and not being injured, not being hurt, not being poisoned, or having to deal with hazardous substances. It’s not just accidents, but workplace injuries, and it’s not, of course, just the cost of WorkSafe. This has been in relation to enormous regulations that have gone across the community, which have a very big impact on the cost of everything that we do in New Zealand, whether it’s building a house or building a road, which the Minister should know a lot about, which improves safety for motorists, such as the magnificent expressways through Waikato, for example, which have finally been completed—much safer roads.

But the cost of building roads has been increased significantly through the regulations around health and safety. The purpose of that is to save lives, and yet when we look at these measures, we don’t seem to be making the progress that we’re getting to. So my fundamental question to the Minister: over the last five years, as this work—this operation—has matured, why have we stagnated or, indeed, started to suffer worse outcomes around serious non-fatal injuries in the workplace?

Then a whole bunch of related questions—because the Minister did get an independent review of WorkSafe by SageBush, and so I presume he has been slightly worried about these things. It’s a pretty damning report that we’ve received and that we’ve been considering in the light of how this all flows from the Estimates debate, and one of the very basic questions that they expected to find was that WorkSafe would be able to clearly describe what it does—pretty basic—the activities that it undertakes, the resources that it uses, and the impacts or outcomes of its efforts. That’s pretty basic. It’s what you’d expect for any organisation. Then what did they find when they looked into WorkSafe? They found the description was rather unclear: “We could not locate a description of how its core activities linked to its outcomes.”, “We didn’t have a clear framework of the tools to assess the value of its activities.”, and “We found that WorkSafe is not yet able to identify activities and associated resources that underpin each of its core activities.”

In essence, what the report found was that it was all a bit vague, actually, and they couldn’t really sort of articulate what they were trying to do and how they were going to measure it. Instead of the three key measures that they’re not making much progress on—in fact, one of them is going backwards significantly—they’ve now come up with a whole bunch of new measures, most of which are very, very vague indeed, with one of them being that the workplace will be healthy, and WorkSafe now, instead of trying to reduce the exact numbers, will be just striving to reduce that metric. I don’t know what that means. Is that a target to reduce it by 10 percent over five years or to keep it steady or to have it increasing slowly or—no, it’s to just reduce it over time, and then there’s a whole series of new measures.

The problem with if every time a new Minister comes in and is in charge of an organisation that is doing a very important task in the country in terms of trying to improve safety in the workplace—if every new Minister comes along and decides “Well, I don’t like the old measures of progress.”—reducing serious non-fatal injuries, for example—“I’m going to come up with a whole bunch of new ones.”, which he has. He’s come up with 22, or something like that—a whole bunch of new measures. But, of course, then you can’t compare it with how it was going before. You lose all the ability to have a sense of how we’re making progress for all the effort that we’re making as a country in this space.

So the question I have for the Minister is: why did he change all the measures, why did he move away from the ones that he wasn’t making progress on, and, fundamentally, why does he think progress has stalled when it comes to workplace accidents and reducing the overall number of them in the past four years, and why has it got worse when it comes to serious non-fatal accidents?

Is he concerned that as SageBush independent research has shown, his organisation—which he’s been responsible for for a while, and this Government’s been in place for five years—doesn’t have a clear sense of what it’s trying to achieve, what it’s using to achieve those things, and whether it’s actually making progress against them? So these are pretty fundamental questions—pretty basic questions—and I’d like the Minister to start reassuring us on each of them over the next few minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to take a short call following up on the same topic, actually, around the SageBush strategic baseline review of WorkSafe, and to get the Minister’s impressions of that. We’ve seen WorkSafe’s response to that report, but I am interested in hearing more on the Minister’s response. The previous speaker, Paul Goldsmith, has canvassed some of their findings, and I will just recap very few points around that. But where they looked at performance summary: the number of measures achieved, 14; number of measures not achieved, 10; number of measures not measured or achievement cannot be assessed, 8. So, in effect, less than half of the measures are showing significant progress, which is, from the outside, concerning on the face of it.

Then WorkSafe’s response really struck me. Around the substantive issues, it was really just—it read to me as if they were saying, “Actually, we think the regulatory functions are covered in operations.”, which was a concern that was raised that they weren’t. They said that they thought there were.

There were concerns that the strategy wasn’t well enough articulated or flowing through in terms of the organisation’s goals and outcomes. Their response was that they think the strategy is adequately covered in their statement of intent, but they acknowledged they could do more to tell their story.

They were saying also about responsiveness to regulation where there’d been significant gaps pointed out in that, where they used Talley’s as an example of being really responsive to regulations, which was a surprising example, considering Talley’s workplace safety record.

Also, they round up by saying that most findings from SageBush are, according to WorkSafe, a normal part of the way they operate as a modern regulator.

So I guess I take it from that that they see that the SageBush review is based on outdated ideas of health and safety regimes and how they’re effective, but it’s not clear to me, and I’m not having the evidence to back that up. Part of my concern is that in some of the questioning we’ve had with WorkSafe in front of the committee over time around their change in practice, and where we’ve asked about the stalling of progress around the workplace fatalities—which is the only one where they have achieved it. But that was stalling, and the reason for that, where they said that they couldn’t say why, but then went on to say that, actually—so they said, directly, “We don’t know for sure why that’s happening, because there’s always a lag between the data that we get and our ability to analyse it.”

But it poses the question: if we’re not going to get the continued decline in those statistics through the current activity, what do we need to do differently? That’s why we’re taking this different approach, which for me, Minister, is concerning, because if you don’t understand why things are stalling, how can you be sure that your new approach is going to respond to the problem in the system?

We’ve heard also from them mixed messages about where the evidence is clearly telling us that what will make the biggest impact is worker voice, employer leadership, and risk management jointly between those two parties, but then they also go on to say that they are changing their approach to be looking at more upstream causes of accidents. While in the health sector, I’ve seen absolutely the importance of that conversation around upstream decision-makers, and I can understand why you would shift away from a focus on employers and employees so strictly. But I haven’t heard the justification in other contexts, and I haven’t heard them make those links for us as a committee, let alone the public.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you. The Minister doesn’t seem to be in any hurry to answer any questions, but, a couple of things further on, in relation to this question of WorkSafe’s performance, I would like to know from the Minister whether he thinks it’s right that a full 12 percent of WorkSafe staff have Koru Club memberships. It’s just a minor little matter; he might answer that.

I also want to know what progress, if any, has been made in regard to the focus on hazardous substances—you know, the fact that worker injuries, whether it’s poisons or noxious gas or all sorts of other agencies in the workplace, which have significant impacts—whether they’ve made any progress on doing a better job than they had in the past around, particularly, the compliance of the certifiers regime. There was a report called the Smith Report, which was published in March, which showed some real shortcomings there. I was just a little bit surprised that you didn’t see too much in the way of reference to that side of things from the SageBush inquiry. And so I just want to hear from the Minister on that topic.

Finally, another question for the Minister was when we looked at the Budget documents, we got one where the Minister of Finance wrote to him saying, “I would like to see greater prioritisation and coordination between Ministers of initiatives that will be administered by [MBIE]. I expect you to work with [Minister Nash and] other MBIE Ministers to achieve this prior to package submission.” And I’m just curious as to what submission incurred the wrath of the Minister of Finance on that particular occasion, and whether he had learnt his lesson from such a telling-off from the Minister of Finance. I’d be intrigued to know as to which of the particular issues he was dealing with.

I want to move on to the question of fair pay agreements, where in the Estimates there is extra funding for the potential use of taxpayers funding for particularly the union side, but also the employer representations in these proposed fair pay agreements over the next four years, about $6 million or so. We’ve traversed this and we, obviously, don’t support the fair pay agreements, as in principle we’re just adding rigidity to labour markets at a time when we need flexibility and innovation more than ever. But I’d be interested to know from the Minister whether he’d given any thought in this legislation—if they were to ram it through, there are a couple of categories of things that need to be either mandatorily included in any fair pay agreement to be considered by parties or optionally considered—to ensuring that discussion and debate around the issue of productivity in the sector or the industry should be a mandatory part of the discussion. Because if you’re discussing all sorts of things such as pay and conditions and hours and, potentially, superannuation and safety and a whole bunch of things—research. But nowhere is it ever mentioned, this issue of the productivity of the sector, and I think it should be—if you were to press ahead with this—part of the discussion. I’d like to know from the Minister whether he agrees with that.

The other question I have for him in relation to fair pay is in relation to—the problem is it’s difficult to force the employers to get together and how you actually do that in a way that ensures that all employers are dealt with. If you were thinking of cleaners, for example, you might have a very large corporate that employed thousands of cleaners and you might also have a mum and dad operation up in the Hokianga employing two or one, and they’re very different. Or if you’re thinking of a shop teller or operators, you might be dealing with two duopoly supermarkets with tens of thousands of employees and little shops with three or four. The needs and requirements of both are very different.

With the way that it’s organised, is he worried that you might end up actually once more making it easier for the big operators to control this situation, the way that this operates—is it possible that it will be organised in such a way that it’s the big operators that control the employer negotiations? They’re the only ones who have got the resources to deal with it properly, and the mum and dad cleaning operation up in the Hokianga or the small little shop with one assistant employee just have to go along with what suits the big guys. What I suppose I’d be interested to know is whether he’s been talking to his colleague the Minister of Commerce who’s, on the one hand, beating his chest saying he’s going to come down tough on the big supermarkets duopolies, for example, and yet, at the same time, he’s passing legislation that, because of the onerous regulations and burdensome requirements of the fair pay agreements that are being established by this Government, will inevitably help the big guys because, as we all know, it’s the big forms that survive the best in a heavily regulated environment generally. They have the clout to make sure the regulations and the arrangements suit them the best, and it’s the small people, the small businesses which are the backbone of the economy, that struggle. So I’d be interested to know that, given the fact that we are going to be spending money supporting both the union negotiators or the employee negotiators and also some more money is put aside in this Budget to potentially support some of the employee negotiators as well. So it fits squarely in this debate.

One other issue that he might also consider, if he’s got plenty of things to answer, and I hope he might, is the interplay between—actually, I suppose that might not necessarily fit entirely into the Estimates debate, so I won’t trifle with the Chair on those matters. So I’ll leave it there and I’m hoping that the Minister might have something to say on all of these questions and topics.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I firstly thank the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee and the committee itself for what was, I thought, a constructive and wide-ranging Estimates hearing that we had at the select committee, and all three members who have asked questions and made points in this debate so far, and if I can address a number of those.

Mr Goldsmith and Ms Logie both made a number of inquiries which, effectively, go to the strategic direction of WorkSafe and how the organisation can best position itself in order to reduce harm across New Zealand’s workplaces. A number of the questions they asked are very pertinent, and I’m happy to speak to them.

In respect of the system-level targets that were in place up to 2020, those were system-level targets that were set by central government, and not by WorkSafe itself, in the wake of Pike River. They are about providing some guidance and direction for the whole workplace safety system in terms of where we want it to get to. As Mr Goldsmith said, good progress was made on some, and with some it was a little bit more middling. So, encouragingly enough, we did, as a system, manage to achieve the 25 percent reduction in workplace fatalities after a number of years. We achieved a significant reduction in terms of serious injuries below the baseline from 2014. But the figure for injuries that require time off increased from the baseline. So some good progress in areas, and not so much in others. Generally speaking, the trends have been relatively flat over recent years, with the exception of the last measure.

WorkSafe, as an organisation, is positioned—and I support this very strongly—as an evidence-led regulator. So their strategic focus is on understanding what the things are that they can actually do that will drive better outcomes across the system, that will reduce harm from accidents, that will reduce harm from other sorts of workplace exposure, and that will reduce significant inequalities in the system—for example, Māori experiencing workplace fatalities at a rate of 55 percent higher than non-Māori. So that’s what they’re focused on; they look at the evidence as to how they can get there.

So addressing a couple of the points that Jan Logie made there about the focus on upstream duties—that’s exactly what that is about. The international evidence is absolutely overwhelming that going up the supply chain, talking to those people who have real influence over how work is designed and set up—those will be more effective and, actually, also more cost-effective interventions, than coming in way down the supply chain and giving the workers some education about how to operate in what is, fundamentally, a dangerous environment.

So if I give one specific example which might help that we’re working on in the coming year: the ongoing difficulties and high rates of harm that we’ve seen in the forestry sector. WorkSafe has a significant programme of work that, in particular, is unfolding in the Tai Rāwhiti region, which is about going right upstream and, instead of just talking at the worksite level, actually going not even to the contractors but to the forestry owners—the people that ultimately set the scene, set the incentives, and set the work practices for what unfolds weeks or months or years later on a steep-slope site where workers are under production pressure and the contractor is cracking the whip. So that’s the focus on going upstream, and that’s an example of the kind of work that they do in that space.

It’s the same with Talley’s complex investigation, noting Talley’s history of very, very poor outcomes and, quite frankly, intransigence about health and safety over the years. The complex investigation that kicked off last year was about going right to the board level and saying, “What is it that you’re doing to set the right culture and the right systems right throughout the organisation?” Instead of just investigating an incident after it’s happened and slapping an enforcement notice on them, it’s going right to the source and the top of the cliff.

Those are the sorts of interventions that the evidence says will make the biggest difference, and this does come to some of the challenges and questions which are thrown up through the SageBush review that Mr Goldsmith asked reasonable questions around. The SageBush review was requested by me and it was about dealing with these challenges and trade-offs that we have within the system.

So all of these things that I’ve talked about are measures that unfold over a long period of time and that we are confident will result in better outcomes across the system, but those sorts of upstream interventions don’t necessarily result in a sharp uptick in statistics the following quarter or the following six months. So the choices that WorkSafe has to make within its organisation sometimes are about the short-term versus those long-term interventions, and sometimes they’re about enforcement activity and the degree to which we want to do that versus other kinds of harms that 10 years ago we didn’t really think about.

So if I give an example of 10 years ago, there was not a huge focus in the organisation, or the system more generally, on psychosocial harms such as bullying and harassment. Well, that’s a huge focus now for New Zealanders and for WorkSafe, and we would absolutely expect that. But WorkSafe has to make choices about the funding and resources it has across a wider range of work.

So SageBush is really about answering those core questions that were touched on in the debate: how is resource best applied to get the best possible outcomes based on the evidence that we have? SageBush spoke about a range of very effective practices from WorkSafe but also suggested improvements in how we can make those links between resourcing, decision making, and the outcomes that we want. That’s what I wanted to get out of the review, and that will guide decisions that Government can now make about WorkSafe’s future path, including questions and considerations around WorkSafe’s funding path to do the things that it needs to do. So, hopefully, that answers some of the questions around WorkSafe.

I will just pick up on Mr Goldsmith’s point about enormous regulations. I’m not quite sure which examples he is pointing to there in the health and safety space. He didn’t provide anything specific, although it’s worth noting that regulatory impact statements generally show that good quality workplace safety regulation generally has about a 2:1 return. Workplace harm and accidents cost our country money. Even if that was the only thing you cared about beyond the human damage, it’s a good investment to have a good workplace health and safety regulatory system to keep people safe and to improve productivity over time.

In respect of hazardous substances in the Smith review, which Mr Goldsmith inquired about, that was a review that was requested by WorkSafe as a part of their process of continuous improvement in their oversight of regulatory regimes. It made 19 recommendations, and WorkSafe is currently implementing those regulations to ensure that there is good oversight of the certifiers’ regime in that particular space and we carry on our work with regulatory reform, including hazardous substances and areas like planting structures.

On fair pay agreements, I’m delighted that Mr Goldsmith is a convert to high-level tripartite dialogue to improve productivity across sectors of the New Zealand economy. That’s something the Government is very, very enthusiastic about and we carry forward through the Future of Work Tripartite Forum. As I’ve said previously, we have very good examples internationally of highly productive economies who have a high level of engagement between businesses and unions at the sector level to identify problems and drive productivity forward. I fully expect that will be an outcome.

It’s a shame that Mr Goldsmith and others didn’t put a submission to the select committee process requesting that to be a mandatory-to-agree topic. We could have considered that at that time, if it was. But I do expect that productivity issues will be on the table. We had strong representations, for example, from E tū union in that select committee process around elevating skills and training to be a mandatory-to-agree topic, and that’s something that we will consider that I think will help to drive productivity.

It’s fair to say that we just fundamentally disagree with the assertion of Mr Goldsmith and the National Party that fundamentally having good workplace pay and conditions for workers, including in small businesses, is somehow anathema to a productive economy. That’s just a difference between this side of the House and that side of the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, Minister Wood, I just want to acknowledge your comments around WorkSafe. I genuinely hope that the vision that you have and that you’ve outlined, in terms of what’s contained inside this legislation and how you see WorkSafe working moving forward, is something that genuinely happens.

You used the forestry industry as a very good example. But there’s one example that I do want to bring to the Minister’s attention. It’s an important one, and it relates to a workplace death, and that was Constable Matthew Hunt, over two years ago in West Auckland. His mother, Diane, has been stonewalled and has done everything that she can do to have worked with and assisted WorkSafe so that they did a thorough investigation. And, given the example that the Minister used is that his expectation is, actually, the information in the investigation goes all the way to the top, which in this case would be PNHQ, Police National Headquarters—she has become deeply, deeply frustrated with the process and WorkSafe. Two years in, she still is none the wiser in terms of what recommendations are going to be made or what work is being done with PNHQ to ensure that the workplace death of her son, on the job, serving us, protecting his community—and, by the way, a serious workplace injury with his partner, David Goldfinch—is no further along than what it was two years ago.

She deserves some clear answers from WorkSafe. She deserves to be told exactly what the next steps are, and she deserves to have visibility on their report and their findings in terms of what needs to change in their workplace to ensure that we don’t have another death—or do as much as we can to mitigate having another senseless death—like that which we’ve seen of Constable Matthew Hunt in the service of his community and his country. So I would ask the Minister, because I have to believe that what he’s doing is in good faith—I’ve got no reason at all to question that, and he’s trying to strengthen, obviously, WorkSafe’s position through this legislation—but I would ask him to stand and respond to that.

I’d also ask him, now he’s aware of it, to actually hold his agency to account and get them in tomorrow and ask them: why has nothing been done? Why has Diane Hunt, the mother of a slain police officer, been stonewalled by a department that’s actually meant to be focused on making sure that this never happens again? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Briefly in response to the member opposite, I know that all members of the House continue to understand the pain that Constable Matt Hunt’s family, loved ones, and colleagues feel at his tragic death two years ago. It’s not possible—and I don’t think appropriate—for us across the House to engage in the details of a particular individual case. I’m very happy offline, through my office, to follow up on the particular concerns raised by the member.

My understanding is that WorkSafe will release its investigation. At the point that it does that, I would have no reason to believe that WorkSafe would be stonewalling on any investigation. When they do investigate, they have to do that in a professional way. While often complex investigations involving serious issues will take some time—and I would prefer that WorkSafe and other agencies who conduct those investigations take the time to do it right, to get the facts on the table, and then to make recommendations which will make a real difference—I have every confidence that WorkSafe would be doing that and that they will then release their recommendations and their findings of that report for the various parties to take account of. But I’m very happy offline, as I say, through the member, to do some follow up around what the possible time frames might be there.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to also acknowledge the family of the person we were discussing: Matthew Hunt. I know it’s always difficult to have these things raised, so I just wanted to acknowledge that.

What I would like to ask the Minister about is also related to health and safety, which I know has been traversed in this Estimates debate at some length already. What I specifically wanted to cover, which I don’t believe has been discussed yet, is the work that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has been doing on modern slavery. This piece of work, as I understand, was consulted on this year with a view to looking at legislation. So I am quite interested in finding out an update on that from the Minister.

Just for those who aren’t clear on what modern slavery is, it’s a severe form of exploitation that a person cannot leave due to threats of violence or deception. It includes forced labour, debts, bondage, forced marriage, slavery, and human trafficking—very, very serious forms of treatment that, unfortunately, do still go on, probably in New Zealand and also definitely in the rest of the world. We need to be especially mindful of this in relation to supply chains and also to New Zealand’s reputation in relation to how we’re seen to be dealing with this very, very serious issue that does, unfortunately, still take place.

I understood that it was proposed during the consultation process that there would be different requirements for medium and large businesses. So I’m quite interested to hear whether there has been any report to the Minister, or an interim report or any feedback that he has, on the consultation period, the importance of this for New Zealand, where he sees the legislation going in the future, and any other feedback, really, on what I think we can all agree is a really important issue to be addressed.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In response to Camilla Belich’s question, the work programme around modern slavery legislation is proceeding very well. There was a consultation process which occurred earlier this year which gave New Zealanders the opportunity to comment on this issue and to provide feedback on a proposed model for managing this issue. It was a graduated model that we put forward that would have different responsibilities applying to businesses depending on their size by revenue, with responsibilities increasing up to a full due diligence responsibility for businesses with a turnover of $50 million or more.

The process is currently being overseen by the Modern Slavery Leadership Advisory Group, chaired by Rob Fyfe, including business, unions, academics, and NGOs, all around the table developing up a consensus to bring recommendations back to the Government. I expect to have their final recommendations to me within the next couple of months in order for us to determine final decisions as a Cabinet to take that piece of legislation forward.

I do note that this process kicked off maybe about 18 months or so ago with a petition presentation out the front of Parliament that parliamentarians from across the House, including Christopher Luxon, came along to. We all gave our commitment to supporting that work going forward, and, as the Government progresses those proposals, I hope and look forward to support around the House to make a difference in this very, very important area.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I just want to put on record the Greens’ appreciation for the Minister’s work, particularly around the fair pay agreements. Some of the submissions we heard from working people to the committee really highlighted the importance of this—people who have been in jobs 30 years and they’re on basically just over the minimum wage—really a complete lack of appreciation of the skill and the importance of their work, and the risks that many people are taking every day for their employers. So we really appreciate that work.

I had a couple of other questions. One of them is following up, again, continuing the contribution around the discussion on WorkSafe, and appreciating the Minister’s answers quite a lot. I’m interested in the Minister’s view around WorkSafe’s response to the SageBush report, because the Minister spoke about the importance of that in terms of informing the direction going forward, and some of the details. I’ll just pull out one of the examples where I’m struggling: in the SageBush report, they said that the 13 regulatory functions set out in section 10 of the WorkSafe New Zealand Act 2013 are not adequately accounted for in operations. WorkSafe, in their response, said they think all their regulatory functions are covered in their operations. So there feels to me a mismatch between SageBush’s position, after doing that interrogation requested by the Minister, versus where WorkSafe is at. I’m interested in understanding that apparent gap. I recognise that it may be a matter of interpretation.

The last point is around pay transparency, and ending of pay secrecy, and just wondering if the Minister has any plans or would like to pick up my member’s bill, which would end pay secrecy by preventing employers having clauses in contracts that mean that people can’t discuss their pay; preventing employers asking people what they were paid in their last job—because it’s not really relevant—requiring employers to advertise pay rates when they’re advertising the job; and enabling employees to find out what the average pay for that position has been. So, evening that playing field, absolutely taking a significant step for many groups across the country—women, Pasifika, Māori—who are experiencing discrimination, and we know that these measures would make a difference.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Chief Whip—Labour): I move, That the committee report progress.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): It was previously agreed that we report the progress at this time, at 7.45 p.m. The question is that the committee report progress.

Motion agreed to.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Appropriation (2022/23 Estimates) Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Coroners Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Courts): I present a legislative statement on the Coroner’s Amendment Bill.

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

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Mr Speaker, thank you. I move, That the Coroners Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

The coronial system is currently under pressure. Coroners are struggling to keep pace with the number of cases being accepted into the coronial jurisdiction, which has resulted in an increasing active caseload and an increase in the average time taken to conclude coronial investigations. There are several reasons for these increases. Firstly, an increasing proportion of deaths referred to the coroner are being accepted into jurisdiction—over half of which are ultimately found to be from natural causes. Many of these deaths do not need to be investigated by the coroner. The role of the coroner is to investigate deaths that are unnatural, including deaths that appear to be sudden, violent, or unexpected. Secondly, there have been periods in recent years when the coronial bench has not been operating at full capacity, due to vacancies. Most significantly, families and whānau who find themselves having to deal with the coronial system are experiencing significant distress from the increasing length of time they spend waiting to receive coronial findings, and I do want to acknowledge them.

This bill aims to reduce this distress by making some targeted amendments to the Coroners Act. These targeted amendments are designed to reduce the time it takes for certain types of cases to move through the coronial process and to free up the coroners’ time to work on reducing the number of active coronial cases. In doing this, the bill aims to facilitate better access to justice for families and whānau. The bill will also help to ensure that public interest in the proper and timely understanding of the causes and circumstances of death is well served. Earlier this year, we passed a bill to increase the statutory cap on the maximum number of coroners from 20 to 22. It was clear through this process that there were strong interests across this House in improving the coronial system, particularly for the benefit of families and whānau, and I want to acknowledge the parties across the House.

The most significant change in the bill is the establishment of the new associate coroner position. Associate coroners will be judicial officers and will be able to undertake the more straightforward functions, powers, and duties currently performed or exercised by coroners, while still enabling coroners to perform or exercise them. This will help to relieve the pressure on coroners by freeing up coroners’ time, enabling coroners to focus on more complex cases, particularly those requiring inquests. As judicial officers, associate coroners will be appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Attorney-General, given after consultation with the Minister of Justice. Associate coroners will be appointed for a fixed term of up to five years, with the ability to be reappointed. Like coroners, the remuneration of associate coroners will be determined by the Remuneration Authority. Associate coroners will need a minimum of five years post-admission experience as a barrister or solicitor—the same as coroners.

The bill also makes three other amendments to the Coroners Act, which I will briefly outline. Firstly, the bill clarifies that coroners can record a cause of death as “unascertained natural causes”, if the coroner considers that the death is from natural causes and no further investigation is required. This amendment largely reflects current practice and will, where appropriate, enable families and whānau to receive a coroner’s findings sooner, potentially within 48 hours after the death.

Secondly, the bill provides coroners with the sole discretion to decide whether a coronial inquiry should also include an inquest. A coronial inquiry is either held on the papers—that is, held in chambers—or held in open court in the form of an inquest. In each case, the coroner decides which method is most appropriate under the Coroners Act. Currently, if anyone wishes to give evidence or cross-examine any witness, then the coroner must hold an inquest regardless of whether the coroner considers it necessary. This amendment will prevent inquests from taking place where, having regard to the statutory criteria in the Coroners Act, the coroner considers a hearing in chambers is appropriate and an inquest is not needed. This would help to ensure that appropriate cases are progressed through the system more efficiently.

Thirdly, the bill will enable coroners to issue written findings stating the cause of death only, and not the circumstances of death, if the coroner considers that there is no public interest in making findings as to the broader circumstances in which the death occurred. To clarify, the cause of death is how someone died, whereas the circumstances are the broader context in which the death took place. This amendment will allow certain cases to be concluded more quickly, ensuring families and whānau receive a coroner’s findings sooner, freeing up coroners to spend more time on more complex cases.

The targeted amendments in this bill will go some way to support coronial cases to be dealt with as promptly and efficiently as possible, while not adversely affecting the quality of coronial findings and the judicial independence of coroners. In particular, the amendments will help to enable certain cases in the system to be progressed more efficiently. This, combined with the introduction of associate coroners, will also help to relieve the pressure on coroners by freeing up their time to enable them to focus on more complex cases.

I must stress that this bill is just the first step to improve the legislative framework for the coronial system. It is also part of wider work going on to improve the coronial system—this includes appointing clinical advisers to assist coroners, and a project to better integrate tikanga Māori into coronial processes. More must be done and will be done to improve access to justice for families and whānau. That is why I am committed to a wider, longer-term review of the Coroners Act and the coronial system. The scope and timing of this review are still to be determined by myself and the Minister of Justice, but it is my expectation that it will involve engagement with a broad range of interested parties. Families and whānau will be at the heart of the engagement. Because changes resulting from this review could take some time to progress, this bill presents an opportunity to make some targeted changes relatively quickly. Any changes that we can make now, however small, will benefit grieving families and whānau.

I look forward to the Justice Committee’s consideration of the bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, can I just say that we’re supporting this bill, without a doubt, at first reading. Being a member of the Justice Committee, I look forward to receiving this. And could I acknowledge the Minister, because it’s obvious, as Associate Minister of Justice and having the coroners court as part of his delegation, he’s recognised that not only is the coroner’s court under enormous pressure, actually, our entire justice system and courts are under pressure.

I actually think that this—although he’s highlighted this isn’t the silver bullet—is certainly one step in the right direction in terms of trying to relieve some of the pressure and make the coroner’s court more efficient. The reality of it is, the coroner’s court is extremely sensitive in terms of the types of cases that they deal with. They can often be family suicides, motor vehicle accidents, and sometimes, sadly—and I’ve had a case like this recently in my own electorate—people with serious mental health issues that have died in care. So the one thing that I congratulate the Minister for, in terms of capturing inside this legislation, is the fact that if the family or someone—an interested party—wants to go to an inquest, they still have the ability to go to an inquest, because it is fundamentally important that family members, in particular, are able to ask those tough questions and understand and get to the bottom, as part of their grieving and part of their loss—to actually understand what happened to their loved ones. So I’m pleased to see that that is contained inside the bill.

I think the coronial associate role just makes very good sense. It’s someone that still has to have the requisite experience, that has to be approved and signed off before taking the roll up, and they’re appointed for five years. I think that’s a good idea. It shows that they have got a commitment and that they can take the role and that they can fully immerse themselves in that role and allow them to take some of the pressure off the coroners.

The change of recorded cause of death to unascertained natural causes in certain circumstances—I think this is very fair when it’s a very clear case. Although it hasn’t been signed off by a doctor as a clear cause of death, when you look at the case, on the face of it, it is probably fairly clear exactly what has happened, and I think that is a very good step in the right direction, and also streamlining it, in terms of just one coroner that’s dealing with the case is able to sign that off.

So I think this is a good bill. There may be some areas that the select committee can work on, that we can look at, and we can work on—we may be able to strengthen or clarify. But, fundamentally, I think it’s a bill that’s been brought to this House in very good shape, and I want to acknowledge and commend the Minister for doing that. Thank you.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Coroners Amendment Bill will amend the Coroners Act, and, most importantly, it will provide New Zealand families with access to justice. There is no secret in the fact that our current coronial system is under pressure. The bill will help ensure that coronial cases are dealt with as promptly and as efficiently as possible while not adversely affecting the quality of those coronial findings and the judicial independence of those coroners.

The key point I would like to make tonight is that this will help reduce the stress that whānau go through in that time where they are waiting for the outcome of a coronial inquiry. Most importantly, from my experience working locally and on the Justice Committee, it provides families with a sense of closure when they have gone through a traumatic time. So it’s only right and fair that this Government should take every step possible to make sure that system is running as efficiently as possible.

The second area that it will help with is to help ensure the public interest in the proper and timely understanding of the causes and the circumstances of deaths. So if understanding the underlying reason could benefit the wider public, it’s important that’s in place. As we heard from the Minister already tonight, the system is under pressure. Since 2014, coroners have struggled to keep pace with the number of cases being accepted into the coronial jurisdiction, and this has resulted in increasing active caseloads and also the amount of time that each case is taking to process. In addition to this, the increasing length of time that grieving families are waiting to receive the findings is causing distress. The increasing workload is also placing pressure on those officers in place and others working in the coronial system.

So this bill makes four clear changes to address those pressures and to relieve some pressure in the system. The first one is establishing a new role of the coronial associate. Essentially, some of the more straightforward and easy tasks in the system will be carved off and placed with that role. This will not only, hopefully, make things move quicker but it will also free up coroners to be able to undertake the more lengthy and intricate cases that they need to do.

Secondly, it will enable coroners to record the cause of death as unascertained natural causes in certain circumstances—if a coroner determines that a death is from natural causes and no further investigation is required. This will enable families to have findings sooner rather than later.

Thirdly, it will provide coroners with the sole discretion to decide whether an inquiry is required, and they can also prevent a lengthy inquest from taking place where it’s not necessary. The coroner can consider and hear in his chambers, or her chambers, if that is appropriate and it is not necessary to undertake a full inquest—again, reducing the amount of time each case may take.

Finally, this bill will enable coroners to issue written findings about the cause of death only, and not the circumstances of a death, if they consider that there is no public interest in making the findings to the broader circumstances. Again, this will enable certain cases to be concluded more quickly and give families and whānau the ability to receive findings and get that much-needed closure in difficult times. This bill is a first step in improving our coronial system, and there is ongoing work in this space to make sure New Zealand families have access to justice. I commend it to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I’m very pleased to take a call on this bill, the Coroners Amendment Bill. I’d be interested to know: is this actually the first bill that the Associate Minister has brought in this space? If so—and he’s smiling—then I’m in a generous mood and will also support the bill, because he’s a good fella, even though this is a bill dealing with death.

Hon Aupito William Sio: OK, that’s enough.

SIMON O’CONNOR: That’s enough. Ha, ha! Yes, there’s probably enough Labour MPs in trouble at the moment without adding to them. Look, in all seriousness, this is a good bill, but—but—there’s a few elements which I think the select committee will rightly have to interrogate. So, again, I’m wanting to make it clear that the National Party, this side of the House, will support the bill at first reading.

At first glance, it is a relatively straightforward piece of legislation, but there are two elements I want to draw out over the coming minutes. One is, in many ways, it looks good, but will it actually deliver? And the second: what sort of checks and balances are in place? Because I think there’s a limited risk here that the public may find that they’re not getting not so much the same quality but the same depth of information. But I do want to say it’s limited risk, in my mind; this is not like a glaring, red light emergency.

Look, the context, of course, of the coronial court is that it’s under enormous, enormous pressure, with enormous delays. I’m sure someone will use the adage tonight, so I’ll be the first to start with it: you know, the old “justice delayed is justice denied”. And, particularly when we are dealing with elements of death, families do want some certainty. But I would put to you and to the House and to the Associate Minister, that the issues within the coronial court sit within a wider crisis in our courts system. I think, for those at home, it would be a mistake to think that the only courts in New Zealand which are struggling at the moment are the coronial courts. We know that right through the system—it doesn’t matter if it’s right through the criminal courts, to tenancy tribunals, and other associative type courts—they’re completely overrun. One sort of theme, and I think it’s lacking, unfortunately, in this bill, is actually the deployment of technology. The Government sort of flirted, for want of a better word, with this in a previous bill, attempting to update some of the court legislation around COVID—and I don’t want to relitigate that one per se—but some of the technological options that could be deployed to help speed things up do not, as far as I can see, appear in this Coroners Amendment Bill.

I’m also concerned that it may not actually achieve what it wants to set out. And, again, I think that’s why it’s going to be important on the Justice Committee—a fine committee, if I might say, a very humble committee, obviously all the members on it, but a fine committee—that will tease this out. Because we look through this, and the first is that the Minister wants to appoint associate roles. Now, that looks all well and good. I believe they have to be a barrister or a solicitor for a minimum of five years. Again, that makes sense. Yes, coronial matters are serious [Member coughs] Excuse my voice—not COVID; talking too much, which is always a bit of a problem for a politician.

Now, fundamentally, appointing someone with skills is needed, and five years, I think, is appropriate, although we’ll turn it over to the likes of the Law Commission, and, obviously, barristers and solicitors themselves to speak to. But the question I have, and I know this is not the committee stage, but it’s rhetorically important: where are these people going to come from? Do we have—and the Minister may well know, and the Government may well know—a breadth of people who are prepared to step up to this role? And I honestly don’t know the answer to that. It is just that little bit of a concern in my mind that the Government appears to be putting things down on paper—is appearing to be doing something—but we’re going to find that, actually, there are not the people or resources there to assist. As I say, conceptually, a good idea, but will it actually lead to anything?

As it’s noted in the legislation, the associate’s role is very similar to the coroner’s, but there are limitations on that, and I think it will be interesting to tease that out to exactly where we draw the line. Maybe the Minister’s got it right in the first go, and that’s quite reasonable and possible, but I think it’ll be good for the committee to tease that out. A second change—and it was alluded to; actually, it wasn’t really alluded to; it was directly spoken to by the chair of the Justice Committee—talking about a new category of what’s known as “unascertained natural causes” around a death. Again, I think that makes sense. It’s, basically, when the duty coroner sees there’s nothing suspicious in the death, or it’s not self-inflicted. It enables that coroner on duty to say, “Look, this is an unascertained natural cause of death.”

There are two elements there that we probably need to draw out. One is: is there any way that that can be double-checked? You don’t want to have a situation where the wrong judgment is made. Again, we’ll just want to tease that out a little bit more in committee, to understand that the checks and balances are in place. I think the second element to do with that is to make sure that the public understands what it means. It could be a little bit confusing that, all of a sudden, their loved one has died and, look, they don’t understand. I mean, for unfortunate reasons in some ways, I’ve been around a lot of death—not causative; I want to make that very clear on the Hansard! Well, I hope not—

Nicole McKee: Hope not.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Yes, hope not. But, no, quite seriously, I’m not trying to be too silly. I’ve been around a lot of death, and it becomes often a very emotional, and often sometimes irrational, moment for families. So, again, trying to explain to them what “unascertained natural causes” means is just a small consideration that has to be made.

We’ve heard from the Minister and, again, the chair of the committee that the coroner can have a sole discretion of whether to do the inquest, which means that they are actually engaging in the public space, or within their chambers. I note—and if I’ve read the legislation correctly—that, if witnesses are to be called, we instantly move to an inquest. So we have a sort of slightly funny situation developing where we’re saying the coroner has the sole discretion of whether to be in chambers or have an inquest, but if she or he is going to be hearing witnesses, it is automatically an inquest. So, again, it’s a possibility that this sounds good but, actually, is not going to make much of a change, because a lot of people will probably want to engage.

And then, a little bit like the previous point—I think it’s probably useful—is there some review mechanism? If I have a family member who’s passed away, the coroner decides, in her or his judgment, that this will be “chambers only”, and we feel, as a family, that there should be something further, do we have the right to, if you will, appeal? And I don’t know the right legal terms—I’m sure that the legal beagles and scholars on the other side, particularly with doctorates in front of their name, can opine at length on that.

The final one, and, again, it’s going to echo a little bit of what I said around this—sorry, I have to keep looking at it because I actually find it a mouthful—the “unascertained natural causes”; the question around explaining to the public. The fourth change, which this legislation and the Minister is proposing, is that coroners can issue written findings that only state the cause of death. They don’t have to—repeat: they don’t have to—talk about the circumstances leading up to it. Again, I can think of a number of circumstances where that makes perfect sense; just the cause of death is sort of obvious. To spend time—the coroner, or the associate coroner, or the duty coroner to spend a lot of time—trying to explain the circumstances might be a little unnecessary. But, as with anything, it’s exactly where one draws the line, and one will want to make sure—particularly when we’re talking in an epidemiological sense—that we’re going to have good information so that our health and other officials, and justice officials too, I might add, can clarify matters of death. And it’s not just, at times, what’s caused it, but the circumstances will play a very, very important part. The second element of that—and sorry to come back to it—is ultimately the public understanding what’s going on. Some families will want to know what the events were that led up to, and not just simply the cause of, the death.

So, look, as I say, it’s a good bill. It’s not a great bill; it’s a good bill. And why I say it’s not great is that it’s just my underlying suspicion that this is a little bit of window dressing. There is no doubt that our court system is in crisis and, as I said at the start, right across all the courts. I look forward to the Minister bringing more legislation to the House—he deserves it—to actually fix the crisis in the court system. But I have a concern that what looks good on paper—we’re going to appoint more associate coroners—looks great, looks active, where, in fact, very little will ultimately happen, simply because “Who are these people?” I think it will be one of the first questions, again turning to my colleagues on the Justice Committee, that we should be putting to officials: how many people do they believe are available for this role? And, if they are, how quickly can we get them on board? And with that, I’d just like to leave the remaining time to—[Time expired]

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): One of the people who has petitioned this House quite publicly is Corinda Taylor from the Life Matters Suicide Prevention Trust. She started a Dunedin-based charity to support those struggling with mental health issues but also to support the whānau of people who have taken their own lives. It was quite a harrowing video that I watched looking again today at that submission and petition from her to—I believe it was—the Justice Committee, where she talked about the experience of her own son Ross taking his life but, more than that, the eight years—the eight long years—of going through a coronial system that wasn’t able to resolve matters, that dragged out and retraumatised what was a hugely painful experience for that family.

She stood here at Parliament with a petition, which was actually signed by 3,834, saying we need change in the coronial system, we need more coroners, and we also need processes that will make for a less adversarial experience for whānau going through the inquests but also some shortcuts to ensure that people aren’t necessarily retraumatised when, actually, it would be better just to have closure.

I think that this bill goes some ways to resolving many of those things, with the four amendments. It’s establishing the new position of the coronial associate. As the previous speaker has said, it’s enabled a cause of death to be recorded as unascertained natural causes. Really importantly, I think, it gives the coroner the sole discretion to decide whether an inquest is needed or a chambers hearing—and that certainly would seem to circumvent that traumatic process for many families, where there is no need to take them through that inquest process—and, of course, it enables coroners to issue written findings about the cause of death rather than the circumstances.

I’m really pleased for Corinda Taylor, and I want to acknowledge my predecessor the Hon Clare Curran, who stood with Corinda in Parliament to make that submission. I hope that this goes some way to making sure that the experience her whānau had has not gone to waste and that some good has come out of that harrowing experience. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is online. I call on Golriz Ghahraman, who is connecting with us remotely.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green) (remote): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on this bill. It does solve a lot of problems in a system that’s overworked, under pressure, and under stress, not only in terms of the professionals who work within it—the coroners and their officers—but for New Zealanders who are going through some of the absolute worst tragedies, the worst days of their lives. So to say that there’s delay, and we do say it often—I’ll repeat Simon O’Connor’s comment that we all do say when these bills come to the House: justice delayed is justice denied. But in the case of those awaiting results coming out of a coronial inquest, that cuts deeper than in most cases. So these are cases where death has been sudden; it has been violent, perhaps; it has come about in the context of serious mental health issues; and, of course, as others have mentioned, cases of suicide. So a fix to this system—to ensure that it’s efficient, safe, and places the interests of those who access the service of coroners—is long overdue and it’s absolutely necessary to our system. So I do commend the Minister for bringing this bill as well.

I just want to also recall and mihi to an ex - co-leader of my party, the Green Party of Aotearoa, Metiria Turei, who first brought the coronial inquiry, when she was in Parliament, that resulted in much of this work that we began in Government last term. And that has been the beginning of all of what we now, kind of, look to, to make our coronial system not only more efficient but also culturally appropriate. So some of the changes—others have gone through them, but the establishment of a new position of coronial associate, I think, is incredibly sensible.

There may have been concerns about the level of expertise or the independence of appointments, but, happily, the bill actually addresses those. And, of course, the Justice Committee will hear tweaks around, you know, the five-year level of experience as a practising lawyer; the independent appointments—whether the office of the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General and others are involved. And I do want to assure Simon O’Connor we’re not talking about nurses or teachers; there are a lot of us lawyers out there looking for meaningful work, so I don’t think that will be a problem. But I do think, you know, looking at what types of activities will be undertaken by the associates will also be important. So we’ve said it may be the less complicated or less expert aspects of the inquiries, but that probably does need to also be looked at because these are important inquiries and important findings that our system needs to be able to rely upon in the long run and also for the families involved.

The other three changes that the bill makes may seem administrative, but I think they too will have not only a significant impact on the level of efficiency that the system gains, but also in part—you know, so we’re talking about recording of the cause of death as unascertained natural causes, where there’s no further inquiry required, enabling coroners to hold coronial inquiries on the papers, where that’s appropriate, or enabling written findings of the cause of death rather than the circumstances. Those are all good in terms of efficiency raising, but they also have impacts on the families involved, and the sensitivities that are involved around a coronial enquiry. And, in particular, I’m thinking about ethnic communities and that idea of having the circumstances of a death that may have involved mental health challenges or suicide, for example; it will bring a lot of solace to family members who are already going through incredible distress. So it’s important to allow for a system that takes account of keeping things private unless there is a good public interest in making them public—and sometimes there is—but allowing for that discretion as a beginning of also being culturally appropriate in our system.

I was very happy to hear from the Minister, of course, that the wider and longer-term reforms are still being looked at and steps will be under way, that there will be changes that will bring tikanga Māori into the system and establish that Te Ao Māori approach within the coronial system. I hope that we also can take account of, again, other cultural sensitivities and needs that other communities have, and I know a lot of those came to light after the Christchurch terror attack where families did experience some distress in coming into conflict with the coronial system and various elements, including delay, but also the way that their loved ones would be handled physically and whatever else was happening. So the work does have to be longer term and it does have to be more comprehensive, but this is a very good beginning, so I do commend the bill to the House.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to start by congratulating Minister Aupito William Sio for addressing this issue once again. We support this initiative through to its first reading and to select committee for further scrutiny.

I worked for the Rotorua Coroner back in the day for a couple of years at a time when coroners were in most districts and they were plentiful and they got through the work. Now we have 19 coroners in nine centres, and we only increased those coroners by two as recently as May this year—so from 17 to 19. It’s obviously not enough because we have so many families out there that are stuck in the system and awaiting help.

So the purpose—and we all agreed on this when we increased the cap back in May—was one that we needed to see, which was an increase in the right type of people being able to process coronial cases, reducing the stress to grieving families and whānau. What we will have with this bill is a streamlining effect to simplify some of the coronial processes that can easily be simplified without having to wait within the system.

This bill has four areas of change to immediately address the delays that are currently being experienced. The first is to formalise the positions that we have established, that I just spoke about in May this year, where we agreed to the new positions of coronial assistants, which I believe will be renamed to “associate coroners”. It says in the bill that the coroners, or the coronial assistants, must have five years of barrister and solicitor experience. I have an expectation that they have more than that in life experience because, while we may have an influx of lawyers, it takes a special type of person to be a coroner and to deal with families in the most stressful times of their lives. I also understand that there’s a five-year tenure, but with that is also the ability for a coroner or an assistant coroner to be able to stay on past their tenure in order to complete cases. I think this is also important, especially when we’ve heard from families who have been stuck in the system for many, many years and have had to go through multiple coroners—that does not help them.

It will take the less onerous work away from coroners so that inquiries and inquests can be worked on by a coroner. They can assist with the duty coroner’s work, and just to outline what that is: a duty coroner is a coroner who is rostered to be on duty and works during the initial 48-hour period after a person’s death, where they make crucial decisions such as whether or not a death needs an inquiry, or is straightforward, such as a death caused by natural causes. This will help with coroners’ time, allowing them to focus on the more complex cases before them that do require an investigation and inquiry.

The second aspect of this bill will allow the cause of death to be recorded as “unascertained natural causes” in certain circumstances. For those at home, I’d just like to quickly explain the role of the coroner. Coroners are like judges. They’re qualified lawyers appointed as judicial officers to investigate unexpected violent or suspicious deaths, to find out what actually happened. They don’t apportion guilt to anyone for the cause of death, but if they think that it is in the public’s interest, they can make recommendations in an effort to share learnings from a person’s untimely passing so that the likelihood of it ever happening again can be reduced.

Coroners look at, and they decide, the facts about certain things to do with a person’s death, including that a person has actually died, who the person was, when and where the person died, how the person died, and the circumstances around the death. This second amendment means that if a person passes away from what is obviously a natural event and the family agree that this has indeed occurred, then the coroner or the duty coroner can apply a coroner’s finding as being unascertained natural causes. This will ensure that the family involved are not stuck in the system unnecessarily waiting for the processing of a finding that was reasonably seen to be from natural causes.

The third amendment will allow coroners to hold inquiries solely in chambers, where it is appropriate. Currently, a coroner can order an inquiry be held which will investigate unexplained violence or suspicious circumstances to a person’s death. The inquiry becomes an inquest when a coroner’s court hearing is established in order to hear evidence from witnesses and for the consideration of information and evidence that has been provided. The coroner, in this respect, will still need to notify interested parties and will have to consider their views when making their decision. If an inquiry can be held in chambers, this should again speed up the process, benefiting the grieving family while still allowing them the chance to communicate with the coroner.

The fourth amendment will enable coroner’s reported findings to determine only the cause of death, rather than the cause and circumstances relating to the death. Where there is public interest or other reasons for making the circumstances related to the death known, the coroner can still issue findings within his report. However, this is not always necessary, and this particular amendment will also support families by expediting the coronial process.

These four changes, and some minor amendments that go with them, on the face of it look great, and we support it through to its first reading and look forward to hearing from stakeholders and families during the select committee period. We know many families have been waiting a long time; some have been waiting many, many years. There is simply no closure for them. The stress of losing a loved one and not understanding why is ripping families apart. There’s the loss of jobs, the loss of enjoyment of life, and, on top of that, they’ve also lost a loved one. If we can assist to reduce active coronial cases in a proper and timely way whilst still respecting the needs of families and whānau, then we can do this by supporting this bill through its first reading and through to select committee. With that, we commend this bill to the House.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise to take a brief call on this matter. The substance of this excellent bill has been well described by my many colleagues around the House. It does four things which, in addition to our raising the cap on the number of coroners earlier on this year, are going to make the coroner’s court work better and experience less delay. There is nothing that anyone in this House can say that will adequately express the trauma of those who wait months and months and months for a coronial decision as to the passing of someone who was much loved.

On that note, as a member of the Justice Committee, I look forward to going through the practicalities of this in some detail, as we of course always do, and I am actually really interested in the parallels between this and the bill on the Family Court Associates, which we had before us for first reading very recently. The similarity is between taking the ability of young lawyers who can move into an associate role and help to relieve the stress on courts, which is something that I think has huge promise. I am delighted to commend this very useful bill to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party, and as the member of Parliament for Southland, to speak on the Coroners Amendment Bill at its first reading. The National Party supports this bill. It is a useful bill, as, unfortunately, the coronial system is under significant pressure at the moment.

The coroners have struggled to keep pace with the number of cases being accepted into the coronial jurisdiction, which has resulted in an increasing active caseload and an increase in the average time taken to undertake coronial investigations. One of the important things that the coroner’s court provides to people is certainty. That certainty is required so that a firm conclusion can be drawn and people can come to an understanding of what led to that unfortunate loss of an individual. People can process that and, effectively, it gives people an opportunity to move on once that process has been completed. So it is actually quite a significant issue that the coroner’s court has been under significant pressure with increasing caseload and has taken longer to conclude these coronial investigations.

I can say that I personally haven’t appeared in the coroner’s court myself. I have certainly appeared in many other courts as counsel, and I have seen the pressure on not only individuals but on families when cases are delayed. In fact, I received an email only today from someone who is an alleged victim who has had a case delayed and it’s putting significant pressure on that person as they wait years for their case to come to a conclusion. There’s uncertainty on both sides of that equation for those who are waiting for a case to be completed in the court so that certainty as to the outcome can be ascertained by the courts. So this is a positive step to ameliorate the pressure that the coronial court is under.

The ultimate objective of the bill is to reduce the stress caused to grieving families and whānau by reducing the length of time that they have to ultimately spend waiting to receive coronial findings. The key objectives will be achieved by ensuring that there is a proper process, and—we think this is a good one—it establishes the new position of a coronial associate. Coronial associates will take on the more straightforward functions, powers, and duties currently exercised by coroners, while still enabling coroners to exercise them. For example, coronial associates will be able to undertake the more straightforward work currently undertaken solely by duty coroners. Coronial associates will also be able to handle the more simple and straightforward coronial investigations—for instance, deaths that appear to be due to natural causes, without any suspicious circumstances for which an inquiry will not be needed—and simpler inquiries. So this will enable the coroner time, especially time that they currently devote to duty coroner work, which they can utilise for more complex cases where their skills are probably better deployed—particularly those cases where an inquiry needs to be opened and cases where there is public interest for a coroner to make recommendations to avoid similar deaths in the future.

Coronial associates will be judicial officers—that is, they’ll be part of the judicial branch of Government. So there will be a constitutional separation between the function of their duties and Parliament. They will require a minimum of five years post-admission experience as a barrister or solicitor, and that compares to seven years for a judge, so it’s quite a reasonable period of time they will have to have spent practising as a barrister or solicitor to qualify for this role. As judicial officers, their salary and allowances will be determined by the Remuneration Authority, which helps ensure their independence, and it’s important from a constitutional sense.

The bill will amend section 64 of the Coroners Act to enable a coroner to record a cause of death on the relevant form as “unascertained natural causes”, if the coroner considers that the death is from natural causes and no further investigation is required under the Coroners Act. So this will enable families and whānau to receive a coroner’s findings sooner, particularly when this is undertaken at the duty coroner stage.

The bill also amends section 77 of the Coroners Act to provide coroners with the sole discretion to decide whether a coronial inquiry should also include an inquest. This will prevent inquiries from taking place where, having regarded the statutory criteria in the Coroners Act, the coroner considers the hearing in chambers is appropriate and an inquest is not needed.

It will also enable written findings to be issued, with the cause of death only where appropriate. This will allow certain cases to be concluded more quickly, ensuring families and whānau receive a coroner’s finding sooner. So I recommend this bill to the House.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to take a brief call in relation to this bill, which is a bill that on its face does address the delays in our coronial system. But at its heart, this is a bill, as colleagues have spoken to, about being respectful of the process of grief that many families go through—actually, sometimes in quite horrendous circumstances—and ensuring that we don’t leave those families in limbo.

It’s also very much a bill about community safety, and there’s just one example I’d like to refer to just to give a sense of why. In 2015, three members of a Southland family passed away. Eventually, their deaths were attributed to a faulty kettle catching fire. There were 66,000 of those kettles in Kiwi homes around the country, and they remained for sale until The Warehouse voluntarily withdrew them from the market, seven months after the deaths. Now, had The Warehouse waited until the coronial findings, they would have remained for sale for two years. So we can see that there can be really significant safety concerns that play out if we don’t have a coronial system that’s responsive. The issue is not just that the delays have been static but that they have increased by 52 percent in just under four years, and, of course, again, that has a significant impact on families.

There are four changes that the bill proposes to make. Colleagues have spoken to those, so I won’t traverse them this evening. Just to say that as a member of the Justice Committee I do look forward, with colleagues across the House, in terms of considering this bill but also to hearing from a number of stakeholders who I know will have concerns in this area. I commend this bill to the House.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will just be taking a brief call this evening, being almost one of the last speakers in the debate. I acknowledge the Minister Aupito William Sio, who opened with his speech and outlined what the purposes of the legislation are and what the key changes to the legislation are, and other members who have spoken tonight. I was tuning in on the TV listening to the contribution from the member for Taieri, Ingrid Leary, and she referred to the petition that came before our Justice Committee, and it was really by sitting in and listening to those petitioners that I got a much better understanding and appreciation of the distress that whānau are under while they are waiting a significant amount of time for reports to come back about their loved ones.

But also one of the things that I thought about was—and it’s been mentioned by a few other members in the House this evening—that because of those delays, often there are findings in those inquiries which could help, perhaps, prevent further deaths. One that I can think of that I’ve seen recently in Northland is some findings about a particular beach where there’s been a number of drownings. Now, with that, we hope that that will prevent future deaths by making recommendations to the council about things that should happen in that area.

So I want to thank the petitioners for bringing that petition to the Justice Committee. I want to acknowledge our committee and the Minister for introducing this new legislation. I look forward, as a member of the Justice Committee, as others have said, to hearing from submitters on this. I am particularly interested in the new proposal of this new position of the coronial associates and the different contributions that have been made this evening.

I do want to note, finally, in the Minister’s speech, he talked about this being part of wider work that’s going on, that this is just a first step. He mentioned that they’re also looking at, in particular, a project to better integrate tikanga Māori into the coronial processes, and I look forward to that work in the future as well. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the last speaker for the National Party, I speak in support of the Coroners Amendment Bill at this first reading—no, wrong one. I’m referring to—oh, it is the right one, the Coroners Amendment Bill. I’ve got a number of notes before me, and I’m glancing at a speech that I gave on 20 May this year about the Coroners (Coronial Cap) Amendment Bill. In that speech addressing the House, I referenced the fact that it’s taking quite some time to get these changes that the Government has talked about doing. So we’re now seeing this come before the House, and of note and interest was Minister Sio talking about a review that is to be undertaken, and that’s a longer-term review which will look at other aspects that will need to be addressed to make access to justice in the coroner’s court much more effective and efficient.

It’s interesting: the legislative statement that has been made on this bill is that this, in amending the Coroners Act of 2006, will facilitate better access to justice. I think the issue is that this bill is going to facilitate the appointment of a coronial associate, in the same way—again, on an earlier bill that I addressed the House, the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill, when I spoke to that on 2 August of this year—it’s appointing another cog in the wheel or in the machinery of the court system. Whether or not it’s going to facilitate better access to justice is yet to be evidenced, and the whole point is that there hasn’t been a risk assessment analysis in relation to this bill. There’s the anticipation that it will provide better access to justice by the appointment of a coroner’s associate, but, as I’ve addressed this House previously on the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill and also the Coroners (Coronial Cap) Amendment Bill, they are but additional cogs to the wheel. It doesn’t necessarily mean to say that it will improve the access to justice. So by the appointment of a coronial associate, it’s placing and positioning in, within the whole machinery of the coroner’s court system, another function to ease and to relieve the workload of the coroners.

But there are other elements to the coroner’s court. I was interested to hear my parliamentary colleague Nicole McKee talk about her experience of having served in a coroner’s office and also make, notably, the point that there’s only 19 coroners, when it was addressed in the House earlier this year to lift the cap from 20 to 22 for a full complement of what at the time was 17 coroners. And yet we only have 19 coroners in nine branches or regions throughout the country. Now, that is not utilising to the maximum capacity what is available. So there are 22 positions, yet there are only 19 appointments. What does that say? Again, we’ve got a Government that’s underperforming in its delivery. The legislation’s been put in place, but it’s not been fully complemented.

And again, in May 2019, I remember addressing the House after Minister Little had announced the appointment of eight relief coroners, and I spoke about the importance of that. I conferred with a former law student friend who was the Deputy Chief Coroner at the time—now appointed, elevated, to the Māori Land Court bench as a judge; Brandt Shortland—and, again, saying that despite the under-resourcing, there was the competency of the coroners in those positions, who, although heavily burdened with the workload, were performing to the highest of their capacity. But we’ve got a Government that’s not doing that. We’ve got 22 coroner’s positions, and only 19 of those have been filled. We have a Minister who is talking about a longer-term review of the coronial system. We’ve got a royal commission of inquiry into those abused in care. But this Government is not prepared to listen to the very people who are competent and who know best how this works.

I’m going to refer also to an article, because I’ve talked about—it’s all very well to dress this up and present the appearance that this is going to facilitate better access to justice. What it does is just put another cog within the whole machinery; it doesn’t mean that it’s facilitating better access to justice. There are a whole lot of other tiers and levels. Legal aid is one of them. So an article that I have referred to, in looking at the delays that family members are experiencing, says that the delays are associated with the time. It’s thought that this bill is going to help alleviate the time burden by placing a coronial associate in to alleviate the workload of coroners and therefore reduce some of the workload timeliness burden that goes with it.

Part of the problem, also, is that there are other inter-agency systems that are part of the overall coronial system—police investigations, Health and Disability Commissioner inquiry investigations—and when there is a case that comes before the coronial court, if there is a pending police investigation awaiting findings or further evidence or a Health and Disability Commission investigation requiring findings from that, the coronial system gets put on hold. It is delayed because of those other agencies, who are significant parts within this whole machinery of the justice system.

Coming back to the coronial courts, there are only 19 coroners when we’ve got 22 for full capacity that need to be appointed. So the Government needs to up their game, make the commitment to New Zealanders, follow through, and deliver. We’re not seeing that.

I don’t have the privilege of sitting on the Justice Committee. My colleagues in the House tonight will scrutinise and, importantly, listen to the public submissions, not just dispense and cast them aside because it suits a particular Government agenda driven by this Government. You know, appearances are all well and good, but it’s about the genuine intent of listening and representing the interests of the New Zealand public. So I challenge the Government to do that, because the National Party—and I have confidence in my colleagues at select committee—that’s what we do. We don’t just hear; we listen, we take heed, and we hold the Government to account in Opposition benches—and again are doing that very thing this evening.

So although the National Party is supporting the Coroners Amendment Bill, Government members around the select committee: listen to the New Zealand public with the submissions and the place that they come from, which, actually, is of greater experience than most of the members who are sitting around the select committee. In saying that, the detail of this bill, in the Coroners Amendment Bill—it’s in two parts, 37 clauses, and two schedules. I have every confidence in my National Party colleagues to scrutinise and hold this Government to account, whilst also listening to our New Zealand public and their submissions. I commend this bill to the House, Mr Speaker.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill. I’m not sure if the previous speaker heard her colleagues’ contributions, but they actually were quite supportive of this bill and thought that a lot of the changes would assist many of the bereaved families that I’m sure everyone in our House is concerned with. I’m not exactly sure what her contribution was trying to get at, but I do understand the National Party is supporting this bill. In fact, I think everyone agrees that the changes in this bill are welcome.

The fundamental thing that I think this bill upholds is still the public interest that coroners hold at the heart of what they do and also, as colleagues have previously mentioned, preventing similar deaths—avoidable deaths—within the community. I think any bill that adds to the efficiency of the coronial system and assists bereaved families at their time of need is something that we—certainly on this side of the House—support, and I understood those in the National Party also support it as well.

There are a few different changes in this bill. They’ve been traversed. I am the last speaker on this bill, and we’ve gone over them in some detail. But they include things like coronial associates being appointed—those who have had over five years’ experience; well, actually, five years with a practising certificate. That is similar, I think, to practising on your own account—so a relatively high threshold to be appointed into that position. It also will bring in changes like coroners being able to find a death as unascertained natural causes, which may be appropriate in some instances; changes that allow for hearing in chambers—which I assume will be mainly on the papers, which is kind of a technical legal term which is sometimes used—and also, lastly, looking at only the cause of death if there’s no public interest in making findings on other matters. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The question is, That the Coroners Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Bills

Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill

First Reading

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Tourism): I present a legislative statement on the Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation 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 STUART NASH: I move, That the Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill be now read a first time.

The bill is an omnibus bill that amends the Freedom Camping Act—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Just go back a step. You’ve got a sentence to add.

Hon STUART NASH: I nominate the Economic Development, Science and—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Thank you. Not often I know more than you do.

Hon STUART NASH: —Innovation Committee to consider the bill for six months.

Hon Todd McClay: He’s a bit new! He’s quite new; he hasn’t done this much before!

Hon STUART NASH: Ha, ha! We’ll get there in the end. Anyway, it’ll be a good bill for that committee to consider.

Freedom camping is deemed to occur when someone is staying in a vehicle or tent within 200 metres of a road or parking area, the coast, or a Great Walks track. Such camping is a small but highly visible part of tourism in New Zealand. Freedom campers travel widely, spending money in local communities. Some also contribute by participating in our seasonal workforce and volunteering. In 2019—pre-COVID—international visitors who freedom camped at some point during their trip spent an estimated $645 million here. That year, an estimated 245,000 people freedom camped, 63 percent of whom were international visitors.

However, not all freedom campers respect our natural environment, nor the communities that host them. Of particular concern are freedom campers who stay in cars or vans with sleeping platforms that are not self-contained. Abuse of freedom camping by domestic and international travellers not only damages our “100% Pure” brand; it erodes public support for tourism and undermines its social licence to operate.

In 2011, the Government enacted the Freedom Camping Act 2011 to address some of the issues with freedom camping. Despite this, and Government investment of $27 million in freedom camping programmes since 2018, problems still persist. This bill will address these problems by improving the management of vehicle-based freedom camping. It creates a robust regulatory system that central and local government can rely on to prevent the type of abuse that has placed an unfair burden on small communities and risks damaging our reputation as a high-quality visitor destination.

Last term, our Government established a responsible camping working group, including local government and private business to advise the Government on how these concerns can best be addressed. This bill incorporates a number of the group’s recommendations for legislative change, and I want to publicly thank them for their work, their insights, and their experience. So I released a discussion document in April last year. My officials held an extensive consultation process to outline the issues, present the options for change, and to hear feedback. Over 5,000 submissions were received, and this feedback has also been fully considered in the development of the bill.

I’m mindful of the strong emotions that freedom camping can give rise to, both from those who do not want change as well as those who want greater regulation to reduce the impact on the natural environment. Feedback from communities and councils made it clear that behaviour of some freedom campers remains a huge problem. Issues include uncertified vehicles parking outside designated areas—including on private driveways and front lawns—littering, and disposal of human waste. It’s clear that change is needed.

Hon Member: Outrageous.

Hon STUART NASH: Exactly. This bill provides the management of vehicle-based freedom camping in several ways. Only freedom campers in a self-contained vehicle with a fixed toilet will be able to stay on land managed by a local authority. This will ensure that they will have facilities in their vehicle enabling them to be self-supported for several days.

Freedom campers without the appropriate fixed toilet facilities will not be able to stay in areas outside of those specifically designated for freedom camping by local authorities. Of course, they can still stay in one of the hundreds of camp grounds located all around New Zealand. We are also providing local authorities with power to make bylaws that designate specific locations as being suitable for non - self-contained vehicles. This will provide flexibility for local authorities to determine how freedom camping is managed in their communities.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Powerful move.

Hon STUART NASH: Thank you. This bill requires that all new certifications must involve the vehicle having a fixed toilet. A fixed toilet is a cassette toilet or permanently plumbed toilet with a black water tank. It does this by initially amending the current New Zealand standard. Proposed regulations to come into effect six months after Royal asset will then require that a vehicle can only be certified as self-contained if it has a fixed toilet.

The bill establishes a regulatory system for the certification of vehicles as self-contained, and I do note that the Mayor of Rotorua is fully supportive of this new bill, as is the Mayor of Queenstown. Such certification is critical to manage freedom camping. Local authorities and the Department of Conservation rely on the certification process as a means of determining whether a vehicle is self-contained. The current certification system cannot be relied upon because the requirements are set out in a voluntary New Zealand standard. And while there is a set of criteria for who can carry out certifications, there is no oversight of the certification process.

The bill establishes the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board as the new regulator of the certification process. The board is well placed to do this because self-containment focuses on plumbing elements such as toilets, waste-water discharge, and freshwater storage. The board will appoint self-containment certification authorities and monitor their performance. It will be able to discipline non-performing certification authorities as well.

The board will also set up a national register of self-contained vehicles, and enforcement officers will be able to access the register to assist them to enforce freedom camping requirements more effectively. The public will also have limited access to check whether a specific vehicle is self-contained. Officials work closely with the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board to ensure that they have the competencies, capability, and capacity to undertake the responsibilities in a timely manner. How many of us have seen a vehicle with the current blue self-contained sticker on and thought to ourselves “Really?” Well, the days of the dodgy vehicle are now numbered. The bill also introduces a number of wide-ranging offences to reflect different behaviours that cause harm. The bill provides enforcement authorities with the option of emailing infringement notices to owners of vehicles involved in the commission of the offence. And I must note that was a favourite of the Mayor of Queenstown; he loved that.

This will speed up the infringement process and, in particular, will assist rental companies to recover infringement fees from international hirers in a timely manner. Freedom camping is occurring more and more on land administered by other—sorry, by other than local authorities and the Department of Conservation. Excuse me. As such, the bill extends the Freedom Camping Act to apply to land administered by Waka Kotahi and Land Information New Zealand. This will allow those agencies to have access to the offences and penalties regime under the Act, thereby providing additional management tools for freedom camping on their land.

The bill provides for a two-year transition period for existing vehicles to fully comply, even though the camping restrictions will apply upon the date of Royal assent. This will ensure that there is an orderly transition to a regulated certification system. Existing local body bylaws will continue to apply over this period. It’s important that the new regime is implemented smoothly to allow time for the new system to be established and for the public to transition to it. At the same time, it’s essential that these positive changes are implemented soon.

The ultimate aim of this new regime is to reduce the adverse impact of vehicle-based freedom camping while still enabling freedom campers to enjoy being out and about in our beautiful natural environment. I look forward to and encourage public submissions during the select committee process to ensure this bill achieves its objectives. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The question is the motion be agreed to. I call the Opposition spokesperson for campervans, the Hon Todd McClay.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Imitation is the greatest form of flattery and Minister Stuart Nash is channelling Maureen Pugh, who is sitting beside me, because this is almost an identical bill to the one that Maureen brought to this House two years ago, which that Minister stood up and spoke against and said it wasn’t needed and voted it down. Now he’s back, two years later, with an almost identical bill, except it’s actually not as good as Maureen’s because it creates a lot of extra red tape and bureaucracy that’s not necessary to get the job done.

I need to commend the Minister. For the first time in a long time, we’re seeing a Minister on the other side take almost all of their 10 minutes. One can only wonder that he wants to use every single moment available to him as a Minister to speak in this House and get every single word out.

The National Party has some significant concerns with this legislation, not with what it’s trying to achieve, but with the way it goes about achieving it, because there are two ways to get things done. If you want to get as a visitor from A to B, you can walk straight across the paddock or you can do what this Minister does, which is zigzag all over the place, and, yes, you finally get there—right? But it’s a little bit like the point he was making earlier. You know, this bill, I wouldn’t equate it to being a black water tank. It’s a brown water tank in the way that he has developed it.

You see, there are challenges out there in as far as those that don’t treat the environment properly. A few of them will be New Zealanders and many of them are likely to have been visitors to the country, but whilst the intention of the Minister is valid and is good, I’m not sure this bill is going to achieve what he wants. It’s going to take a lot of work in committee, listening to submitters to get it right, because it is imperative we have a clear set of rules that are the same and they work everywhere and they don’t overly burden anybody, which is often the taxpayer. In this case, it will be mum and dad New Zealanders who have a campervan, who are responsible, and they travel around the country drinking good wine and seeing the sights, and, actually, there will be a great cost to them and a great imposition upon them to fit in with his regime and there will be uncertainty.

We will be constructive in this to help the Minister get the legislation right, because, finally, it would be good if we did. Look, Mr Nash has been a tourism Minister for a period of time. There was a great expectation that he would be better than the last tourism Minister, and we all thought that it was just a given. It’s important that we help him get this right so that that question doesn’t land out there.

But here’s the thing: do you remember when Mr Nash became the tourism Minster a little while ago? His very first pronouncement at the top of his voice, on every radio station that listened to him, was “I send a clear message to those international visitors that they’re not going to crap in our streams anymore.”—those were his words, not mine—and he was spectacularly successful. Well, in fact, the Prime Minister was, because not long before he made that announcement, they closed the border and there were no freedom campers in New Zealand, and he saw that as a good thing, but I’m not sure that the sector did.

You see, the challenge we have is twofold. The first is that, actually, land controlled by a local authority, Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), or the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), where a campervan, as an example—a vehicle that is self-contained—falls under the scope of this legislation. But therein lies the confusion, because for LINZ and NZTA, with the extra authority of power that’s been given to the councils to enforce with penalties where people haven’t been certified and don’t meet the rules, there is going to be confusion about how NZTA or LINZ apply that, because, actually, they’re not going to. My understanding is that the councils are going to have to pass bylaws not only for what they want to do but to get permission and then pass a bylaw for what they may want to do on LINZ or NZTA land in their area, when, actually, this Minister making a decision and saying, “Here are the rules, they’re the same everywhere, and this is how we enforce them.” would be much more straightforward.

The second challenge we have is: why are NZTA or the transport authority not the certifiers of this legislation rather than the plumbers and gasfitters? What I’m trying to understand is how the plumbers and gasfitters board will have the ability and scope. They’re going to have to set up a database or get access to someone else’s—and there’ll be privacy issues there—and then they’re going to have to set up the regime and either find people to certify or, I don’t know, maybe get plumbers to certify. I hope it’s not the plumbers that will be certifying because, actually, we need them building the houses that the Government’s promised and that aren’t being built but also, putting that aside, it’s just, actually, factually not their job.

Here’s a question for the Minister. He can’t answer it now, but we’ll get to it in a committee, and if it’s not fixed in the committee, we’ll be bringing forward some Supplementary Order Papers. Why is there a difference between somebody that has a fixed, self-contained unit—he said “has to be plumbed in”—and a responsible New Zealander with a campervan, who might be mum and dad or your grandparents, who has a portable one and they are responsible? It’s not a bucket with a lid or some of the other things we hear about, because what the Minister has decided to do is say to the vast majority of New Zealanders who like to go camping in their vehicles and don’t have plumbed-in toilets that they can’t get certified and, therefore, they will be restricted. Actually, every four years, you’re going to have to get your vehicle certified, whereas for many of these vehicles, every year when they get their warrant of fitness, they make sure that it is fit to be on the road.

Actually, the legislation had just said that you have to be self-sufficient and that it can be plumbed in, or it can be portable up to a standard, and that if you are not doing that, then you are breaking the law and you can be prosecuted or the council can fine you and fine you, just as you have a warrant of fitness for your car, but then over the course of the next year, if the tyres are not good, you can get a fine—but, oh no, what the Minister is saying is it has to be plumbed-in, which is a great cost. It’s a great, great cost to have a vehicle with that—number one. Number two, every four years we’ll certify it; and, number three, in between times, the poor old council is going to have to run around catching people going to the toilet on something that’s not fixed and it gets to fine them and prosecute them. It feels like a lot of bureaucracy and a lot of red tape. It feels like a great big sledgehammer that the heads come flying off to try and crack a nut, and I know that Mr Nash likes to crack nuts. So the point here is, actually, the intention is good. We want to actually make sure that we have clear rules and visitors—that others know what the rules are, and that they’re clear and transparent and easy to see, but we just don’t want a lot of bureaucracy. I guarantee you: mum and dad sitting at home from the caravan or motorhome association, who are responsible and have put their retirement savings into something where they can travel around the country enjoying themselves—and, by the way, who spend lots of money in the local economies—don’t quite realise that they’re going to have to go and get certified, and the gasfitters, drainlayers, and plumbers board is going to have to set that up. It’ll be cost recovery. It will be a great, great cost—a huge cost.

They’ll have to pay for that, and then every four years they’re going to have to get recertified. But, in between, there will be bylaws and there’ll be changes and they won’t know what the rules are for LINZ compared to the Department of Conservation land, compared to NZTA and the councils, and every council will have slightly different rules. This Minister will trot up and say, “We’ve done a great thing there. I told you on my very first day that we’re going to tell those people to stop ruining our streams.”, but, actually, there’s a very, very high likelihood and chance this legislation won’t achieve what he wants in anything but name, because it’s heavy on bureaucracy, heavy on red tape, and is creating more and more structures when they actually already exist.

We will be constructive in this and we will be supporting it at first reading, but we will want to see changes to it in the committee stage. We want to see that the submitters that come forward are listened to, and we will want to work with the Government to find solutions so it can work, so there’s certainty, and so that they don’t have to rely upon a few mayors around the country who say that it’s wonderful, but they’re about to leave office.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. That was a rather negative speech for a party that is actually supporting this bill, the Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill. We heard around eight minutes of negative comments and then, at the end, he said, “We are supporting this bill.” Then the member sat down at the end of that speech.

I’d like to begin by acknowledging the Minister the Hon Stuart Nash and I want to acknowledge the Minister for his passion for Aotearoa New Zealand. We have a Minister who understands the incredible proposition that we have here in New Zealand: the unique opportunity to encourage high-value tourists to come to New Zealand—high value, high wage. During COVID, we have had the opportunity for, unfortunately, a bit of a tourism reset. It has been really tough for our tourism operators, and the Government has been supporting them through this time, but we do have the opportunity for a reset of tourism, which is an opportunity that doesn’t happen very often. The Minister has recognised that, and the Minister is bringing in legislation, like this piece of legislation here, which will improve New Zealand’s brand. It will improve the value proposition that New Zealand offers.

The key point here is that, as a Government, we’re not against freedom campers, but we are against the non - self-contained units, and that’s the key point. The toilets must be contained within the vehicle. Vehicle-based freedom camping has been a point of friction between the tourism industry and local communities for over a decade, and the Minister outlined the legislation that came through in 2011 and how that hasn’t worked. So the Minister is bringing new legislation to the House to fix that. I acknowledge his work and commend this bill to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. The member who’s just resumed his seat was obviously giving the political speech of his career tonight, talking about fixed toilets in mobile campervans and freedom camping. That’s what that member came to Parliament for. He spent only a couple of minutes on it. I’m surprised it wasn’t a longer presentation.

My colleague the Hon Todd McClay summed up this bill, I think, very well in that the Minister should have actually been talking to Maureen Pugh for the last year or two, because, actually, Maureen Pugh brought a very similar but better bill to the House—a member’s bill that was drawn from the ballot. And she brought that bill to the House, and guess what happened! The Labour Government voted it down—voted it down. Voted it down. So when they voted it down, they didn’t go away and continue to talk to Maureen Pugh and try and use her expertise and knowledge from the West Coast. What did they do? They went away and made Maureen’s bill worse, and then they brought it back and called it their own. One of the interesting things about the Labour Party, this Labour Government, is that they really only have three policy options for any problem that confronts them: one is to tax things, one is to ban things, and one is to make things compulsory. Every policy conundrum that has ever confronted them, they find one or two or three and sometimes all of those options as a solution.

Simon Watts: They’ve got the trifecta.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Well, here they’ve done this. They’ve got the trifecta. My friend and colleague Simon Watts from the North Shore says, “They’ve got the trifecta.”, and they certainly have here.

Another member’s bill that I can recall that I was a bit involved with was a bill to increase the fines for littering. It was a member’s bill that I had fortunately had drawn from ballot. Guess what! The Labour Party voted it down. One of the reasons that they used to vote it down was they said, “Oh, infringement notices don’t work. Oh, you can’t have an infringement regime. That can’t work. That’s terrible. Infringement regimes are outdated, they’re old fashioned, local government doesn’t like it, and central government bureaucrats don’t like them.” And what have we got here? Oh, an infringement system. An infringement system to try and monitor toilets in campervans that are often incorrectly referred to as freedom camping vehicles. So what do we find? This bill includes offences for infringements against a whole range of new rules, enforceable by—wait for it—enforcement officers appointed under the Act; enforcement officers. A whole new range of bureaucrats.

When I was doing research on the Litter Act changes, I went back to the original Litter Act that went back to the mid-1970s, and a whole lot of the debate around the Litter Act back in those days related to enforcement officers as well. But the debate was about what the enforcement officers’ uniforms would be. So I want to know from this Minister—and no doubt we’ll hear about it in select committee—what kind of uniforms are these enforcement officers that are going to be appointed under the Act going to wear? And how are they going to be identified? Will they wear bling? Will they have epaulettes? Will they have peaked caps? Will they have clipboards? Will they have white coats? What kind of infringement enforcement officers will be appointed, and who’s going to administer their sartorial elegance? And will that actually help with the problem?

Because here’s the rub: this is a problem that is actually manifest quite markedly in my electorate of the beautiful Coromandel, where we have more than our fair share of tourists visiting and freedom campers around the beautiful Coromandel. And a small minority of them, I have to say—a small minority of them—spoil it, literally spoil it, for others who are responsible and who do take their responsibility as tourists and as visitors to the area—you know, they take those responsibilities carefully and seriously, but there are a few that do not.

So this is a piece of legislation that seeks to address that. I’m just delighted that we have an omnibus bill. It’s quite remarkable that here we are, this hour of the evening, discussing an omnibus bill that relates to freedom camping and the installation and monitoring and regulation and enforcement and infringement of fixed toilets in freedom campervans. But it’s going to be administered by none other than the plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers outfit.

Now, some members in the House will remember that we spent, I think it was about, three years in this Parliament sorting out the registration rules for the plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers. Thank goodness we sorted out the registration, because now we know what they can do, and they can sort out whether or not the enforcement officers and the rules that this piece of legislation will put in place are going to be effective. We have this lovely combination of plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers who are going to be the regulatory authority and the agency that’s going to police the installation and the plumbing and the fixing of these toilets in the campervans and the motorhomes. Then we’re going to have local bodies deciding on the enforcement officers to do the infringement notices which, previously, this Government told us weren’t effective in another piece of legislation, but they suddenly are effective when it comes to fixed toilets in freedom campervans. It just seems to me like there is a lot of regulation here. The Minister would have been a lot better—in terms of coming to the House with a piece of legislation—if he had to talked to Maureen Pugh, if he had had an opportunity to discuss with her some of the aspects of her piece of legislation which the Labour Government voted down.

Now, one of the aspects of this piece of legislation is that local government are going to be able to define the areas where freedom camping can be permitted, but also the New Zealand Transport Agency and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) are going to have exactly the same ability to designate pieces of land where freedom camping can occur. The real problem with that is that, for the tourists who are domestic tourists around New Zealand, they will have difficulty enough trying to decide where the boundaries of the local government rules are. Heaven forbid that they should then have to try and understand and define which is land administered by the New Zealand Transport Agency and which is land administered by LINZ. I guess there will be a multitude of signs that will be erected all around the countryside, polluting the visual atmosphere of the nation. These will be scattered around the countryside, and there’ll be little signs that say “This sign is a designated area that has been approved by the New Zealand Transport Agency where you can freedom camp.”, or “This area of land will be an area of land that has been designated by LINZ.” Most of them won’t have a clue what LINZ is, and then there will be all the different councils and they won’t know where one council’s boundary starts and another boundary begins and so forth.

So there are a whole lot of issues that are going to need to be teased out at select committee in this legislation. This is a good example of a Government that has been floundering around now for years on this issue, trying to come to some kind of resolution. I don’t doubt their intentions are good, actually. They’re slow, they’re late, they’re inadequate, and they’re over-regulated, but probably—

Maureen Pugh: And expensive.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: And expensive. But underlying all that, there are probably some good intentions. But we will want to, at select committee, hear from submitters who will undoubtedly want to address some of the issues that I’ve referred to and also some of the issues that Todd McClay referred to. Because the vast majority of people who do trip around the countryside and want to enjoy the beautiful natural landscape and natural wonderment that we have around the country—the vast majority of them do respect and are responsible visitors and tourists, and they do make sure that their waste is properly attended to. Whether that is human waste or whether it is litter or whether it is any other waste, most of them look after things properly. But for the few that don’t, there does need to be some kind of regulation, some kind of control. Whether this piece of legislation is the one that is going to be the panacea that is going to fix it all, I don’t know. I’ve got some doubts.

But what I would recommend to the Minister is that he break out of his Beehive office, go and have a chat to Maureen Pugh, tap into her wisdom and experience and knowledge on these matters, and use the experience that she has on the West Coast to try and make this bill a better bill. Because there will need to be work done on it at select committee, and the National Party will be very keenly listening to submitters and wanting to get to the nub of the issue, so to speak. So thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pity that the last two speakers that have taken a call from the opposite side don’t sit on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—and what a great select committee we are. I look forward to having this bill in our select committee because there will be lots and lots of details, no doubt, that we will get into.

Since 31 July, New Zealand is now open for business and we welcome all tourists. Come to our shores to come and enjoy our beautiful land, the nature that we have to offer. But there are regulations that we needed put in place to make sure that everyone’s experience of New Zealand is just as good as what we’ve seen in the past few years. We need to make sure that the tourists that come into our country really do play their part in terms of keeping our land clean and green—that includes the way that they move around this country, the way that they dispose of their waste. I probably have never dreamed of coming into this House to talk about how people dispose of their waste. So here I am, on this bill, because it is incredibly important.

The speaker that has just resumed his seat, the Hon Scott Simpson, talked about the different local councils, in terms of the different local authorities and where they may end and the other one start, but that is exactly why we talk about, ultimately, this new regulatory system that is consistent. The whole point of being consistent is so that we have, across the board, a system of certification that people can rely on, people can trust, that is standardised so that there is no more confusion, there is no more distrust. When we see that blue sticker at the moment, we all know that that is probably something that, you know, could be pretty dodgy. So we want a system right now that we can trust, no matter which city council, which local authority land you are camping on; that if you are certified, then it actually saves that local government authority time and human power to just actually trust in that certification process. So in order to preserve our “100% Pure New Zealand” branding, I commend this bill to the House.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Greens have long held the view that we live in a world with finite resources and, therefore, that infinite material growth isn’t possible. I think that’s pretty pertinent to the tourism industry where, prior to the pandemic, it was a major player in our economy but it was also experiencing really rapid growth—one that many local authorities were struggling to keep up with—and a growth that actually was starting to have noticeable detrimental impact on our environmental wellbeing, in an industry that actually in many ways has been a low-wage industry.

One of the issues that I recognise the Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill is trying to address is more to do with the impacts that the growth of the tourism industry has had in terms of waste or litter generated by people who are participating in freedom camping. So I note that there has been an attempt here to create a regulatory framework to address this, and predominantly it will be done through introducing requirements for vehicles to be self-contained and a regime to therefore enforce this. We do think that, in principle, the idea of having a much more sustainable tourism industry is worth exploring. Personally, I really do not subscribe to the Labour Party’s rhetoric around creating a high-value tourism industry, because I just think it’s very loaded. Like, what do we mean? I just heard a member talk about bringing high-wage tourists, and the idea that rich tourists actually are less wasteful, I think, is not necessarily grounded in reality, because, actually, rich tourists can also be some of the people who end up spending the most, in some of our most-polluting aspects of the tourism industry. So I do hope that, throughout this process, we can take much more nuanced views that do not throw dog whistles out in terms of the people that we talk about when we refer to tourists.

We do have some concerns with the bill and, unfortunately, unlike the National Party, they are not so much to do with the conversations that Minister Nash has had with Maureen Pugh or to do with the uniforms that the officials in charge of enforcing the regime will be wearing, although I do commend Maureen Pugh for taking an interest in this topic and attempting, in a very National Party way, to address some of these issues. I guess our concerns mostly stem from what we see as this bill being somewhat actually narrow and limited in scope, and we do think that, since 2011, there should have been a much more comprehensive review. Some of the other concerns that we’ve got are around the framing of vehicle camping as “freedom camping”—and noting that, in the last term, there was work to encourage responsible camping. I do hope that the Government continues adopting that framing rather than just kind of lumping vehicle camping on to this term. That, I think, sometimes can be unhelpful.

Even though we’re creating a regime to be able to identify people who may be in breach of these rules—and that will require data gathering—this bill does not actually increase data on the extent of the problem, and by that we mean that it doesn’t require local authorities to report the infringements they use. We do think that, if the goal is to have a robust framework, we could have done a better job in terms of ensuring that the bill also provides the available data for local authorities to be able to exercise the regime. We also, basically, note that the maintenance of a register of certified self-contained vehicles is a sensible measure. Registry access by the general public will be allowed, and there are concerns around ensuring that this bill doesn’t result in unfair targeting as a result of these provisions. It’s not clear to us yet, and this is something that we’ll be exploring in the later stages, about the consultation with the Privacy Commissioner.

Basically, we also note that even though the bill, in the explanatory note, does state that it is not the intention to penalise people staying in tents or vehicles due to homelessness, with the substance of the bill there’s nothing to actually address that. So I do think that, even though the sentiment is great in the explanatory note, there is little in the way of actually creating a framework that genuinely protects our transient and homeless community.

And I know that a lot of emphasis in the discussion about this bill has been around tourists. We do have to recognise (a) well, that not all tourists are international, that there’s domestic tourism, which plays a big role; and (b) that vehicle camping has actually played a role in ensuring that people have a place to live. And for some people, it’s a lifestyle choice, right? It’s not just about, actually, tourism. It is genuinely a lifestyle choice for some people to just live in a vehicle. And so we want to ensure that there are better provisions in the bill to address these.

Lastly, we do take issue with the fact that public conservation land is not covered by the new requirement. While we do not endorse a regime for the Department of Conservation (DOC) to put in place regulations to better regulate this, basically, we do think that there could have been an opportunity to have more cohesion around what DOC is doing and what this bill is aiming to achieve, particularly since the intent of the bill seems to be so heavily focused on the environmental impacts of freedom camping. So it just feels like a bit of an oversight.

So, yeah, we do hope that there will be a robust discussion at the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and we look forward to engaging and listening to what submitters have to say, because we do know that in the lead-up to this bill there have been people with really strong views about this. And, actually, the really strong views about this have, again, not come from international tourists but rather from locals themselves, who are deeply worried about the impacts that this could have.

So, again, the Green Party does support the intent of the bill. We have noted some of those concerns. I repeat to the Labour members that we have to make sure that the discourse is not about the interpretation of who gets to participate in tourism. Because I do know that in the regulatory impact statement it was estimated that it could cost around just over a grand and a half for some of the vehicles that could be, in theory, improved and I do want to note that that could be a barrier, actually, for some of our low-income communities. Again, I think there could be other steps taken by Government to support people to transition into a model where their vehicles do meet these requirements, if that is the intent. I do think there are ways that we could bring people on board with these changes for the wellbeing of our environment, of the local communities, as well as ensuring that our tourism industry is sustainable. We look forward to participating in the discussions. Kia ora.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What an absolute pleasure to speak on this bill this evening. The ACT Party will cautiously—

Maureen Pugh: Ha, ha! We know you mean it!

Dr JAMES McDOWALL: —support this bill at third reading—I’m serious. We have our concerns, but we acknowledge that there is plenty of concern out there with councils and businesses and tourists themselves and tourism providers saying that something does need to be done. Most support the idea that all freedom campers should be self-contained when they’re staying in areas without facilities, in particular. However, there is concern, and I hold concern, that much of the evidence might be anecdotal, unfortunately.

The select committee stage will be especially important in this bill because we need to hear from submitters as to whether the Minister is putting ideology over reality or that the problem itself has been, perhaps, correctly identified and the solution might be the right one and not a solution looking for a problem. So we need a strong select committee process to hear from a wide range of submitters on this to make sure that we’re doing the right thing here.

I think that the ideology I spoke of is plainly obvious, and the previous speaker alluded to this as well. Look, we’ve got a Government that has launched its attacks on so-called cheap labour—that was a term used earlier today—and low-value tourists. That’s not just me saying that; that’s the Government benches. We want to be sure that this isn’t just creating enormous red tape and that it is, in fact, improving outcomes. Is the policy objective reasonable? Will it actually solve anything? I note, in the evidence, that the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment rated the evidence certainty as low to moderate; so not getting off to a great start with that one.

I just want to talk briefly about the unintended consequences that could be brought about with this bill. At present, members of the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association have free or low-cost testing and certification of their vehicles, and moving that certification to the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board looks like it could add significant cost and red tape to the process, which I think carries a high risk that those in the target sector will simply be non-compliant. Frankly—again, other speakers alluded to this—it sounds like a bit of a racket, to be honest.

Regarding a basic conversion, it’s also not clear how one arrived at the $500 to $800 cost estimate for converting a vehicle without a fixed toilet. One product, I’m told, is $900 just for the unit, which does not include installation and modifying the vehicle to suit. While some may attempt some DIY, it’s probably best left to the professionals, given there’s a standard that needs to be met. So that’s a huge cost burden. The cost associated with this law could be high and, easily, as I said, encourage non-compliance.

Further, there are existing rules in place for freedom campers, and some people just don’t follow the rules. I’m not sure that having additional costs and regulations will make a lot of difference for those in question; many may just continue to risk the ticket. Given the cost of compliance could outweigh the cost of being caught, punitive measures like this could have less of an impact than actually just providing better infrastructure, such as public toilet stations and rubbish bins.

I think it’s worth noting that the problems in tourism arguably arrive out of Government failing to invest properly or reinvest properly in tourism infrastructure, including in public toilets. Central governments took—pre-COVID—billions of dollars in GST from international and domestic tourists but refused to share any of that with local authorities for infrastructure, which is actually what we need in this case. There is a lot of frustration there with tourism, and a lot of it is just about the lack of infrastructure; not one or two bad freedom campers.

There is a fine line between demonising certain types of tourists and tourism businesses, on the one hand, and acknowledging that if we really want higher-value tourism, then Government needs to help improve infrastructure so that what we have to offer as a destination is genuinely world-class. So, with that, we’re taking a constructive approach. As I said, we are cautiously supporting the bill at first reading—just the first one, though, at this stage; I can’t say much about No. 2.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I rise this evening as a lapsed member of the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association, I have to confess. For those who are members in this room—I’m sure there are many of you—you know that moment when you get your wings. I know you know. I can see Maureen Pugh over there—exactly that; those red and grey wings you get to put on the front of your campervan with your number of the association. As you proudly drive through the rural roads of Aotearoa, you get that little wave you give to others as you see them with their wings.

So, therefore, I am an expert, almost, on this piece of legislation—not quite. Actually, our campervan—they have to have a name, right? So “Campy” was its name; I thought it was quite appropriate for a same-sex couple. So as we’d drive Campy through the streets and the highways and byways of New Zealand, it was always nice to know that we had, firstly, access to over 2,000 places to go and enjoy camping overnight, but secondly, to know that we have a fully self-contained campervan.

Anyway, I digress, because I’m on the select committee, so I can talk more and explore it more, and I can just relish my wings there. I commend this bill to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill. I didn’t bring any wings to the House tonight—unlike my colleague across the House tonight—but it was interesting to hear his little story and all sorts of visions of winging his way around in his campervan.

But, anyway, this is a bill that the National Party is supporting, but we want to see exploration of the issues at select committee. There are a few issues to be considered to make sure that this is fit for purpose and doesn’t have unintended consequences that lead to things that we don’t want to see.

I’d be interested to see whether there’s a bit of consideration around clause 6, which amends the meaning of “freedom camp”. It says, “In this Act, freedom camp means to camp (other than at a camping ground) within 200 m of an area accessible by motor vehicle or the mean low-water springs line of any sea or harbour, or on or within 200 m of a formed road or a Great Walks Track, using 1 or more of the following: (a) a tent or other temporary structure: (b) a motor vehicle.” So that’s pretty broad. That covers a lot of New Zealand with 200 metres. I have had an email from the All Points Camping Club, who have raised a few points which I’m sure they’ll submit on at select committee, just pointing out that this could capture all sorts of people—hunters, surfers, etc. There will no doubt need to be some consideration of whether this is going to capture more than is intended, so to speak.

Also the self-contained toilets—I hope there’s going to be good consideration of what is necessary and what is too much in terms of the regulatory requirements for self-contained toilets in vehicles that are fit for purpose but may not fit the specification in here—or they may do. There’ll be, no doubt, some good consideration—I certainly hope there is good consideration—of that at select committee because it’s important we get this right.

I’ll just say, from my personal experience, I didn’t wing my way around but I remember over 20 years ago I had hurt myself in a cycling crash and couldn’t work. I was overseas, and I decided to come back to New Zealand and cycle around the South Island. My legs still worked and one arm still worked, so I could hang on to the handle bars. I chucked a backpack on the back of the bike so I could go tramping. I cycled around the South Island, interspersed with tramping along the way. Looking at this freedom camping bill, I was like “Man, would I have been caught by this?”, and I probably would have been. Camping within 200 metres: there are times when it’s pouring with rain and you’re in the middle of nowhere. For example, I cycled between Nelson Lakes to Hanmer via Rainbow Road, located in the Molesworth Recreation Reserve. You know, that took a couple of days. I was actually cycling with this American guy that I’d met along the way. We cycled for about a week together, I think. I remember cycling through that area and he had this little tape recorder strapped on his handle bars—this was back in the days when people used tape recorders—and had Bob Dylan playing. So there we are, cycling through the middle of the mountains, no one else around, Bob Dylan playing, and living the dream. I can tell you: there were no toilets anywhere. There were no composting toilets. There were no toilets strapped to the bicycle. It just wasn’t happening. But being responsible campers, there’s ways and means of ensuring that you don’t leave something behind that shouldn’t be left behind.

I just hope that this bill doesn’t shut down the future generations of people who want to explore New Zealand in a responsible way and that we leave those options open to them so that we can get the balance right. We certainly don’t want to have people pulling up to areas off our road, etc., that have been littered. No one likes to see that, least of all me. But we do need to make sure that responsible campers can continue to enjoy our country, and I certainly hope this does that. We will, like I say, be supporting this through and will be looking forward to these issues being explored in more detail at the select committee. We hope we see a good balance from this and not too much bureaucracy.

One final thing I’ll just say is that it’s great that there will be more specifications required and the gasfitters association will be charged with the responsibility for assessing these, but we need to make sure they actually have the capacity to do that, because there is a gigantic workforce shortage in New Zealand right now. Are we going to have enough gasfitters to do this work? They have a lot of other things they have to be doing—making sure our houses are safe and fit for purpose, for example. So we need to make sure that, at a practical level, we can deliver on this legislation if it passes through in its current form. With that, I will conclude my statements. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): I call Tāmati Coffey—five minutes.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): I used to work in kids’ television, and we used to talk about poos and wees lots, and it always got lots of jokes. Actually, I haven’t had this much fun talking about the subject matter that’s in front of us at the moment for quite some time. So can I just thank all members from the House for their contributions tonight and, obviously, their support for this to go through to select committee. I think it’s really important. We still ride on our “100% Pure” image. It’s really important for our local economies, wherever we come from. I know that into the Rotorua economy—well, in normal, non-COVID times—tourism brings in just under a billion dollars every single year into our local economy. So we have to make sure that we’ve got the parameters in there, in place, to be able to allow that social licence to happen.

Some members have talked about it already: social licence is everything. In our communities, wherever you are, if you haven’t got the community on your side, you’re actually pushing it up hill—“it” I said. But, actually, it’s true, social licence is everything. All you need is a couple of terrible stories about tourists that have rolled into town, rolled out. They usually only spend one or two nights when they’re in a campervan, but actually seeing them roll out and leaving their mess afterwards—mess in the broader sense—is actually really disheartening.

So I’m looking forward to seeing where the committee end on this. Some valid points have been raised today. But, actually, we want to make sure that we are selling “100% Pure” “Brand New Zealand” to the world to make this our new norm, to allow tourists that come here to understand that, actually, this is how we do it—we keep a clean slate. You can come—what’s that old saying about leaving only footprints? That’s the kind of thing that we want to embed into the tourists that come to our country, to let them know that “100% Pure” is what we want. I commend it to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a short call tonight on the Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill.

One of the matters that I think has been lost a little in the debate tonight is actually the impact that freedom camping can have on local communities. As MP for Nelson, it’s an issue that we have debated and discussed a lot across Nelson Tasman over a number of years, and I note there are a number of people in the House tonight speaking on this bill who do come from places that have a strong tourism sector—and when we do rely on people visiting our communities and spending their money in order to create jobs and grow our economies. But I just want to note the impact that freedom camping can have, when it goes wrong, on local communities.

In Nelson, we’ve had for a number of years many stories, and I’ve witnessed many examples of this behaviour myself, that have caused real concern for people. A number of our inner-city carparks often have freedom camping units staying there. We have situations where, at the Nelson market on a Saturday morning, people are washing their undies and other items in the sinks that people are using there to brush their teeth and wash their hands and fill their water bottles. And, quite frankly, a lot of this behaviour has gone on for a long time and caused a lot of distress for our community—clothing being washed and hung up on make-shift lines across the carpark where people are trying to go to work and go about their day.

Friends of mine who live on a street in Nelson, called Weka Street—I have a number of friends who live on that street; it’s very close to Trafalgar Park—wrote to me earlier this year and said, “Our neighbourhood was previously plagued with non - self-contained campers parked on our streets overnight, with urinating in our gutters and on our footpaths. Worse was deposited under the bushes in the park, of course, and occasionally on our front lawns, mine included.” What my friends have said to me is that they want the Government to ensure that our whenua does not, yet again, became a communal open-air toilet for travellers from around the world. The timing of introducing this legislation by the Minister is incredibly helpful in order to ensure that, as we do open up, when people come in and enjoy our beautiful natural environment they do so in a way that respects our environment and respects our people.

I do just want to make one final comment just in relation to the ACT member’s comments around central government support for facilities. Just to note, actually, that our Government has invested heavily in toilet and shower facilities across the motu, including a recently opened toilet block in Tahunanui, in Tahunanui Beach, which is an area where people sometimes do freedom camp. So I just want to say that, actually, central government is already doing that and, as local MPs, those are the types of investments we already are advocating for, for our communities. So this legislation will be welcomed by the Nelson community and I commend it to the House.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As my colleagues have said, the National Party is supporting this legislation and looks forward to the select committee process. I don’t think there’s anybody in the House that doesn’t believe that there is legislation required, and I certainly do, which is why I brought my own bill here to try and get it through over a year ago. But, of course, rather than adapting what was already in the system and modifying it to suit the Government’s own special nuances, it was kicked to touch. So it’s been over a year and we’ve had another summer, but here we are. It’s started a process now.

When we started initiating these bills—and, you know, I’ve been working on the freedom camping bill for probably 15 years and I initiated it through local government prior to the Rugby World Cup being hosted here in New Zealand. So I do have a bit of experience with it. Sadly, when it made its way to central government, it was not as complete as it possibly could be. So with that in mind, that’s what my member’s bill sought to address. It was to fill in the gaps that the initial legislation had left.

But what we’re seeing now, of course, is a totally different environment. When we had hundreds of thousands of visitors coming to New Zealand and travelling around and freedom camping, the communities had lost their tolerance for it. But, of course, now we can look back and think “Well, weren’t they the good old days? What a problem to have.” In some cases, I think our communities would welcome back those numbers of campers that were travelling around New Zealand. So we can live in hope that they will return in similar numbers and that we will have a regime in place that does control how they tend to park up and camp around New Zealand, and especially in some of those very, very special places.

One of the challenging issues that we had on the West Coast and up in Tasman is the isolation and the lack of ability to monitor all of the time, and I see that with this bill—especially with the Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) and New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) land—that unless a council changes its existing bylaw and gets written permission from those entities to include NZTA or LINZ land in their bylaw, those entities, NZTA and LINZ, are not going to be monitoring their property across the country. So it’s going to take bylaw changes from local government to actually enable this legislation to be enacted around the country.

Now, from the feedback that we get—and I’m sure my colleagues will agree—local government hasn’t got this at the top of their priority list right now. And I don’t see this being dealt to by local government any time soon. So, in fact, we’re going to pass this legislation, but actually getting it implemented and on the ground is going to rely on the goodwill and the time and the affordability of councils, because to pass a bylaw is not a cheap thing to do. There’s going to need to be the bylaw written. There’s going to need very expensive consultation, advertising, submission processes, etc. As I say, I doubt very much whether local government is going to turn its mind to this piece of legislation any time soon.

But there’s quite a few bits within this legislation, which I’ve only just had a look at today, and I think there’s going to need to be some really serious talk around the select committee table about the wording in here. For instance, in the infringement offences relating to conservation land, there’s an infringement if you make preparations to freedom camp. What on earth does that mean? What does making preparations to freedom camp mean? There is no definition for that.

There are infringement offences, and if the Minister was looking for a deterrent, I think he’s found one, because they are up to $10,000 for offences against some of the registration, or $1,000 for infringements and penalties for freedom camping.

But I think one of the most concerning parts of this piece of legislation is that it is going to rely on the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board to do, not so much the monitoring but to set up the database for the vehicles. So when I thought about that and looked at the bill in front of us, I thought the NZTA already has the database of vehicles in this country, so why on earth isn’t there some concurrent system working beside that to simply mark off on that database that this particular vehicle is now certified as fully self-contained? But, instead, we’re going to set up a whole new system. It’s going to require a whole new platform and then have the data inputted and then have the data maintained and changed over time.

This is a whole new system that is being created to make sure there’s a toilet in your campervan. I just argue that this is probably overkill when it comes to the intention of the legislation. It’s definitely—as Todd McClay said earlier—hitting a nut with a sledgehammer.

But there are other questions I had about the legislation too, about the cost of that database. This is going to be a huge cost, especially the platform that it’s going to be maintained on. So that cost, of course, is going to fall back on the users of that, who are the people who are coming in to have their campervans certified. But the other point that has been made tonight—and it’s very relevant—is that it’s all very well if you’ve got a $100,000 or $200,000 motorhome and you can have a fully plumbed-in toilet, but there is another cohort in this country, and that’s mum and dad and the kids, who want to get out and have their camping holiday. They’re using a very small porta-potty—that is, a chemical toilet—that is as healthy as any other that you will have, except its containment is right there, rather than plumbed in under the vehicle. That’s completely suitable and it’s completely safe and sanitary, but that’s going to be excluded from this bill.

I just want to pay tribute too to Wayne Ravelich, who has contacted many of us about some of the points that are going to be missed in this legislation. One of them is the back-country experience or the camping experience. I know that when I introduced my bill over a year ago, I was very clear that we did not want to capture a dad and his son heading down to the river to go on a fishing trip, pitch a tent and stay the night, boil a billy, and cook their baked beans. That is the Kiwi experience that we want to make sure is not captured by this legislation because, as it reads in here, they will be. So we want to make sure that in the select committee process we do exclude that type of experience from this.

There are other issues around the consultation, and, as Mr Ravelich has pointed out, when the consultation was done by the Minister, it asked for submissions on the suitability of the toilet regulation, 75 percent came back and said, “No, we don’t want to go there.” But, unfortunately, the Minister had already made up his mind, and that ended up being not negotiable.

Simon Watts: That sounds familiar.

MAUREEN PUGH: But the cost—and it is. It’s very familiar. This Government is very good at setting up bureaucracies and increasing costs. But I do have to concede that the NZMCA, or the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association—the wings people—have been calling for some kind of consistency across the sector for many years. They do want a regime that gives certainty to not only their members but all members. So not only can you turn up at the Nelson market and buy yourself a 10c self-contained sticker and whack it on the back of your sleeper van, your station wagon with a mattress in the back—we want to get away from that. So I know NZMCA will work really closely with the select committee to ensure that there is a regime that is workable and that it does not capture our back-country experience. If you want to listen to Bob Dylan on your bike in the mountains, you should be able to do that, but we don’t want to impose onerous expense. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ve been busting to take this call this evening. I have to say I’ve learnt lots about my colleagues this evening than I ever anticipated: wings, Joseph Mooney getting caught short, and then all those sorts of things. But as my colleague Naisi Chen said, “New Zealand is open for business.” We want tourists to come to New Zealand. We don’t want “French freedom camper poos on Dunedin street” or “Bush-pooping freedom campers shock walker”. We don’t want those kind of headlines. We want people to want to come to New Zealand and experience our clean, green tourism industry. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The question is, That the Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill be considered by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.