Wednesday, 21 September 2022

WEDNESDAY, 21 SEPTEMBER 2022

WEDNESDAY, 21 SEPTEMBER 2022

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

CLERK:

Statement of performance expectations 2022-23 for:

Office of the Privacy Commissioner

Human Rights Commission

Peke Waihanga - Artificial Limb Service

Electoral Commission

Te Kāhui Tātari Ture Criminal Cases Review Commission

Independent Police Conduct Authority

statement of intent 2022-23 to 2025-26 of the Electoral Commission

statement of intent 2021-22 to 2024-25 of the Human Rights Commission.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK: Charities Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Acting Prime Minister): Yes; in particular, the Government’s continued investment in supporting New Zealanders to become apprentices. Our Apprenticeship Boost programme has supported over 50,000 apprentices to move into or retrain their trade; 8,800 employers have signed up to the scheme so far, representing a 61 percent increase since the pandemic began.

Christopher Luxon: Why did the Government send the cost of living payment to more than 6,000 people who had told IRD that their mailing address was overseas, and does he accept that this was a careless waste of taxpayers’ hard-earned money?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we covered in the House yesterday, the Cabinet, when it set the criteria for the cost of living payment, was extremely clear who that was to go to and that that was people in New Zealand. We continue to work with Inland Revenue to define the way in which the policy can be implemented. I’m advised that in the case of many of those people the member refers to, they may well have had two addresses.

Christopher Luxon: Why didn’t the Government consider taking simple steps like checking mailing addresses before sending millions of taxpayers’ dollars to people living overseas?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reiterate the answer that I’ve just given to the member: Cabinet was very clear in the criteria that we set. We’re working through, with Inland Revenue, how to improve that. Once upon a time, the member and his party supported people earning less than $70,000 getting some help with easing the cost of living. Nowadays, we know that their priority is simply those earning the highest amount of money getting tax cuts.

Christopher Luxon: Does he accept that sending millions of dollars to people living in Sydney, London, and Dubai was an expensive mistake, and will he now apologise to taxpayers for the way he has wasted their hard-earned money?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What would be a massive mistake is giving tax cuts to the highest-earning New Zealanders—that would be a massive waste of money on behalf of the taxpayers of New Zealand. And I just can’t believe the Leader of the Opposition would still be proposing such a silly, wasteful—wasteful—policy.

Christopher Luxon: Can he confirm that the 100,000 people who got the first cost of living payment by mistake represents a loss to taxpayers of at least $11 million, and, if so, why won’t he apologise to taxpayers for wasting $11 million of their money?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The number that the member gives is not one that I can confirm in the House today.

Christopher Luxon: What is the number?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That’s exactly the work that IRD is doing right now—the work on that process. But the member needs to be aware—the member needs to be aware—that when a new payment such as this is created, IRD will work through their systems. The Cabinet was extremely clear about what we did. And I reiterate: if the member wants to go looking for waste, the member should look at his own policies.

Christopher Luxon: Why does the Government think it’s acceptable to send millions of taxpayers’ dollars to overseas backpackers and bankers when, back home, here in New Zealand, Kiwis are suffering, with real wages falling 3.7 percent?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We do not think that is acceptable, and it’s the very reason why we’re working with IRD to improve those policies. What the member needs to ask himself is whether, as a party, they are promoting a policy which would see the wealthiest New Zealanders get thousands of dollars of tax cuts a year. Also, the member needs to explain himself as to how he’s going to make his policies work. While his colleagues promise more spending, he wants to cut taxes, he wants to reduce debt—his policies don’t add up.

Christopher Luxon: Will he now finally admit that instead of his rushed and convoluted cost of living payment, he should have just let Kiwis keep more of what they earn, or does he, against all the evidence, continue to believe that he can spend Kiwis’ money better than they can?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The person on the minimum wage who’s getting $27 a week as a result of the cost of living payment is going to be a lot happier with that than the two bucks a week that they would get under the National Party’s policy.

David Seymour: Does he stand by his statement that Minister Nanaia Mahuta is “scrupulous in the way that she adheres to the Cabinet Manual”, and, if so, is he aware that since he made that statement, three out of four Government contracts awarded to her husband’s companies have been subject to internal investigations by the contracting agencies?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: With respect to the first part of the question: absolutely, yes. With respect to the second part of the question: the Public Service Commissioner, on the urging of both Minister Mahuta and Minister Hipkins, is looking at the way that Public Service agencies have undertaken their procurement, with respect to conflict of interest issues.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Let’s talk about Bill English’s family, shall we?

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I was just wondering if there’s going to be any punishment for the Government by way of extra supplementaries for the National Opposition in relation to that inopportune remark from the Leader of the House.

SPEAKER: I’ve noticed since I became Speaker, and today’s been no exception, that the volume coming from my left is such that it indicates to me that maybe not every supplementary question asked is wanting an answer by the Opposition; if they did, it would be a lot lower. And I’m going to also warn the Government side as well: some of the interjections are out of order. I’ve sat here and waited for someone to take a point of order on this, and so my warning is to both sides. When I became Speaker, it was indicated to me that you wanted more robust debate at question time; that’s what you’re getting. So, to both sides, if you don’t want that any more, if you want me to intervene, I will do it, but it will be a very different look to question time, and the indication that I’ve had from many parties is that you don’t want that. You either want it or don’t want it; I’ll leave it up to you to decide.

Question No. 2—Children

2. KAREN CHHOUR (ACT) to the Minister for Children: Has he read Treasury’s release titled “Overview of the financial position of Oranga Tamariki, the key issues it faces from a financial perspective”; and, if he has read it, does he still stand by his statement that the Government’s ability to protect and support vulnerable children is “improving”?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): In answer to both parts of the question, yes.

Karen Chhour: Is Treasury correct when it says that Oranga Tamariki (OT) have not sought Cabinet or joint ministerial approval to reprioritise $42 million, and, if so, how has he held Oranga Tamariki accountable for spending $42 million without proper permission?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Decisions around that $42 million were made before I became Minister, but the current chief executive has inherited an agency where the financial systems weren’t up to scratch, and they’re well aware of my expectations in terms of making sure their systems are up to scratch.

David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I just seek your guidance. Is it permissible for a Minister to address a question by saying it was the previous Minister that did it? Surely he’s responsible for the Government in continuity.

SPEAKER: Can you ask the question again, please?

Karen Chhour: Is Treasury correct when it says that Oranga Tamariki have not sought Cabinet or joint ministerial approval to reprioritise $42 million; if so, how has he held OT accountable for spending $42 million without proper permission?

SPEAKER: It wasn’t properly addressed.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I stand by the answer I gave. The chief executive inherited financial systems that weren’t up to scratch. And I’ve made it very clear that they need to get those systems up to scratch.

SPEAKER: Karen Chhour—I’ll give you an extra question.

Karen Chhour: Is Treasury correct when it says that OT have created an ongoing cost pressure of $20 million into subsequent years directly attributable to their improper spending decisions, and, if so, will the Minister cut services or ask for more money to cover this $20 million shortfall?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No, that shortfall has been met through baselines.

Karen Chhour: Why does the Minister think Treasury stated that Oranga Tamariki is “a disparate collection of ideas, [and] not governed by a clear organisational strategy”, and does he believe that as Minister he is ultimately responsible for the organisation’s strategy?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Oranga Tamariki was quite disparate and that is what we are doing to—we have put in place the future direction plan to make sure that it has some purpose and direction.

Karen Chhour: Does the Minister agree with Treasury’s assessment that Oranga Tamariki’s cost per child significantly increased with no clear explanation or improvement in outcomes for children?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: One of Oranga Tamariki’s problems was that it actually did some good work but was terrible at telling its story. And one of the parts of that is that 20 percent of funding actually goes to 2 percent of children with the highest needs. Now, some of their needs are such that it’s not appropriate to describe them here in the House, but I’m not going to nickel and dime, or I’m not going to tell Oranga Tamariki that they should skimp on the work to protect those children or protect the workers that look after those children.

Hon Grant Robertson: Does the Minister believe that the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, the precursor to Oranga Tamariki, was established with sufficiently robust financial controls?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, the answer is no. And that’s what I’ve said, that the system that the current chief executive inherited, their financial systems weren’t up to scratch, and they are now making sure that those systems are improved.

Karen Chhour: Does the Minister think that OT has improved and does he still stand by his statement that Oranga Tamariki is on the right track?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, absolutely. Let me just run through a couple of statistics. The section 78 uplifts are down 73 percent since 2018. The numbers of children in care have decreased by 25 percent since 2018. Māori provider funding has increased 168 percent since 2018. But here’s the statistic that I think is most important. There are some 50,000 children and their whānau that come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki every year through reports of concern or family group conferences who are not in Oranga Tamariki care. They are keeping children and their whānau out of the system and that is a big improvement.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. 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 country’s strong economic and financial position continues to be recognised by international rating agencies. Standard & Poor’s reaffirm New Zealand’s local currency credit rating to AAA and the foreign currency rating to AA+—both with a stable outlook. The agency once again praised the Government’s response to COVID-19, saying, “New Zealand had weathered the pandemic better than most countries in terms of health, fiscal, and economic outcomes.” We are taking a balanced approach in what is a difficult international environment that is tough for many New Zealand businesses and households.

Ingrid Leary: What other reports has he seen on credit rating assessments for the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Fitch Ratings upgraded New Zealand’s long-term foreign currency credit rating from AA with a positive outlook to AA+ with a stable outlook, or the long-term local currency credit rating has been reaffirmed at AA+ with a stable outlook. The country’s rating was downgraded, I would note, to AA in September 2011.

Ingrid Leary: Why are credit ratings important for the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The ratings are important for ensuring that the cost of our borrowing remains low. Our AAA and AA+ ratings give people more confidence that New Zealand is a good place to invest. It helps ensure our debt-servicing costs are kept as low as possible. In a challenging global environment, our strong credit rating is a sign of confidence in the economy and that the Government’s economic plan and management is working. We are as a country well placed to support New Zealanders and to make the long-term investments we need to build a sustainable and resilient economy.

Ingrid Leary: What did the reports say about the economy’s prospects?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Standard & Poor’s report said New Zealand’s economy is performing well, and the strong rebound in economic activity and the removal of pandemic-related support measures will narrow New Zealand’s fiscal deficit. The agency said that debt levels remain low when compared with our peers internationally and that New Zealand is in a good position to deal with further challenges. The Fitch Ratings agency said the Government’s credible commitment to prudent financial management and our planned return to surplus will lead to a gradual reduction in debt relative to GDP—well below the medium of our peers. There is—even in challenging times—every reason to remain optimistic about the New Zealand economy.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “This tighter period will require some tough choices”; if so, what tough choices, if any, has he made in relation to tax and spending?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Tēnā koe anō. I thank the member for again allowing me to highlight matters that I raised last Thursday in my speech entitled “The New Zealand Economy—The Case for Optimism”. I stand by the full statement, including the context surrounding it: “As with all of you, with the emergency COVID response behind us now, we will enter into a period of more targeted spending. This tighter period will require some tough choices. At a broad level, my focus will continue to be on making sure New Zealand maintains responsible debt levels, and ensuring our path back to surplus. This must not be done through austerity cuts to spending. Those would do more damage than any problem we are trying to solve.” In answer to the second part of the question, every finance Minister has tough choices to make during the Budget process. For example, in Budget 2022, across all portfolios, 564 initiatives were submitted for consideration, seeking a total of $64 billion of operating funding. And with these decisions, as well as our previous decisions to run larger surpluses before the pandemic than New Zealand has ever ran, have meant that, according to the OECD, New Zealand workers have the 36th-lowest tax on labour income out of 38 OECD countries. We are working to maintain a careful balance in our Budget decisions.

Nicola Willis: Did he read advice provided to him in this report from 12 April, titled “GST treatment of services supplied to managed funds”, including the warning that proposals to increase GST for managed funds would mean “KiwiSaver members would have less available when they withdraw funds to purchase a first home, or at their retirement.”, and, if so, was his agreement to progress this policy change an example of a tough choice?

SPEAKER: Any part of that question.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Exactly. In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

Nicola Willis: Well, why did he decide to progress that policy in full knowledge that it would reduce the value of New Zealanders’ KiwiSaver funds?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The advice from officials that that document is included in was to pursue a policy that would mean equitable treatment of managed funds with respect to GST. There were a number of matters contained in the report around advice about what might or might not happen and how particular KiwiSaver funds might or might not respond. The public policy purpose here was to create a level playing field.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Do New Zealanders have less in their KiwiSaver funds today to spend on a first home or for their retirement as a result of the decision to tax employer contributions on KiwiSaver, and, if so, who made that decision?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Undoubtedly, yes, New Zealanders do, and that was a decision undertaken by the previous National Government, along with the decision to not fund the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, denying $32 billion to that fund, which is expected to support New Zealanders in retirement. I am very proud of this side of the House’s work on retirement savings.

Nicola Willis: Did he read the regulatory impact statement provided to him on 26 May, which warned that if the Government agreed to change the GST treatment of investment funds it would reduce KiwiSaver fund balances by $103 billion, and, if so, why did he authorise that policy proposal going to Cabinet?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member knows, that calculation goes out to 2070, and that calculation is also based on an annual 10 percent increase in KiwiSaver fees. On this side of the House, we’re trying to drive down the cost of KiwiSaver fees.

Nicola Willis: Can he confirm that, on 22 June this year, he chaired the Cabinet economic development committee, which authorised the Minister of Revenue, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, to make final policy decisions on proposals to change GST on fees charged to managed funds, and does he stand by that decision?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is one of my great honours to chair the Cabinet economic development committee.

Question No. 5—Police

5. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Police: What announcements has he made on preventing at-risk youth from entering a pathway of crime?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): The Better Pathways Package that we announced earlier this month extends police and Oranga Tamariki initiatives that are backed by evidence and that are known to work. They provide intensive wraparound support to at-risk young people and their wider families, and that support is provided from within their own communities. The Government is backing local providers to scale up the work that they do best, and to give young New Zealanders the best chance to succeed.

Vanushi Walters: How many will benefit from these services?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Part of the Better Pathways Package targets some of the most at-risk young people; 232 families with at-risk young people will benefit from the scaling up of initiatives such as family functional therapy, intensive mentoring, and community-led youth inclusion programmes.

Vanushi Walters: Why are these changes necessary?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: While overall trends around youth crime are continuing to point down, we are seeing a spike in youth offending in some key areas, particularly in the upper North Island. But we do know that punishing young people through the criminal justice system, more often than not, has led them on to future and more serious criminal offending. So these services, alongside other evidence-based initiatives in the Better Pathways Package, aim to put more young people into education or training or work in order to drive down youth crime.

Vanushi Walters: What evidence has he seen that family functional therapy programmes will help at-risk youth?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Family functional therapy programmes already operate across New Zealand and they’ve led to a reduction in youth offending of up to 60 percent in some regions, as well as reducing challenging behaviours and instances of family harm. We’re supporting their expansion because they have been shown to work.

Vanushi Walters: How will youth inclusion programmes help at-risk youth?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: These programmes are helping to lower the rates of youth offending and increase participation in education, training, or employment. So, as of August 2022, for example, if we look at 59 of the 61 young people who went through programmes in Ōpōtiki and Taitoko, they were more fully engaged in education and supported into employment as a result of those programmes. They work, and that’s why we’re backing them.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What current contracts does the Ministry of Social Development have with Visions of a Helping Hand Charitable Trust in Rotorua, and what process around conflicts of interest, if any, did the ministry undertake before awarding the contracts?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has one contract with Visions of a Helping Hand to provide intensive support to people who are staying in non-contracted emergency housing in Rotorua. This is to work with up to a hundred clients at any given time, to develop individual plans to support their wellbeing and long-term goals. Funding decisions for this contract are through a panel, which is made up of representatives from Rotorua Lakes Council, Korowai Health, the regional commissioner for the Bay of Plenty, and Ngāti Whakaue. MSD has advised me that there was one conflict of interest on this panel. This is not an MSD staff member and was unrelated to the Visions contract. This is managed by that member not participating in discussions or deliberations on the conflict of interest matter. I’ve also been made aware of the perceived conflict of interest involving an MSD staff member with Visions. I’ve received reassurances from MSD that this interest was declared prior to the tender process and that the staff member was not a member of the panel that awarded the contract or involved in the development of the tender by Visions. Visions of a Helping Hand also received two amounts of one-off grant funding relating to provider capability and a COVID-related Community Awareness and Preparedness Grant Fund.

Chris Bishop: Does she think it’s appropriate that, when MSD awarded a contract to the Visions of a Helping Hand trust in November 2021, one of the trustees of Visions was working for MSD as a regional housing adviser in the Bay of Plenty?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’ve already covered the conflicts of interest that were declared and the processes that were undertaken to ensure that the process for awarding the contract was fair and transparent.

Chris Bishop: What steps did MSD take to manage the conflict of interest or perceived conflicts of interest around their awarding of this contract to Visions of a Helping Hand trust?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I responded to that very clearly in the answer to the primary question.

Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment

7. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What announcements has she made about supporting rangatahi into employment?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Last week, I announced that we’re supporting 1,000 more rangatahi into employment through new funding for He Poutama Rangatahi programmes. Seven programmes from the top of the North Island to the West Coast in the South will receive funding to engage young people in their communities who are hardest to reach. This includes young people who have experienced challenges in accessing education or who are encountering barriers that are preventing them from getting a job. We remain laser focused on supporting young people to become work-ready and helping them to tackle the barriers to employment.

Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: How will this funding support both young people and the workforce?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: He Poutama Rangatahi focuses on providing bespoke wraparound support, pastoral care, and pre-employment training for 15- to 24-year-olds. It means that young people are better supported and gain the confidence to take up job opportunities in the labour market, which we know is paying dividends. For example, filled jobs for the 15 to 24 age group rose to 131,000 in the June 2022 quarter, up 18 percent when compared with the June 2021 quarter. The focus remains on filling demand for skilled workers, improving employment, social and whānau outcomes, supporting businesses and the labour market to grow, and, fundamentally, supporting people to realise their potential.

Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: How does this announcement align with the Better Pathways Package to tackle youth crime?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: He Poutama Rangatahi was a feature of our Better Pathways Package announced recently by Minister Hipkins and myself. Whilst this additional support sits separate to that, it aims to achieve the same goal, which is to see more rangatahi in employment or training. As part of the Better Pathways Package, we announced an extension to He Poutama Rangatahi. The extension recognises the importance of disrupting the cycle of crime, addressing some of the long-term and very complex issues that children and young people face, and giving them an opportunity to re-engage with their communities.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by all of her statements and actions?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Hon Louise Upston: Why did she say she wanted to remove the outstanding arrest warrant sanction, when this would allow criminals like the couple who shot at police during their 12-day crime spree to use taxpayers’ money to evade police?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think the member has taken any comments that I made about that particular sanction out of context. I also have said very clearly that it is not something that is on our work programme at this point in time. I have, however, said in the past, and I will totally acknowledge that, that I don’t think the welfare system should be used as a tool for the justice system, and I think it is something that we should look at in the future.

Hon Louise Upston: Hasn’t she just answered questions about resolving youth crime issues through the welfare system?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Supporting youth to realise the potential through the welfare system, not punishing them and pushing them closer to the justice system.

Hon Louise Upston: Does she believe, then, that people on the run from police should continue to receive a full benefit?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said, I have no intention at this point in time to change the current policy.

Hon Louise Upston: Given the Minister’s answer—and she’s not quite sure which way she’s sitting on this—does she agree, cutting the benefit on criminals—

Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s well known—and the member who’s asking the question is an experienced member—that questions are an opportunity to ask questions, not to provide a commentary on the answers given.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point, that is true, but the commentary that prefaced the question is led to by the failure of the Minister to answer a very straightforward question in the previous supplementary.

SPEAKER: The Hon Chris Hipkins is correct. I was waiting for the question to be completed. Just on the speaking to the point of order, it was out of order in itself as well. It shouldn’t be used to have a go because you just don’t like what the point of order is about, and pointing out that it’s because the previous question wasn’t answered—a point of order should’ve been taken at that stage. It would’ve been my ruling that it was addressed, so I’ll deal with that bit. But as far as the current supplementary’s concerned, you shouldn’t make a comment, as that would be out of order.

Hon Louise Upston: Will the Minister commit to retaining sanctions for those on the run from police, for as long as she is Minister, or does she believe people wilfully defying police arrest should never be sanctioned?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said, it is not on the work programme currently. I can’t guarantee that in future Governments it might not be changed. However, it’s certainly not on my agenda for now. What we are focused on is making sure that we support people to realise their potential in the welfare system, not look for every opportunity to punish them because they’re on it.

Question No. 9—Foreign Affairs

9. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does she have confidence in New Zealand’s engagement with the International Seabed Authority about its management of seabed mining; if so, why?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Yes, I have confidence in the way that New Zealand is engaging with the International Seabed Authority (ISA). They are one of many. The fact that we have been consistent in arguing for a high-standards environmental protection framework evidences our commitment to ensure that no deep-sea mining happens without a level of environmental protection.

Hon Eugenie Sage: With those high standards of environmental protection, how is that consistent with the ISA recently allowing a subsidiary of The Metals Company to do exploratory mining and take 3,600 tonnes of polymetallic nodules from the sea-floor between Hawaii and Mexico?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I acknowledge the validity of that question. New Zealand made a decision to participate in the broader role of the ISA in advocating for a high-standards environmental protection framework rather than participating with the Legal and Technical Commission, which is an independently appointed set of experts who consider applications.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Does she consider there is any conflict of interest with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) Principal Scientist - Fisheries being the only New Zealand delegate on the Legal and Technical Commission, and NIWA also being contracted by The Metals Company to help it with its seabed mining proposal, and, if not, why not?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that there could be a perceived conflict of interest in that instance. However, when we consider the broader impact of the ISA in implementing a high-standards environmental protection framework, that is the area where we can make the biggest impact to state our position, but also to have influence across the whole of the international waters that is consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The other thing is we continue to respect the territorial integrity of nations when they make their decisions in this area, which is why we participate in the ISA.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Does she recognise that exploratory mining, such as recently allowed, can permanently damage sea-floor habitats and ecosystems, and, if so, does she agree with the ISA’s distinction between exploration and exploitation being arbitrary and unsupported by scientific evidence?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Again, I acknowledge the validity of the question, which is why, in advocating for a high-standards environmental protection framework, we also include within that having a science- and evidence-based approach in the consideration of deep-sea mining applications in international waters.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Has she sought advice about Aotearoa New Zealand changing its position and calling for a moratorium on deep-sea mining alongside our Pacific neighbours such as Palau, Samoa, Fiji, and the Federated States of Micronesia, and, if not, why not?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes, I have, and I’m expecting that advice to come back to me. We’ve said previously that if negotiations do not succeed at the ISA to achieve the effective protection framework of the marine environment, New Zealand will be calling for no deep-sea mining to occur. We are encouraged with the number of Pacific nations in the region who have expressed their concern with the lack of progress within the ISA, and they have voiced that at a number of fora. So we must recognise that we would be in step with Pacific partners if we move down that road as we consider our own position in weeks to come.

Question No. 10—Women

10. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Minister for Women: What progress can she report for Suffrage Day on women’s equality?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): I’m sure the House will join me in commemorating the occasion of Monday—Suffrage Day—when we marked 129 years since women won the right to vote in this country. As the Minister for Women, I am proud to say that the Government has made progress to improve the lives of Kiwi women through passing the Equal Pay Amendment Act, rolling out pay parity to many female-dominated industries, such as early childhood education, and reducing the pay gap in the Public Service.

Willow-Jean Prime: How is the Government supporting women who are mothers?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Under this Government, we’ve boosted support for all parents, but we know that women still do the majority of unpaid caring responsibilities, which is why taking action such as extending paid parental leave, further funding childcare programmes, launching the Best Start payment, and reinstating the training incentive allowance will make a difference to the lives of working mums.

Willow-Jean Prime: What work is the Government progressing to ensure equal employment opportunities for women?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I’ve already spoken in the House on how proud I am that we’ve launched the first ever Women’s Employment Action Plan earlier this year. This plan was written by women, for women, with immediate and medium- and long-term actions to address barriers to women’s employment. This work is happening across Government agencies now.

Willow-Jean Prime: How else is the Government ensuring that girls and women are getting the essential health and wellbeing services they need?

Hon JAN TINETTI: We made historic moves to decriminalise abortions, introduced paid miscarriage leave, and led a comprehensive plan to end family and sexual violence. We’re also making critical investment into women’s health through providing free period products in all schools, improving cervical and breast cancer screening, covering maternal birth injuries through ACC, and investing in maternal mental health services.

Willow-Jean Prime: How is she supporting women into leadership roles in the Public Service?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Suffrage Day is a reminder of the tireless work of the great Kate Sheppard and Meri Te Tai Mangakāhia, who petitioned this Parliament for women’s right to vote. And 129 years on, I know that they would be pleased to see a Parliament here today full of so many talented women and that we now have 52.5 percent of women on all Government boards thanks to a concerted effort to lift women’s leadership.

Question No. 11—Police

11. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill, “In fact, I think the Police raised some compelling arguments in favour of a lower threshold”, and, if so, did he agree with the compelling arguments Police raised?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): Yes, and yes.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Did he ask for the lower threshold to be included in the bill?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member had listened to my answers yesterday, he would know that the Cabinet paper contained a number of options.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s a very direct question and I didn’t ask what was contained inside the Cabinet paper; I asked the Minister if he asked to have a lower threshold.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, I can elaborate further. The advice I gave—

SPEAKER: I’ll rule on the matter first, OK? Otherwise I’ll be dishing out new supplementaries. The Minister was correct in his answers yesterday, but he could be more fuller in his answers.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m happy to be even fuller. The advice that I gave to Cabinet was contained in the Cabinet paper, and that contained a range of options.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Did the Minister ask for the lower threshold to be included in the bill, as was his advice from his own agency?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In the Cabinet paper, there were a range of options and that was one of them.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I suggest to you that, on two occasions, the Minister has not addressed the question. The existence of more than one option in a Cabinet paper does not address the question of which option the Minister recommended, and that was what Mr Mitchell had asked twice.

SPEAKER: It’s not quite what he asked, actually.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I’ll elaborate on my point. Mr Mitchell’s questions did not refer to options; he asked whether the $10,000 threshold was the Minister’s recommendation. The answer—to say “There were a number of options.” does not address the question.

SPEAKER: It does actually address it because you can’t require the Minister to say “Yes” or “No”; he has options. It could have been fuller, but if your member’s got more supplementaries, that’s what they’re there for.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Did he ask the justice Minister, the Minister in charge of the bill, to include the $10,000 threshold in the bill?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The $30,000 threshold, as I indicated yesterday, was set by Cabinet, based on consistency with the existing threshold in the legislation, which was passed by a previous National Government.

Hon Kiritapu Allan: Can the Minister confirm that all of these answers that he’s canvassed in the House were, indeed, what the Prime Minister said in the stand up when she announced this proposal?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can, indeed.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why is it more difficult for the Police to operationalise the $30,000 threshold?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One of the things that Police are concerned about—and I think there’ll be an opportunity to canvas this through the select committee process; there’s a variety of things that they would like to have considered—is that they don’t want to end up spending time arguing about the difference in value of different items that might be seized. So, for example, is something of a value of $25,000, or is it $30,000? So a lower threshold, or no threshold, would alleviate that concern. They’re also concerned that the $30,000 threshold would create a safe harbour, for example, where organised groups, like gangs, spread their assets out across a wider range of people, below the $30,000 threshold. I do think both of those are compelling arguments, as I indicated to the member yesterday. On the other hand, I think that there are some other arguments put forward by Crown Law and others—which, again, we can work our way through during the select committee process—around the consistency of the $30,000 threshold that is in the current legislation. That was set by the previous National Government, based on the median income at the time. In fact, if we were being consistent with the policy approach of the last National Government, that threshold would go up to $55,000. We haven’t made that decision.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why is the Minister so reluctant to advance and fight for the recommendations that the Police have put forward to actually make the bill meaningful in terms of the threshold?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I trust in the democratic process, and I hope that the select committee will be conscientious in canvassing the views of people who take the time to make submissions. This is something the Government has kept an open mind on, and we will, right the way through the process.

Question No. 12—Justice

12. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Justice: What legislative changes to seize criminal assets and combat organised crime are being progressed?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): The Government is progressing a range of changes to legislation to give Police additional tools to combat organised crime and pursue ill-gotten gains. On 6 September, I introduced the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill to the House, and, on 13 September, I introduced the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill. These bills build on significant progress already made this term, including the enactment of the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Act, record investments in front-line police, and boosts to programmes to stop young people becoming involved in organised crime in the first place.

Ginny Andersen: What will these changes mean for organised criminals who structure their affairs in order to avoid their illicit assets being restrained or forfeited?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The Police’s experience with criminal proceeds investigations tells us many cases involve criminals structuring their affairs to create distance between themselves—

Hon Louise Upston: It should be 10.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: —and the assets by putting property into associates’ names. It should be 10? It is currently 10,000, so thank you for agreeing to our proposal as well. The criminal proceeds bill grants Police new powers so that if it is suspected that an associate couldn’t have funded their assets legitimately, then they could be required to prove to the court how they came to possess them or face having them seized.

Ginny Andersen: What will these changes mean for criminals who flee overseas but have illicit assets based here in New Zealand?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Currently, criminals are able to avoid the reach of the criminal proceeds regime in some cases if they are overseas and simply refuse to cooperate with the existing legal process. The criminal proceeds bill establishes a new court order for the High Court that will allow authorities to pursue and seize the New Zealand - based assets of criminals no matter where they are in the world, unless they can provide proof within two months that they obtained their property legally.

Ginny Andersen: What other changes are being made to reinforce the criminal proceeds regime?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The criminal proceeds bill also fixes two technical issues by closing a gap in the legislation so that the Official Assignee, the Government body that manages assets restrained under the criminal proceeds regime, can hold seized property longer than 28 days while the court considers an application for a restraining order and, secondly, by protecting the integrity of KiwiSaver by eliminating the potential for criminals to hide illegal funds in their KiwiSaver accounts by making funds subject to civil forfeiture orders.

Ginny Andersen: How will the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill help make communities safer?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The criminal activity bill gives effect to our announcements made in July and will enhance community safety by creating new powers and offences for Police to target criminal offending, including those commonly associated with gang activities such as the possession and discharging of weapons and firearms, money-laundering and suspicious possession of cash, and dangerous behaviour on our roads. In 2020, we campaigned on working harder and smarter to keep our communities safer, break the cycle of offending, and tackle the root causes of crime. And that, across a range of areas, is exactly what we are doing.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into the morning of Thursday, 22 September for the consideration in committee and the third reading of the Maniapoto Claims Settlement Bill; the first reading of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23, Platform Economy, and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2); and the consideration in committee of the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

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

Ayes 108

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for the Public Service): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

After a long winter, spring is here, and I would like to begin today with an acknowledgment of all those who have worked tirelessly over the last 2½ years on the front lines of our response to COVID-19. We are, as a country, indebted to those people who have gone to work every day, striving to keep New Zealanders safe during a global pandemic.

We now come to the point where we are past the emergency response, and we can look back on our COVID-19 response, as a country, with a great degree of pride. We have achieved one of the lowest case mortality rates—when it comes to COVID-19—in the world, and the credit for that belongs to all New Zealanders: all those working on the front lines, those working in our health systems who have gone the extra mile to keep Kiwis safe—New Zealanders who did their bit, whatever that bit may have been, over the last 2½ years, in order to ensure that we achieved that remarkable result. As I say, thank you to all New Zealanders for that. I hope we all have a good summer—Wellington’s spring is a typical Wellington spring; some nice days and some bad days, and you never quite know which is going to be which—but I hope that we will have a summer where New Zealanders can relax and reflect on the last 2½ years, and they can do so with a degree of pride.

We said, when we entered the COVID-19 response period, that we believe that the best public health response would also be the best economic response. And the numbers that we are seeing now, and the record over the last 2½ to 3 years has shown that that is exactly the case. Our GDP rose 1.7 percent in the past year. Unemployment continues to be at a near-record low of 3.3 percent. We said as we went into the COVID-19 response that we wanted to keep New Zealanders in jobs and we have done that. New Zealanders kept their jobs during COVID-19, and they did that because the Government backed them and backed the businesses that employ them.

It is interesting to note—now that the Government is being criticised for untargeted spending—that most of that untargeted spending was things like the wage subsidy, which kept people in jobs. So two years ago, 18 months ago, even a year ago, we were being criticised for not doing enough, and now “Captain Hindsight” and his team have decided that we wasted money by doing those things—that’s not what they were saying at the time. And I am very proud of the track record of this Government when it comes to keeping people in work. We kept New Zealanders in jobs, and our economy is that much stronger as a result of it.

We also kept our apprentices on the job; not only did we keep apprentices on the job, we grew the number of apprentices who are in training during our response to COVID-19. That is a stark contrast to the global financial crisis, when the last National Government cut the number of apprentices. We see the results of that today in the shortages that we’ve got—particularly in areas like building and construction—where firms are crying out for skilled labour, and the skilled labour is not there because the last National Government didn’t train them. They chose to cut during the global financial crisis. At the very time when we should, as a country, have been investing in upskilling our people, they decided that that was the time to cut that level of investment. That is not a mistake that our Government’s making. We are very proud of the fact that we’ve got more apprentices in training now than we did at any point during the last National Government’s tenure in office; that’s something that should be celebrated.

We have also used that opportunity to invest in critical infrastructure. The last National Government was more than happy to add another million people to the New Zealand population—they didn’t build the houses required for that. They didn’t build the infrastructure required for that; we are. We are catching up. We have built record numbers of houses during the tenure of our Government, and we are incredibly proud of that. It is going to take some time to undo the damage done by the nine years of neglect that we inherited, but we are making good progress. We are building houses; we are building houses and getting Kiwis into homes.

Our agricultural experts have reached a record $53 billion. That’s happened because of the good, sound economic management of our Government, and because of the success that we have had on the international trade circuit; far more success than the members opposite who like to talk a big game when it comes to trade but just can’t seem to close the deal.

Unlike them, I’m proud of the work of our Prime Minister and our Minister for Trade and Export Growth, who actually know how to get ink on the paper when it comes to international trade agreements. Summer is coming. We’ve got a lot to look forward to, and we have a lot to be proud of.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Starting on a slightly different tone, I haven’t had the opportunity to acknowledge the passing of Queen Elizabeth II, and I wanted to start my speech by acknowledging her passing, acknowledging the dignity with which she held her position over 70 years. I also want to commend this House for the speeches that have been undertaken here and recognise that there were a number of viewpoints expressed in the speeches, but they were expressed respectfully, and that followed the tikanga that so many of our Māori members from across the House had indicated needed to be done.

In the spirit of acknowledging the late Queen Elizabeth II, I also want to acknowledge that this week we celebrated 129 years of women’s suffrage. I want to acknowledge the many battles that have had to be fought by women over those 129 years, the mountains that still need to be climbed, the battles that have been won, and also the women who led that particular fight to earn the right, or win the right, for women to vote, and the many, many fights that have followed after that. I also want to acknowledge that we’re on the brink of, for the first time ever, having 50 percent women in this House. I have to acknowledge that a lot of that is due to the large number of women that we have in our Labour Party caucus—good women, women who are capable and have the skills to be here. I also want to acknowledge that that hasn’t always been recognised; we have gone through periods where we’ve been challenged in our attempt to have 50 percent women. At one point in time, they were calling it a “man ban” by the Labour Party. It wasn’t a man ban; it was a “women can stand”—women can stand. And here we are.

I want to acknowledge the challenges that are ahead and the work that’s been undertaken. As I said, there still are mountains to climb, and we know what they are for women. They are about our participation in the workforce. They are about things like pay equity. We still are disproportionately impacted by family and sexual violence. And when you attempt to climb a mountain, you need a plan and the tools to do that, and this Government has been steadfast in making sure that we have those things. I want to acknowledge the Minister for Women and the fact that, for the first time, we have a women’s employment action plan. I want to acknowledge the Government and also the leadership of Minister Marama Davidson with Te Aorerekura and the joint venture and the work that has been undertaken by many Government agencies and community organisations so that we can finally address what has plagued our country: the levels of family and sexual violence that all too often impact on women. There is much more that is in place, there is much more happening to address the mountains we still have to climb, but we are the Government to do that, and I’m very proud of the track that we are on.

The previous speaker, the Hon Chris Hipkins, spoke about the economy. We need to make sure that the economy is working for women, because that’s when our economy really will fly. But I am very proud of the fact that when we look at the very difficult period of time that we have been through, what we are seeing is that productivity is up, we’re seeing that exports are up, we are seeing that tourism is returning, and we’ve got a GDP of 1.7 percent in the last quarter, compared to Australia’s of 0.9 percent. We have near-record lows of unemployment at 3.3 percent. We are seeing the gaps close for those groups who have been plagued persistently by this increased, or disproportionate, level of unemployment, and we are making a difference as a Government.

We are focused on the future, we are securing our recovery, we have got through better than many other countries a pandemic which has had huge impacts on the world, and we are doing that to ensure the future for New Zealanders is bright. As Minister Hipkins said, summer is on the horizon. We have just come through a very difficult winter. The future is bright. With regard to Wellington weather, though, I did say yesterday that it’s really good when it doesn’t suck.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Defence): Last week was a fantastic week because it was Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. I was really encouraged by the positive crowd out on the forecourt who came here to remember the 50-year commemoration, or anniversary, of the petition for te reo Māori. In that vein of te reo Māori, and so that we don’t lose momentum, as I notice all of my colleagues around the House post on their social media fantastic Māori words and phrases, let’s continue with a few other Māori words this week, outside of Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori.

The first one is “ka rawe”, which means “awesome”. Ka rawe, sir—awesome. And that’s exactly what’s happening as we’ve looked towards the economic growth in this country. It is awesome. We compare ourselves to other countries, and I can tell you, our GDP and our economic recovery is favourable on a world standard. I want to thank our Minister of Finance for the work that he did and highlight too the point that was made by Minister Hipkins when he was right in saying that on the other side of the House, we were told we’re not doing enough; we need to invest more money into our businesses. So we did that through the COVID response. Now we’re hearing from the other side, “Oh, no, no, you need to cut back on that. Actually, we need to make sure that we don’t waste the money.” Well, I can tell you, every business that I went to, in particular Māori businesses in Tāmaki-makau-rau, said to me, “Ka rawe.” That’s another word for us today.

The next one is “ngākau rorotu”. For those who don’t know what that means, that means “optimism”, and optimism is really abundant in our communities. Why? Because we’ve come through COVID and they felt supported through COVID. We looked towards a summer where—for example, just yesterday at the Whānau Ora conference, the optimism there was huge because our whānau are better off, having come through COVID with the support. We are far better connected to the services that we need, we are doing the mahi to make sure that that momentum isn’t lost, and the optimism amongst those families and those people that work with those families is absolutely huge. And I want to thank them all for their mahi through COVID-19. So that word again just for the House is “ngākau rorotu”—optimism.

The next one is “mahi”. Some translate that as “work”; I’m going to translate that today as “employment”. And what we’ve seen from this Government and its stewardship of the economy is record low unemployment. In fact, when I started—in fact, you and I, sir, started in this House at the same time; class of 2014, kia ora.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: It’s your anniversary.

Hon PEENI HENARE: It sure is. And I can tell you, sir, that Māori unemployment rates when you and I started in this House were double digits—double digits. Today it is record low unemployment numbers for Māori; record low unemployment numbers across the country. And that’s because of the strong stewardship of this Government with our economy, with our employers, with the sectors right across this country that continue to employ our people, to support our people and our communities, and I’m proud of those numbers.

But we’ve got more work to do and we don’t deny that fact. We know that there are lots of places screaming out for kaimahi, screaming out for workers. I want to reiterate the point of Minister Hipkins: training them, our workforce, and training our own people is really important, and we’ve got to invest in that, and this Government has done that. Apprenticeships, training, upskilling—we took the opportunity through COVID-19 to make sure that we can have an opportunity to train and upskill our workforce, and we’re doing that. But I want to be clear on this: yes, we might look towards immigration to relieve some of the pressures, but it cannot be the only answer for the future of this country. We believe in investing in our own people to make sure that they can meet those demands into the future.

The next phrase is “haere tonu”, or “get on with it”. Just last week, I attended the 75th birthday of Hawkins Downer, one of the large construction companies in this country. They said they’re getting on with the mahi with the support of this Government. And I want to point out the Ōhākea build that’s happening at Ōhākea base right now. Over $250 million into that local economy, over 450 people employed through that entire project, and it’s on time and it’s on budget and we’re really excited for the first arrival of the P-8 in December. So that’s the phrase, “haere tonu”—just getting on with the mahi.

The last one is “whakapono”—belief. Whakapono is important because I believe that this country coming into summer is going to enjoy a very good summer. Tourism numbers will rise, the optimism will continue to grow, and our people will do well. We look forward to enjoying the summer and I look forward to celebrating it with our communities right across this country. Kia ora.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. And I say “kia ora” to my fellow class of 2014 mate, or team member, Peeni Henare.

I was astonished yesterday to hear that Grant Robertson feels threatened walking around New Zealand. I say that because the ACT Party frequently holds hundreds of street corner meetings, town hall meetings, and door knocking events up and down New Zealand each year. And we find that New Zealand remains a fantastic place to do politics.

Let me say to anybody who thinks they are going to win a political point by threatening a member of Parliament: politics is ultimately about persuasion, and you can’t be a very good persuader if you have to threaten someone with a lamington.

On that point, I was astonished to hear that Grant Robertson feels threatened by lamingtons. I would have thought that Grant Robertson would be a much bigger threat to lamingtons than lamingtons would be a threat to Grant Robertson.

And, actually, when I think about it, Grant Robertson and this Labour Government are an enormous threat to many other aspects of New Zealand society. It’s not just the lamingtons; it’s also the hard-working taxpayer who, under a Labour Government—since Grant Robertson has been the Minister of Finance—has seen their income taxes go up from just over $9,000 on average to just over $12,000. That’s a 30 percent increase in income tax per person under Labour; more than twice the rate of inflation. People think inflation’s going up fast; wait until you see income taxes going up at twice the rate.

Farmers are under enormous pressure from this Government. This Government is a threat to farmers, telling them that they have to get their winter cropping plans in by the end of the month and yet they haven’t done it and they won’t get resource consent and they won’t be able to legally farm the way this Government’s tried to centrally control farming with its freshwater laws.

There’s the motorists. People like to drive in this country, but the Reshaping Streets plan is a manifesto for the most ragtag activists in every town and city in this country, letting them reshape streets, taking away your carparks outside your business, putting pot plants in the middle of the road—this is serious; they call it “modal filters”—to stop people driving.

Then there’s the landlords constantly under attack from this Government for having the temerity to save up, buy a house, and offer accommodation to someone else. Here’s a tip for the Labour Government: if you think there’s a shortage of places for people to live, maybe stop attacking the people that offer accommodation to fellow New Zealanders.

Speaking of houses, there’s our neighbourhoods and a three-by-three townhouse development going up next door in any town or suburb in this country, because Labour and National got together and did a dirty deal that won’t deliver one more house than we already would have had. Why? Because zoning’s not the issue; infrastructure building and building materials are the issue. This dirty deal will only mean the same number of houses get built in different places that greatly erode the property rights that people bought into in their town.

What about small businesses? What about employers? They just got 450 million bucks put on to their expenses so we can have a holiday for the Queen a week after the rest of the world moves on. Isn’t that so typical of New Zealand, a country that’s so slow to reopen and reconnect that they just can’t get the staff? I met a shopkeeper in Christchurch last week: 156 days without a single day off to keep the doors open because this Government has closed the borders and created a labour crisis with its immigration bureaucracy.

Then there’s the licensed firearm owners, our sometimes forgotten group. The police just lost 2,500—well, we don’t know exactly how many records of people’s firearms. And this Government wants to keep a record of where every firearm in the country is kept. So it could be a steal-to-order list for the gangs, but don’t worry: they’re not going to lose it this time. We don’t trust them because if we could, they would have kept their records secure last time.

Then there’s the children. They’ve got Kelvin Davis. Anyone who listened to Kelvin Davis as the Minister for Oranga Tamariki trying to explain where $42 million went—spoiler alert: he wasn’t sure—weeps for the safety of vulnerable children in this country.

Then there’s education. We just found out there’s been a 10-year experiment of so-called “innovative learning environments” where kids were put into barns with multiple classes and teachers with no evidence or rigour to show it would work at all.

There are many dangers to New Zealanders, there are many dangers to lamingtons; and Grant Robertson is chief among them all.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I want to begin my contribution with a little bit of a reflection and a word of thanks to all those who put themselves forward, those who worked on the frontline—individuals and community organisations—across all of my portfolios, to support those who needed some extra support through some very challenging times. I want to thank them. In my electorate of Maungakiekie, we had a managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facility, and when I met with those running that facility, and those who were working there, I heard some of the stories of the hardships they went through and the challenges they faced through all those years, and what they went through just by virtue of working in an MIQ facility, I want to say thanks to all of them as well.

There have been globally turbulent times and we haven’t been immune here in Aotearoa New Zealand. It’s been turbulent times with the pandemic but also with war, supply chain disruptions, energy shocks, and inflation spikes. Through that, I’m proud of the way that our Government has carefully managed and navigated New Zealand through those times. Where we are today is not by chance; it is by design. Through the last 2½ years, there weren’t really any easy choices to make. There were just tough and tougher decisions that needed to be made, but we managed that plan on this side of the House through supporting lives and livelihoods, supporting businesses—and we will continue to do this—to grow jobs and wages while also continuing to mitigate the impact of the cost of living increases on our people.

The proof points are there: near record low unemployment at 3.1 percent; incomes that have grown at the highest rate since records began; an economy that is larger than it was pre-COVID, following what was a one-in-100-year economic shock; more homes built in the last year than since records began; and more people coming off benefits and into work.

I wanted to reiterate some points that our finance Minister made recently in a speech. He said that our goods exports are near record highs because even though the global economy’s struggling, what we offer to the world is something the world needs. We have statistics from our ski season in Queenstown that show it’s up to 80 percent of pre-COVID times. International student enrolments are nearly at 50 percent of pre-COVID times just one month after reopening and months before the academic year begins. Our strong action on climate change is in part what is getting free-trade agreements over the line with the EU and the UK and what is underpinning the $53 billion record in agricultural exports. Our green credentials are growing stronger. We now have some of the highest rates of electric and more fuel-efficient hybrid cars in the world, now making up 20 percent of new imports. Tech companies are investing in New Zealand for our renewable energy sources. This includes the likes of Amazon, which is setting up a multibillion-dollar cloud investment here, following in Microsoft’s footsteps.

I know as I’ve gone out and talked with business owners that many talk about the labour shortages that many are experiencing, and I know that that is of significant concern. But there are opportunities here as well. As the world grapples with skills shortages, we have a reconnecting strategy and an immigration rebalance that is designed to attract the people that we need, to give them more certainty and fairness. More than 7,200 job-check applications have been approved, allowing employers to go out and recruit internationally for over 48,000 positions. More than 25,000 working holiday scheme applications have been approved since March, and thousands more working holiday-makers are expected to arrive in the coming months.

The point that I want to make in terms of the fact that we are moving towards summer both literally and metaphorically is the fact that we have invested in our people, and this is what diversity brings—a strategy that shows that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work. The fact that we’ve invested in our young people, in our women with employment action plans that are dedicated to meeting specific needs is showing that it’s working, and that’s what we on this side of the House will continue to do—invest in our people and manage our economy in the months and years to come in the same careful way that we navigated New Zealand through the pandemic.

Finally, I just want to mention 129 years of women’s suffrage and acknowledge the women who have gone before us, on whose shoulders many of us here in the House stand. Kia ora.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): You know that Labour are in big trouble when you get two Cabinet Ministers come down here as the opening speakers and they announce summer. They’ve obviously sat around the Cabinet table and they’ve said, “What can we announce? What can we deliver? Oh, summer—we’ll announce summer.” The problem is that they’ve announced it three months too early.

Then Mr Hipkins goes on to say—and he’s right in acknowledging the first responders that stuck by us and got us through COVID. But he doesn’t actually get out into the street. He doesn’t actually get out and speak to the front line.

I was with our St John Ambulance leadership two days ago, on Monday. Do you know that now in New Zealand, St John’s have had to put two ambulances on—one in Auckland and one in the Waikato—with stab-proof vests in them. That’s never been seen in this country before, and the reason why they have to put ambulances out there with stab-proof vests in them is because their officers are facing more and more violent scenes when they arrive to provide assistance. I want to acknowledge my friend and colleague Simon Watts, who happens to be one of our front-line paramedics and a St John’s officer, and who is actually in touch with what’s happening out on the front lines.

When I took over the police portfolio, there were three things that we wanted to achieve right off the bat. We wanted to make sure that there was a proper response to the rise in gang numbers. We wanted to see a dedicated task force put in place, and they did that after a lot of pushing for Operation Cobalt. That was four years too late.

Four years ago, we said to the Government to stand up Strike Force Raptor. They laughed at the name. They mocked the name and, in fact, I don’t know if you remember, but Iain Lees-Galloway stood up and he tried to be a raptor in the House. Well, that was a really silly thing to do, because he became an extinct species shortly after that. So that didn’t work out too well for him, did it?

We knew the Minister had to be changed. The Minister came here for something—she’s passionate about something, like we all are when we come to this House—but it was not the police portfolio. The Prime Minister stood up when they made the change and she said, “We’ve lost focus on the police portfolio.” We thought, “OK, this will be interesting to see who they replace the Hon Poto Williams with.”, and it was Chris Hipkins. Chris Hipkins is, I think, No. 4. He’s one of the heavy hitters—the fix-it guy. He came into the portfolio, and what’s he done? He’s brought an insipid, weak, useless firearms prohibition order through the House that will do nothing, and I promised the Minister that I’d be back in six months—by the way, that bill doesn’t even come into effect until November. They can’t even use it till November.

Ginny Andersen: After the nine years you took to do it.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: What do I hear—the nine years under National? When Labour came in five years ago, most Kiwis, if you’d asked them, would have said, “We’ve got a sense of safety in our home.” If you want to talk about records, look at your own record over the last five years, because I can tell you now that Kiwis feels less safe in their homes. Store owners and dairy owners feel less safe in their stores. Their customers feel less safe. They can’t even go into our biggest mall in Auckland—St Lukes—at 5 o’clock on a Tuesday evening without facing eight ram-raiders, or aggravated robbers, robbing a store.

The Minister of Justice herself tried to label me as someone that’s peddling misinformation when I challenged their youth crime numbers a couple of weeks ago. She said, “That is not the whole picture. That is not the whole story.”, and, as hard as she tried to get that up, it didn’t really work. It fell flat, and what did she do this week? What did she do yesterday? Her own numbers came out and were meant to be telling a good news story, and she said, “Oh well, you know, we can’t completely rely on those numbers. It doesn’t tell the whole story.”, because they know. They know that they can stand up in the House and say, “There hasn’t been a rise in gang tensions.” when you have multiple drive-by shootings.

By the way, the 23 drive-by shootings—guess what that was fuelled by? Gang patches—by the theft of a gang patch by one gang from another. Why don’t you adopt our bill, Minister? Why don’t you adopt our bill banning gang patches and insignia? There was a big issue last week, and it was exactly the same issue, but no. No, they laugh at that and they mock it. Just like with Strike Force Raptor, they laugh and mock it. Let’s watch and see what they do.

There’s a lot of noise coming from over on the other side now, so I’m looking forward to the next speaker getting up and actually speaking to the issues that I’ve raised. The reality is this: their spike in youth offending—their spike in youth offending—has been going on now for over a year. That’s a very long spike, and the reality of it is that the latest stats that came out—all they do is confirm this. No consequences.

Hon Kiritapu Allan: No, they don’t.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: A rise in violent offending—and the Minister says, “No, they don’t.” Well, stand, Minister, and tell us why they don’t. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Associate Minister of Agriculture): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe, otirā ngā mema katoa o te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Mr Speaker and all the members in the House, greetings one and all.]

Can I just please add my condolences on the passing of Queen Elizabeth II; I haven’t had a chance to talk on that. Moe mai e te Ariki.

[Rest in peace, your Royal Highness.]

Can I also acknowledge the passing of Maanu Paul, another solider within Māoridom that passed recently. E te rangatira, haere, haere, haere atu rā.

[To the revered chief, may you rest in peace.]

Today’s debate is around acknowledging that we have come through two years of trial and tribulation, not just in our country but internationally—through the global pandemic and the consequences of that. I too want to add my acknowledgment and thanks to the many front-line workers that kept us operating as a country. In my contribution today, I want to focus on one particular sector that kept our economy afloat—and I want to also talk about the Government’s support of that economy—and that’s the primary sector.

The primary sector, in June of this year, 2022, returned a $52.2 billion export revenue. For that member who asked about outcomes, I want to concentrate on outcomes. I want to talk about the economy and what we are seeing, but particularly focusing on the primary industries. So $52.2 billion is an outcome that we should acknowledge in this House. That makes up 81.8 percent of our trade total, 11.1 percent of our overall GDP, and 13.8 percent of the employment sector. It is our primary sector that is the backbone of this nation, and I want to stand and acknowledge the work our farmers, our food processors, everyone in the chain that has contributed. I’ve got to say, the work of this Government in determining that they were essential workers when the rest of the nation was locked down enabled them to operate and to get their goods to market. Not only did we help in that respect but we also enabled, with the contribution towards airfreight—the Government invested $831 million of money which generated, wait for it, an economic value of $22.5 billion. It meant 235,000 tonnes of goods—through the Government’s investment—was able to get to market. I don’t think that is an undesired event in terms of the contribution from this Government.

But it’s the dairy industry that got $21.6 billion, an increase of 13 percent; meat and wool $12.2 billion, up 18 percent; seafood—and we all knew that at the beginning of lockdown many of the seafood captures either had to be put back into the sea or not collected because of the closures around our domestic restaurants, but also internationally—$1.9 billion, an increase of 9 percent. So our primary industries really did us proud over this year, supported by the Government.

But the other thing I want to talk about in supporting our primary industries—because we all know, many of us in this House, as rural electoral MPs, how hearty our rural and farming communities are. But I want to acknowledge the trade agenda of this Labour Government, the Trade for All Agenda, and the particular focus on the lowering of tariffs plus the opening of new markets. That’s what we’ve seen with the work that our Prime Minister has been doing since we’ve been open to the world, supported by our Minister for Trade and Export Growth and the former Minister for Trade and Export Growth, in carving out new trade agreements.

I want to take the time to talk about the deals like the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the New Zealand - China free trade agreement upgrade, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, the New Zealand - European Union Free Trade Agreement, and the New Zealand - United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement. These are examples of the hard work that this side continues to do in the trade space that opens new markets for our primary producers. I’m very, very proud that we’ve still got Ministers out there on the road, right as we speak, again, forging new markets.

I just want to take the time to acknowledge the week that I’ve been in India. India is a fast-growing economy, 1.3 billion people, and having had the opportunity to speak at the International Dairy Federation, I can report back to this House that we are a reputable country in terms of the food we produce and because of our dairy, and this is something we should take forward and celebrate as a nation.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As this is the first time that I’ve spoken in the House since the passing of our Queen, I’d like to pay my tribute to her, her 70 years of service to us as a Commonwealth: RIP, my Queen.

I just wanted to say we’ve heard some very interesting debates and backslapping from the Labour Party today, but behind those glossy stories sits a reality that most of the people that we are talking to out there at the coalface of New Zealand are giving us, and some of that stuff is not good news. One of the ones I’d like to start on is the health sector. Now, for someone that comes from the West Coast, I can tell you that we have shamefully enjoyed the highest rate of nursing vacancies in New Zealand. We are running on capacity of 74 percent. So what that means to our existing staff is huge pressure. And when you understand the pressure that these people are under, the hours they’ve had to work—our doctors and our nurses—up to 70 hours a week, and they are buckling under the pressure, the solution just seems so blatantly clear from our vantage point on this side of the House: open up the borders, get our nurses into the country, give them residence on arrival, and get them into the workforce.

I don’t know why that seems like such rocket science to this Government, but the reality is that if we don’t support that workforce soon, we are going to have the mass exodus of those professionals from our health sector. And I can tell you, from personal experience of someone who needed medical attention, could not get into a GP—the books are closed, their waiting list is long—sat for five hours in A & E trying to get urgent attention a couple of weeks later, and then finally, a couple of weeks after that, got some testing done and was found to have a serious life threatening illness. So the treatment being delayed is the risk to life and we need to get real about this. These delays and the pressure on our health system are costing people’s lives.

It wasn’t that long ago that we as MPs in our electorate had a direct line through to our DHBs, but we’ve got this mega-entity now called Health New Zealand, and I still for the life of me can’t find out how to contact the person who represents Health New Zealand so that I can talk to them. I know that Dr Shane Reti put a question to the Minister and asked: “Of the functions of the 20 former district health boards, the Crown agency responsible for leading the day-to-day running of the health system, where are the locations and contact details for these district offices?” The answer was they could be found on the Te Whatu Ora website. So, OK, I go on to the website and I go round and around—I still haven’t found the contact details. This is such an irony from a Government that said it was going to be the most open and transparent. I can’t even find the contact details.

But I want to move on to an NGO I spoke to recently. This NGO provides fantastic local services for the people who most desperately need it. So they have now been in correspondence with Oranga Tamariki (OT). Oranga Tamariki are going to focus their attention, I was told, on those very difficult 3 percent of the clients that they work with. That’s a very fine ambition and I applaud that. But the kicker is that the 97 percent are going to be passed over to these NGOs to deal with in their communities, but that comes with a little problem because, in the same letter that I’ve got a copy of, they say, “By the way, we’re going to reduce your funding by 10 percent.” So here we are. The NGOs who do all this fabulous work in our community are under huge pressure themselves, are now taking on more work from OT and having a financial reduction in their budget.

But I wanted to use a few minutes to mention something that is very near and dear to me, and that is the stewardship land review that’s going on. I want to get it on the record. The people in Haast that we have visited who have had generational grazing leases and run their cattle, generations of cattle farmers, and who are now at risk of losing access to that land—which will be decimating for those communities—got a report from the Otago University that over the four years they were investigating water quality on these grazing leases, their findings came back and said the water is pristine. Leave our land alone.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I got to do something last week that I haven’t done for a very long time. I went and saw my daughter sing—not just her class, not just her school but many other schools from right across the region. From as far away as Wairarapa to Ōtaki, schools came together. It wasn’t cancelled, it wasn’t postponed, and they weren’t wearing masks. They sung their hearts out and they loved every moment of that. In that time, I stopped and I felt really hopeful. I felt optimistic for our future, and I felt so lucky to be in New Zealand right now.

The last three years have not just been hard on our kids but they’ve also been hard on our businesses, hard on our workers, and hard on our mental health. The uncertainty that we have had to live with, over the past 900-odd days, has taken its toll on us, and I think it’s important that we acknowledge that. But it’s also important to acknowledge that this Government has been there, right through those hard times, and we will continue to be there as we get our certainty back.

It’s important to put it in context—as we move into a new phase where we do have our certainty back—and to acknowledge what turbulent times we have in the US, in the UK, and China, in terms of inflation, in terms of the real crisis other countries are seeing with the energy prices. In the UK alone, we’re seeing prices 10 times higher than before Russia’s war on Ukraine. Globally, diesel prices have increased 74 percent in the last year. Recently, Citigroup, projecting the inflation rates for the United Kingdom, are looking at rates around 18 percent in the first quarter of 2023. Grant Robertson made a point, in a recent speech, lately, of quoting the The Art of War and saying that in the midst of this uncertainty, in the midst of this chaos, there is always opportunity. That is what I believe: that there is always opportunity, whereas the National Party seem to think that the only opportunity that they see is creating even more chaos, and I think that’s sad. Together, we have ensured our economy has fared better than the global financial crisis (GFC). Our inflation, while below the OECD, has caused a real cost of living crisis for New Zealanders, but we have been there to help those people.

During the weekend, I was out knocking on doors with some of our excellent Labour local candidates in the Hutt Valley. I met a woman who had to give up her car in the early weeks of this year because she could no longer afford petrol prices. She told me that if it was not for public transport being half price, she would not have been able to get herself to work each day to continue and have her employment. She also told me that she took the money that she’s received so far through the cost of living payment and she has bought food for her and her son. The interesting part was that she chose to buy that food in dry goods—pasta, rice, canned goods, and frozen veges—so she could fill her cupboards and have that certainty that she could go to her kitchen and make a meal when she needed to in the future.

I’m proud to be part of a Government that paid that money to give people in our community the certainty when they need it, because this Government has been there through those hard times, and we will continue to be there as we get our certainty back in New Zealand. I’m proud of the fact that our debt is low, that our GDP is up, that our exports are in demand, and that more people are in work and they’re being paid higher wages. Kiwi families and our economy are made stronger from the good position that we are at right now.

I’d like to wind up by highlighting one point that I’m most proud of, and that’s our 50,000 apprentices. When we see that there are 20,000 more construction workers in New Zealand, those are young peoples’ lives that have been given real hope and opportunity: to earn a wage, to have a trade, and to get ahead in life. Under the GFC, they were the first to go, they were the first to be dismissed, those ones and apprentices, and we paid that price dearly, as we’ve had no workers in the times when we’ve needed to build more houses. I’m pleased to see that growing and building.

Recently, I got to visit a local construction company and their scaffolding apprentices doing a three-year apprenticeship to learn that trade. I saw the pride in those young workers’ faces at the work that they were doing and I saw how much their bosses had encouraged and increased their development through making sure that they were giving the right training to do the job properly. And I’m proud to be part of this Government.

It’s a good time for New Zealand to be getting ahead in terms of all the advantages that we have had. We’re in a strong position, post-COVID, and I look forward to continue building on our strengths as a country and making the best possible choices and opportunities for our people in the future.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise as the member of Parliament for Southland for the National Party and just want to take this opportunity to express my condolences on the passing of the Queen, as this is my first opportunity to speak and recognise the incredible 70 years of service that she gave.

This is an incompetent Government that is obsessed with ideology and has completely lost touch with grassroots New Zealand. It isn’t listening to what the country needs and can’t get things done. The Labour Government gives the impression of a crew of sailors who have fresh gusts coming at them across the water, are completely overwhelmed, and have taken their hands off the tiller and let go of the sails. New Zealand deserves so much more. We are a proud nation with a small population that has nevertheless produced some of the best sportspeople, some of the best sailors in the world. We know a good team and we know a good skipper when we see one. This Labour Government is not it.

From the immigration Minister, Michael Wood, who brought New Zealand the debacle of the phantom Auckland cycle bridge that cost $55 million before Labour backflipped on it, came the debacle of an immigration reset during a desperate workforce crisis which is hamstringing the economy and creating misery and enormous stress across New Zealand. An article just a couple of days ago said, “11,000 employers are desperate to import 53,000 migrant workers as the labour drought hits business growth.” What are the Labour Government doing about it? Nothing.

From the environment Minister, David Parker, who brought New Zealand the debacle of the KiwiSaver tax, which Labour backflipped on in less than 24 hours, comes the winter grazing regulations, which will cost farmers up to $100 million to apply for a consent to farm, because the Government hasn’t sorted our freshwater farm plans despite having two years to do it.

Australia announced two weeks ago—the Australian Labor Government announced two weeks ago—that it will increase its permanent immigration intake by 35,000 to a total of 195,000 in the current fiscal year as the nation grapples with a skill and labour shortage. What is the Labour Government doing as New Zealand grapples with a labour and skill shortage? Nothing. In fact, for just one example, chefs who have experience working in some of the best hotels across the world cannot get into New Zealand because they don’t have level 4 equivalent experience.

The Minister Michael Wood, who’s in the House, was told about this. I know he met with Hospitality New Zealand at least a month ago, and what has he done? It just needs a simple flick of the pen where he can change it to level 4 or equivalent experience to take into account the experience chefs have had working in the best restaurants in the world so they can come and help our workforce crisis in New Zealand. What has he done? Nothing. I’m talking with hospitality providers in my region who are literally in tears because of the stress on them and their staff. Their staff are leaving because of the stress that they’re being placed under. What is the immigration Minister doing? Nothing. It’s absolutely shameful.

In terms of the winter grazing, let’s not forget that this is the same Minister who piled the KiwiSaver tax on to the country. Now it’s $100 million of unnecessary compliance costs on farmers because of freshwater regulations over a year overdue. On 1 November of this year, David Parker expects thousands of farmers to apply for resource consents after he has failed to complete the regulatory framework allowing farmers to certify their freshwater farm plans. These regulations require farmers to have a certified freshwater farm plan for winter grazing on sloping land. They must obtain a resource consent if they do not have a certified programme. However, two years after regulations were passed—two years—there’s still no framework. To make matters worse, officials indicated that the framework would not be ready this year. These regulations have already been delayed by David Parker twice. The worst part is that forcing farmers to apply for consent is unlikely to achieve any environmental gains.

Now, what is winter grazing, for those who are listening? Well, just one example in my electorate is a farmer who grows 27 hectares of fodder beet to feed 570 cows for 72 days during winter. That’s a period when grass doesn’t grow in Southland because the ground is too cold and there is limited sunlight. You need to feed your animals. Fodder beet grows 15 times the feed that grass does. If that farmer tried to feed their cows on grass during that same period, they would need 410 hectares of grass instead of 27 hectares of fodder beet. That 410 hectares would turn to mud, and the grass would take two years to grow back naturally. So they take a very sensible approach to protect their animal welfare and to protect the water, putting in buffer zones, putting in catch crops to absorb nutrients to let the water go past without taking the top soil with it, break feeding, having at least three backup systems. This is an excellent example of what farmers do. What is David Parker doing to recognise that? Nothing. Instead he’s requiring up to 10,000 resource consents, and each application costs up to $10,000—so more cost, no outcomes, and a complete failure by this Government. This is a Government that is failing New Zealand and is failing to listen, and we deserve better.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora te Māngai o te Whare. Labour people often quote Norm Kirk’s famous words: “Kiwis don’t ask for much,” he said. “Somewhere to live, somewhere to work, something to hope for.” But it’s the less famous words he said after, on his election night, that echo for me: “And now comes the job of making dreams come true.”

The job of a Government is to create the conditions where people can build a secure future, where they can build their dreams. There’s no doubt when you look around the world at the global situation, this is a challenging time to build dreams.

I come from a place where for a lot of people it’s been tough to think about dreams; it’s been tough to even think about building that future for a long, long time. Whangārei has been coming first at the wrong end of statistics for decades. And yet, as I look around Whangārei, even now, everywhere, I see the foundations for dreams being built. There’s a secure future unfolding. There is ngākau rorotu.

Many years ago, I attended Tikipunga High School, which then—and now, to use the old numbers—would be called a decile 2. It’s a place that’s been stigmatised for a long time in my community. It’s a place people associate with all the tough things in society. The truth is, it is harder to do better when you don’t have much to begin with. Even dreaming of better is a luxury people in survival mode can rarely afford, and that has been true of a lot of my community.

But when I visit Tiki High these days, I see a shift. I meet kids who now, thanks to this Government, eat a solid, nutritious, and delicious lunch every day. I talk to parents who tell me what a difference that makes to their weekly budgets. I talk to teachers who tell me how that food means those kids can now concentrate and focus like they never have before.

These are kids who now look you in the eye with confidence. They talk about the multitude of positive futures they are dreaming into existence—kids who are planning on nursing and know exactly what courses and what grades they need to get them there, and young men and young women talking knowledgeably and enthusiastically about the trades training they’re going to enter or, in many cases, are already in. I meet kids all over my town who are part of the 50,000 Kiwi apprentices and 200,000 in trades training thanks to the Government support we’re giving. We have their backs. We’re creating the conditions in which they can build a future, and they are.

Thanks to this Government, I know that when these kids come out of their training, those same young apprentice builders and electricians and plumbers will have a steady stream of work because this Government has chosen to meet the challenges of tough times not with the retrenchment we saw in the global financial crisis but by action to reboot growth.

In the last two years, this Government has made the biggest investments in Whangārei infrastructure in my lifetime. My hospital—the oldest, most rundown in the country—has seen the building of much-needed facilities for maternity and paediatric health, cardiac and oncology services, and best of all, we’ve committed to fully funding the first and biggest stage of our main hospital rebuild.

We’re also—and this is worth a speech in itself—building 166 new State houses, with 500 more in the pipeline. There’s nothing quite as wonderful as going along to something like Puriri Park, where we are building 38 new homes, and meeting the first residents and seeing a little pair of two-year-old twins in their matching Ray-Bans heading into their very first house.

My young Tikipunga High School apprentices will have work to build that hospital, to build those houses, and, in due course, my young Tiki nurses will have a hospital fit for them and fit for the future.

It’s been a long, cold, lonely winter for Whangārei, but here comes the sun. Ka rawe, ka rawe. And it is wonderful to be standing here on this day celebrating suffrage, celebrating the spring, and celebrating good things for Whangārei.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence): E te Pīka o te Whare, ko te reo te mauri o te mana Māori. I tērā wiki, nā te kore noho o tēnei Whare i kore ai tātou i mihi ki ngā kaihāpai o te reo Māori. I kore ai tātou ngā mema Pāremata i mihi ki Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori i roto i tēnei Whare, ā, tēnā taku tino kaupapa i te tautohetohe nei.

Ko te mea tuatahi, me āta mihi tātou ki Ngā Tamatoa me Te Rōpū Reo Māori, ngā wāhine toa pērā ki a Hannah Te Hemana, Dr Linda Smith, Rīpeka Evans mā, arā ko rātou katoa i whakarite, i kōkiri, i whakatakoto hoki i te petihana mō te reo Māori ki te Whare Pāremata i te tau 1972. Āe, ko taku pāpā tētahi o rātou i taua wā. Engari i taua wā korekore, kīhai te katoa i tautoko i te kaupapa. Nā te patu o te Karauna te mataku o ngāi Māori kia kōrero i te reo rangatira. Nā tēnā pāmamae kīhai te katoa o te ao Māori i tautoko i te kaupapa, engari i haere tonu a Hannah Te Hemara mā.

Ka tae ana te tekau mā whā o Hepetema 1972, ā, ka tau mai te wairua kaha me te kotahitanga. I tērā wā i kōrero taku pāpā ki te hunga pāpāhō. Ko te mea nui e hiahia ana mātou ko te kitenga a te marea i te oranga o te reo Māori, ka mutu, kāhore e tūpono nei ka mate; kei te ora pai te reo Māori.

[Last week, because the House was not sitting, we did not acknowledge the champions of the Māori language. We did not, as members of Parliament, acknowledge, in this House, Māori Language Week, and that is the subject of this debate.

Firstly, we should openly acknowledge Ngā Tamatoa and the Te Reo Māori Society, the powerful women such as Hannah Te Hemana, Dr Linda Smith, Rīpeka Evans and others—that is, all of those who organised, championed and presented the Māori language petition to the House of Parliament in the year 1972. Yes, my father was one of them at that time. But, at that time, not everyone supported the issue. Because of Crown subjugation, Māori were frightened of speaking their noble language. As a result of that trauma, not everyone in the Māori world supported this issue either, but Hannah Te Hemara and others persisted.

By 14 September 1972, there prevailed a strong unity of spirit. At that time, my father talked to the media. The main thing we wanted was for the public to see that the Māori language was alive, it hadn’t just disappeared and died; the Māori language was alive and well.]

Mr Speaker, I talk to mark Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori, as I mentioned in my tribute to the Queen’s passing last week that the House was not going to get to that once-in-a-50-year opportunity to mark the te reo Māori petition and all those who have fought and continue to fight to uphold te reo today. Directly relevant to this time and to the fight for te reo is the focus on the monarchy, right at this very moment, here and around the world.

For here in Aotearoa, as I have said, the conversation is for constitutional transformation. What would Aotearoa look like if Te Tiriti was recognised and honoured in our constitutional arrangements and throughout our communities and society? The work to decolonise and re-indigenise Aotearoa is the conversation for this place, regardless of what is happening on the other side of the world. It is not a new conversation. It is one that we have to be brave to continue to have, and believe in the hope of constitutional transformation—the proper sharing of power.

Simeon Brown: That’s not what the Treaty says.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: That is how Māori understand constitutional transformation. In Parliament, we have to remove the fear and ignorance about Te Tiriti which is eliciting and highlighting itself here today in this very House. For far too long, Parliament has had years of being misinformed—

Simon Watts: He was giving you some advice.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: —and I’m hearing it right now on this side of the House. So the Māori experiences of powerlessness, we also know, are not the only ones, and that is the political discussion to be having. There is so much hope and guidance and wisdom in Te Ao Māori values that will soothe the pathway of a constitutional transformation, to keep building allies and the message of working together.

I want to acknowledge Ka Tū Kotahi Tātou, a solidarity movement standing outside the Christchurch District Court right now, to stand with love and to fight Islamophobia with a current case that is going through for people with deep hatred and ignorance, sharing some of the most heinous footage about a white supremacy terror that happened to our earth here, to our whenua here. That is manaakitanga in action. Those are the values that Matike Mai and the work of transforming Aotearoa have always held up. That is the beauty of Māori-led conversations about what Aotearoa can truly look like if it acknowledges He Whakaputanga, the tino rangatiratanga and mana motuhake of Māori over our whenua.

Earlier before, I heard a colleague from the National Party, Ms Pugh, talking about “Leave our land alone.”, and I go way further and say give our land back—hoki whenua mai. If we want to be clear about Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori, hoki whenua mai—give our land back as part of the process of constitutional transformation. And for what? To be able to care for it, look after it, share it in a way that upholds all of our mokopuna, not just a few. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

House in Committee

House in Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Plain Language Bill and the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill. It would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions, if they have them, of the member in charge during their call.

Bills

Plain Language Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We come first to the Plain Language Bill. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I’m pleased to begin the debate in the committee of the whole House stage of my bill, the Plain Language Bill. The purpose of the Plain Language Bill is to improve the effectiveness and accountability of Public Service agencies and Crown agents, and to improve the accessibility of documents that they make available to the public.

New Zealand is at its best when we can all understand and easily participate in our democracy. The Plain Language Bill is important because clear information from Government organisations is a basic democratic right. The bill will make it easier for members of the public to engage with public sector agencies. This bill will make a real difference to how our Government agencies communicate with the public.

For the purpose of the bill, plain language means language that is appropriate to the intended audience; and clear, concise, and well organised. The definition talks specifically about recognised guidelines of plain language writing, and it’s important, I note, that we place the obligations on defining those guidelines with the Public Service Commissioner.

The Plain Language Bill requires a reporting agency to use plain language and ensure that relevant documents for which it is responsible use plain language. A document for which a reporting agency is responsible is relevant if the document is in English; the intended audience is considered to be the general public; it provides information about what services are provided by, or on behalf of, a reporting agency, or information about how to obtain those services. A “relevant document” means a document that is necessary to obtain a service, file a tax return, provides information about a benefit or service, or explains to the public how to comply with Public Service requirements.

The select committee made specific reference to documents that incorporate te reo Māori. We noted that the Public Service incorporates te reo Māori in many documents and we do not want to discourage agencies from using te reo Māori in their documents. We inserted clause 4B(3) to make it clear that the Act would not restrict a reporting agency from including te reo Māori in any relevant document.

The committee also included clause 4B(4)(a), which outlines that a standard form or template may be considered a relevant document. This is because these documents may be used to communicate with a significant section of the public. On this matter, I’ve had representation made to me as an electorate MP about these particular documents, such as documents that are sent from Work and Income and Immigration New Zealand, that are template documents that are often difficult for people to understand and require some level of interpretation from an advocate. It was important to the committee that these documents were included. However, a standard email that a public servant may be sending to a member of the public just in a back and forth style email exchange would not be covered. So we made that clarification clear.

I also want to note that the bill does not apply to documents under the Official Information Act just because they are subject to the Official Information Act. Documents that are internal documents between public sector agencies and, for example, Ministers or other agencies are not considered to be public documents in the bill.

I’m looking forward to taking more calls throughout this debate on further parts. I’m looking forward to hearing questions and looking forward to the debates in the House on this bill. On that note, I’ll finish this call and come back shortly.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you so much, Mr Chair. Now, look, this is a bill which, I have to say, could be renamed the “Lackadaisical Language Bill”, a bill that seems to think that people cannot look up a dictionary or even work through what things mean. Suddenly we’re going to have some plainer language and it’s all going to make sense! I thought it was because the member in charge of the bill, Rachel Boyack, raised the issue about the use of te reo in documents. We certainly, as MPs, often get complaints about people—that they find it hard working out some of the news these days because so much te reo is being used. Now, I personally support the use of te reo—it’s obviously an official language of New Zealand—but it is important to bring people along with us in that, and that we don’t end up making people feel that they can’t understand what’s going on.

She’s raised the issue of te reo, and I think we need to know—we know that, in English, it is not actually that hard to find easier, plainer words to say often the same thing. If we look at the history of English, we can look at—say, in the legal profession, of which I have some knowledge—the words “will” and “testament”. They used to be used all the time and now mostly “will”, and why is there “will” and “testament”? One, because “will” was the Anglo-Saxon term and “testament” was that brought over by the Normans. So we have quite a lot of those sorts of terms—“give” and “bequeath” is another—where an Anglo-Saxon term is used along with the Norman term, and what has happened, actually, is that usage over the years tends to have been modified to go for the shorter version, which is often the Anglo-Saxon word. I have to say that the Anglo-Saxon language seems to have quite a lot of very short words and often very blunt in their meaning. This is probably one of those bills that it could be used for—some of these blunt meanings.

I don’t understand how it is—and perhaps the member could answer this: has she undertaken a study to make sure that te reo has some more plain language words? I’m not an expert in te reo, and I wonder if there are te reo terms which are much shorter and plainer than some of the other te reo words, or is there simply one word that’s not dependent on who is speaking it? Is it just simply the word? So perhaps she could answer that, because I’m not the expert and I’d like to hear from her.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Chair; thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Plain Language Bill, which I would describe as a solution looking for a problem, because ultimately there’s a lot of words being used. I haven’t actually done a word count, but someone should do a word count, because I’m pretty sure it could be, basically, a sort of a letter from the Public Service Commissioner to the entire Public Service saying, “Please use plain language, kind regards.”—could actually have fixed the problem. Rather, we’ve got many thousands of words. But I’m not sure if the member has done a word count. I’d be interested to know if she has; and, if so, how many words are in this piece of legislation.

But I have got a number of questions that I will be asking about this piece of legislation throughout this afternoon. And I guess the first place I’d like to start is at the definition of plain language. And it says here in clause 4A “What is plain language”. Now, it doesn’t end with a question mark, it’s a statement, which I thought was a bit odd and it doesn’t sound very plain at all. And then it says, “In this Act, plain language means language that is—(a) appropriate to the intended audience”. So I guess the first question is: are there different levels of plain language that can be used, dependent on the particular intended audience for a document, and how are the Public Service departments going to be able to assess whether they’re using that appropriate level of language? Because clearly that is the first part to the definition that they have to meet. So first they have to clearly know, obviously, who the intended audience is, and then I understand some bits later on in the bill try to narrow that down, but they also have to know what the appropriate level of language for that intended audience is. So I guess the question is: what does “appropriate” mean in that context? Are there various types of plain language that could be used, dependant on the different type of audience?

Subclause (b) is: “clear, concise, and well organised.” Now, obviously we kind of all know what clear and concise and well organised means; however, does this require the particular Public Service departments to use any particular software? Because I know there’s a lot of software out there, such as Grammarly, which will provide a number of different ways for people to be able to use language. Does that require that sort of language to be used in that context?

The next clause is 4B, “What documents must use plain language”, and this is a really large section. So, for people listening at home, there’s a lot of words in this section, and I would say it’s clearly not plain language, the way this bill has been written. Again, I’d ask the member whether she’s considered whether this bill could have been written in more plain language. And I guess a broader question is: does this bill require legislation? Does this bill actually require legislation to be written in plain language? Because, I can tell you, there are a lot of people up and down this country who are paid to interpret legislation, and they do a very good job of it. And the point is that legislation is complex, but it’s also a public-facing document. Every piece of legislation is available on the legislation website in the archives—it’s available. So my first question here is: what documents must use plain language? Is legislation covered by the plain language requirements of this legislation? Because if it is, I would put it to the member that this piece of legislation that she is bringing to the House doesn’t use plain language in a number of cases and should be considered as to whether it actually complies with the very piece of legislation that she is bringing to this Parliament.

The next point I’d like to raise is in regards to the documents. And it says here in clause 4B(c) “the document—(i) provides information about what services are provided by, or on behalf of, a reporting agency”. So, look, there’s a range of different things here regarding the document “(ii) provides information about filing, registering, or lodging information”, “(iii) explains to the public how to comply with a requirement”. So there’s a range of different sort of narrowing down factors here to try to narrow down. So I guess the question is: how did the member come to the point where she’s come up with this definition of legislation or documents which should be narrowed down to? Where was the scope decided to be drawn to try to actually determine what documents should use plain language and what documents shouldn’t? Because I think the public have quite a lot of questions about that.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question is around clause 4A(a). Clause 4A states “In this Act, plain language means language that is—(a) appropriate to the intended audience;”. Mr Chair, as you know, I obviously come from a family and a community that has English as a second language—believe it or not! I spoke Mandarin and only Mandarin when I first came to New Zealand when I was five and I had to pick up English through primary school, and that was quite an enjoyable process because I knew my fellow classmates were also just on their journey of learning the English language, especially the written language, the spelling as well.

To the member in the chair, I just really want to understand, in terms of consideration during the select committee process and advice from officials, whether the intended audience was people who have English as their second language. Was that ever intended? And what benefits would this bill bring in terms of the interpretation and the translation process, and what benefit would that bring in terms of making sure that the Public Service in New Zealand could communicate more clearly with that community?

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, members, for the questions, and I’ll take this call just to go through some of those questions and respond to them.

I’ll just respond first to the questions from the Hon Judith Collins regarding te reo Māori and the use of te reo Māori in documents. This has actually been quite an interesting discussion through the select committee process. Even in earlier readings, some of my colleagues who’ve worked in the law, in particular, made comments, I recall, around the need for Māori, at times, to be written with plain language in mind. The bill is explicit that it refers to English within the documentation that’s used. The comments I do want to make on this, just for the committee of the whole House, just for clarity, is that there are often times when words come into everyday use from Māoridom that become used within documents—we think of words like “mahi”, like “kia ora”. In Nelson, we often say, “Nelson Whakatū”. These are the types of words, and there are phrases—there are many examples that often are used within documents.

There are often times within public sector agencies, and other organisations, where they will actually also translate that—it doesn’t happen all the time. I’ll note, though, that—for example, with the weather, there is often translation. So what was really clear for the Governance and Administration Committee is that that’s actually something that we like to see. We want to encourage te reo Māori as an official language of New Zealand, and we want to ensure that that is upheld within documentation, but recognising that this is changing over time, and that, over a period of time, more words like “mahi”, for example, become more widespread and more understood by society, and people are more willing to accept those words within documents.

Just to talk specifically around the use of the phrase “intended audience”, the original writing of the bill had “intended reader”. Through the select committee process, one of the things we considered was that “intended reader” could be quite defined, whereas what we want to do is ensure we’re talking about the public generally, or, potentially, groups of people within the public. And I just note comments from my colleague Naisi Chen—who was also a very helpful member of the select committee as we went through the bill—that there could be times where a document is intended for a particular group of people, a particular ethnicity, a particular age group, a particular region, where it might be necessary to ensure that we’re thinking about that audience.

On that point, what the bill does—and we’ll come to this when we come to Part 2, but I’ll just foreshadow now that there is an important part in Part 2 around placing the obligation of setting those guidelines around plain language on the Public Service Commissioner, and that, actually, the select committee’s view was rather than rushing all of that detail into the bill, into the legislation, it should go into guidelines issued by the Public Service Commissioner, rather than stipulating all of that in extreme detail across into the bill. We will come to that in a lot more detail in Part 2 of the debate, and I’m very happy to engage at that point.

Mr Brown also made some acknowledgment around software. Again, I’ll probably come to this a bit in Part 2 as well, but just noting that for people who have accessibility needs, there often is software that can be applied, such as readers of PDFs—that’s incredibly useful for people who have impaired vision, and this is another matter where I’ve had constituents come to me directly around documents they’ve—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: So why isn’t that in the bill?

RACHEL BOYACK: —received. And so—we have written that into that bill, we’ll get to that when we get to that point in Part 2 around accessibility. I recall that conversation that we had in select committee around accessibility—we put that in for that exact reason.

Just noting, as well, around the type of documents that will be covered, there are two essential components to this. One is around services that people have access to. As someone who lives in New Zealand, there are services and benefits that people have access to, and understanding what those are is really important. The other part is the obligations placed on people. Again, those are, essentially, the two pieces. As a New Zealander, as somebody who lives in New Zealand, what are your obligations, and what are the benefits and rights that you have. The bill seeks to ensure that that information is presented to the public in a way that can be understood, to ensure people have access to the benefits that they’re entitled to and that they comply with the requirements of them. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well, thank you, Mr Chair. I have three questions for the member in charge of this bill, but before I do, I think the comment in our interjections on the bits that were in Part 2 highlight the folly of this bill—that is this is a bill to provide for guidance. Actually, what we should be doing is just providing guidance through the Public Service Commission on what plain language is, because there’s no absolute requirement to follow the guidance. That’s why they call it guidance. So my first question to the member in my examination of Part 1 of the bill is: given that this bill was in the ballot for the thick end of about 12 years, why is it that there wasn’t a departmental disclosure statement, there wasn’t a regulatory impact statement, nor was there a cost benefit analysis—no advice—to support the consideration of the bill? So why were those 12 years wasted?

My second question to the member is: does she have regard for the organisations like the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, like the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and the New Zealand Law Society? And if she does, why was their advice not followed? Because, going in order, the LDAC, the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, recommended the bill not proceed. It said that “Legislation should only be made when it is necessary and is the most appropriate means of achieving the policy objective.” Now, if those guidelines were being followed, what the member in charge of the bill is saying is everything has to be by law and that the most appropriate means of implementing a policy is to just pass a law.

We know that not to be the case. Certainly, LDAC knew that not to be case because they said, “Don’t do this.” The Office of the Clerk used very coded language, but his office was very clear that there were problems with this bill and that it shouldn’t proceed. He said that the requirement in the bill is uncertain and without consequence, that the lack of a consequence for non-compliance undermines the intent of the bill, and that plain language is not—in the writing of the bill—a clear legal requirement. So that’s my second question: why, if she has any regard for those organisations, was the advice not followed and the bill not put in the bin?

Now, I was a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, and I should just preface my third question by saying this: when the member in charge of the bill talks about what the select committee decided, it has to be very clear that it was the majority of the members of the select committee, because while we engaged in good faith and, generally, we have a good rapport across the Governance and Administration Committee, this was a waste of time, and National members can’t get that time back and don’t support any of the conclusions that the select committee came to. But I want to go to the interpretation section of the select committee’s commentary. Obviously, the interpretation is in Part 1. I note for the committee members that there are seven references in the section on interpretation that are concerned about interpretation and definition. So in a bill sent to a select committee, specifically designed to set an expectation for documents to be written in plain language, the bill was a mess. The select committee said, “We believe the term ‘intended reader’ could be problematic … [We suggest] the definition would be better framed ... We also note that ‘plain language’ may differ depending on … the audience … [and] readers may have, for example, varying levels of understanding … We also consider that it is impractical to require that the intended reader must be able to easily understand the document after 1 reading.” So we dispensed with that requirement altogether. Definitions are not specifying which guidelines are being referred to. This could create interpretation issues. The committee considered that mentioning “tax returns” could cause interpretation issues. The whole bill, designed to improve plain language, couldn’t be understood and is basically being rewritten. So my third question is this: if it’s so hard to interpret plain language in the bill that the member is sponsoring, why are we not throwing it in the bin?

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity, and I commend my colleague Michael Woodhouse for outlining what I think are some genuine questions for the member to actually answer. Because the reality is that we have to ask ourselves: why are we here spending time on a piece of legislation which doesn’t even have any teeth or any requirements to actually make a difference? Now, we come to Parliament to actually write legislation which is actually going to make a difference. Basically all this could do is lead to some guidelines being published and then basically being put in the file and forgotten, so it’s an absolute waste of time.

But I did note in the member’s response there that she actually failed to answer a question, and it relates to what Michael Woodhouse was talking about, which is the question that I ask. Is “legislation” covered by the definition in clause 4B, “What documents must use plain language”? I ask that question because, plainly, according to the plain—that’s my lay reading of this complicated piece of legislation. It does say here in clause 4B(1)(c) that “the document provides (i) information about what services are provided by, or on behalf of, a reporting agency or information about how to obtain those”—so that’s unlikely to be legislation. But when you get down to “(iv) provides information to the public about a requirement that a reporting agency administers or enforces that may affect their rights or interests;”, when I think of legislation, I think about rights and interests. I think about administration; who administers that. I think about enforcement; legislation includes enforcement—most legislation, except for this one, obviously, for other reasons.

But the question I’ve got there to the member in the chair is: is legislation included? And I would say in the plain language reading of clause 4B(c)(iv) that legislation does provide information to the public. It’s a public-facing document about a requirement that a reporting agency administers or enforces that may affect their rights or interests. And if that is the interpretation of this piece of legislation, then this really does put significant responsibility on all Ministers and members in relation to the language used in terms of legislating in this House.

I know that there have been great efforts made over many years to try to make legislation more accessible so it is more easily read. But the reality is it’s legalese; it’s effectively the way it’s structured, the words and particular phrases that are used, the way clauses interact with other clauses, and the way that sometimes even legislation refers to other sections in other legislation, which does have an impact. All of these things have an impact in terms of plain language.

So I really genuinely would like to know from the member whether this legislation does include “legislation”, because the Crown Law Office obviously would be, I would say, an agency which—well, they’re clearly an agency; they are a Crown agent or a public service agency. They are covered by the definitions of the piece of legislation, is my understanding, and therefore, they have a significant responsibility in terms of drafting legislation for Ministers and in terms of making sure that the legislation that is taken to Cabinet is in plain language and obviously brought to the House before being passed.

So I seriously would like the member in the chair to give this committee some answers to that question. And I think the point of that question is that it shows the level of where this issue starts to affect throughout Government departments. Of course, we’ll get to Part 2 shortly, which talks about plain language officers, and I’m really looking forward to that conversation around plain language officers. But, of course, the more requirements or the more agencies or the more documents which may be covered will lead to more officers needing to be employed to be able to fulfil the grand purpose of this legislation and its great ambition to somehow make all documents plain language, through this piece of legislation. So I look forward to announce that question, and I’ll have more to come after that.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got a few further questions on Part 1. Some of them have been raised by some of the contributions from this side and also from the member who is in charge of the bill.

I looked at this bill and wondered whether or not this bill itself was written in plain English. Well, is it that plain when we have a word like “Minister” in clause 4—in the Interpretation clause—where that takes 29 words to explain what a Minister is? And that I’ve kept out the “means” bit, because I think that’s unfair to use that.

So a “Minister”, under this, is “the Minister of the Crown who, under the authority of any warrant or with the authority of the Prime Minister, is responsible for the administration of this Act.” A lot of people will take a while to work that one through.

Simeon Brown: We still don’t know which Minister it is.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Or any Minister, really. It’s a Minister of the Crown—“the” Minister, whichever.

I think one of the problems we have—one of the glories of English as a language is that it is a very precise language. There are opportunities to use a multitude of different words for things that, in some other languages, have only one word. If we think of some of the Inuit people, I think they have, you know, hundreds of words for “ice”. In our case, we have different words for different things.

I’ll just take us to an example and I’m going to ask a question of the member. If we look at a word like “legislation”—which we’ve been talking about this afternoon—well, what is legislation? Some people might say, “Well, that means the law.” So why don’t we just say “law” instead of “legislation”? Well, because “law” also includes the common law, it also includes the interpretation of legislation, and it can include statutes. Then, people would say, “Well, what’s that?” Well, that’s Acts of Parliament; we have to explain that one. Well, what about Orders in Council? So the simplistic word “law” is the general word, but then there are all the subsections under it. And that is just one of the issues that we have when we look for the plain language meanings.

Let’s even look at the word “commissioner”. Well, why doesn’t this bill just say what the commissioner is? Public Service Commissioner? Why not just say, “public service boss”? Isn’t that what it means? Is there some other meaning? What is the meaning that’s meant here? Surely it should just be “public service boss”, so we all know, because “commissioner”, of course—as I’ve explained already—is one of those sorts of words that comes from the Norman French that came over to England, and that means four meanings when I had a quick look up for the benefit of the member. That was a member of a commission; someone commissioned to perform certain duties; an official in charge of a Government department, especially a police force; or someone who commissions something—in other words, commissions a painting. So there’s four quite distinct meanings for the term “commissioner” and where the word “boss” might not be such a good alternative.

So my question to the member in the chair—who I have to say has at least been making some attempt to answer the questions, unlike most of the Ministers in this Government—is: how many more pages are going to have to be written to explain what is meant using the precise word that’s already available in English? How many more; has she taken that into account?

Because we already know that there has been, over the last 30 years, a real move towards more easily understood language being used in documentation. Partly, I think, because a lot of it’s now on websites. But has she looked at how much more is going to have to be written? How many more people will have to be employed? And who is going to police it, other than this “boss” of the Public Service Commission? And couldn’t the Minister in charge of the Public Service Commission just tell the “boss” of the Public Service Commission to try and have more plain language?

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just going to take a short call to respond specifically to some questions from Mr Brown, and my apologies for not answering that in an earlier call. Before I do that, I just note that there have been comments and questions specifically around the role of the Public Service Commissioner and the role of plain language officers, and I’m looking forward to getting into that in a lot more detail when we get to the debate on Part 2.

Mr Brown’s question, which I think is a good question to ask, is specifically around whether legislation is covered by the scope of the bill. That is not the intent of the bill. I just note from the departmental report some quite useful information regarding the role of legislation, which is that the premise of the Legislation Act 2019 is centred around promoting high-quality legislation for New Zealand that is easy to find, use, and understand, including allowing legislation to be simpler, shorter, and more consistent, and providing tools for modernising and simplifying legislation. I note that the Parliamentary Counsel Office has been doing a lot of work over a number of years to make legislation, as they work through it, easier to understand. So the bill does not cover legislation and that has not been its intent.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It’s an absolute pleasure to take a call on this bill, and let’s get straight to it. Let’s get to Part 1, and clause 3, “Purpose”. My question here to the member is in regards to the statement that “The purpose of this Act is to improve the effectiveness and accountability of public service agencies”. My question to the member is quite simply: can she articulate to us how she believes that this legislation is actually going to lead to an improvement in the effectiveness of these organisations?

As we know, quite simply, the definition of effectiveness is around increasing the outputs or the results of these Public Service organisations, and I guess what I am reading into this aspect of the clause is that there’s an inherent conflict in that, because, surely, we’re now creating a bureaucracy that has to go through and review, within a period of six months, all of these documents that are out there within the Public Service and make sure that they comply with this bureaucratic legislation. But that effort has to be undertaken by someone—right? It has to be undertaken by a very finite workforce that we’ve got at the moment, and that means that you can’t do two things at once. Particularly, this Government can’t, but most people can’t. So, if they’re going to be reviewing this to make sure that this legislation is in place to improve the effectiveness, how are they going to be able to focus on the true deliverables that our Public Service entities should be delivering? They can’t do both, so I want to understand from the member in terms of how in practice this will improve the effectiveness.

The second aspect around that is in regards to the implication of undertaking this piece of work, which will mean that other work will not get undertaken, and what impact has the member assessed in regards to the potential delays that this will cause in decision making within our public sector system? The reality is that if you’re going to have to go through and undertake checks and balances and reviews of materials that are published to the public to make sure that they’re compliant with this legislation, then that will take time, and that means that as a result the ability for Public Service entities to actually get information out to the public will be delayed—right? So that’s in here, under clause 3.

So my question is: what consideration has been given under improving the effectiveness of Public Service organisations by the fact that, quite simply, this legislation will cause additional delays in decision making by Public Service entities, because they have to now undertake this new piece of work that previously they wouldn’t have had to do. So how is that being considered, particularly if you think that we’ve just been through a period of a COVID pandemic, and there was the significant need to make decisions under pressure and at pace. Can you imagine now going through that COVID process—hopefully we don’t have to go through that again. But you can imagine that—and I’m going back to this clause 3 of the bill, under Part 1. Well, now, before we send out that communication, we’d better just make sure that it complies with this element, and even if that takes half a day, that’s going to impact the decision making. Therefore, it conflicts with the whole purpose of this bill around improving the effectiveness of our Public Service agencies.

So those are the questions that I’m really wanting to get some comfort on. I’m sure the work and the due diligence around that has been undertaken, but we haven’t even talked about what the actual implication around cost is as a result of that. But we’ll come back there when we get another opportunity. Thank you, Mr Chair.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Chair. My perseverance has paid off! I acknowledge the interest in this bill from the Opposition parties. It’s taken a long time, but their calls have really engaged in this piece of legislation, which is, really, fairly common sense. My question relates to the disability sector. I’m interested in the work that the member, Rachel Boyack, has done in terms of engaging with the disability sector and how the member expects that this bill will support the disability sector in terms of engaging with Government agencies, with the Government legislation, with various policies.

Clause 4A in this bill outlines the fact that “In this Act, plain language means language that is (a) appropriate to the intended audience; and (b) clear, concise, and well organised.” If we talk about the intended audience, we have heard from a previous speaker on this Plain Language Bill who simply said all that people need to do is buy a dictionary and then they can understand everything. Is that a little bit simplistic? Is that a simplistic view of New Zealand as a society—that, if someone doesn’t understand something they’re reading on a Government website, all they need to do is buy a dictionary, and that’s fine. So I am interested in a response from the member around that.

We did hear from a submitter who was involved with the disability sector, who said the most obvious reason to use plain language writing is to make important information and ideas more accessible for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and others with disabilities affecting reading, comprehension, and other cognitive functions. So my question, as I stated near the start, is: how does the member expect that this bill will support the disability sector in terms of accessing Government agencies, Government websites, and the like? Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question to the member is in relation to clause 5 of Part 1. Now, it’s a very simple clause, and it says this: “This Act binds the Crown.” Now, my question—I have a couple of questions about this. Firstly, they seem like pretty straightforward words—

Simeon Brown: What does “bind” mean?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, that’s right; what does “bind” mean? Who is the Crown? But most importantly, did the member follow the process that is set out in the Cabinet Manual before an Act to bind the Crown? The reason I ask this is that in 2002, under the previous Labour Government, very clear expectations were set—as articulated in the Cabinet Manual and in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet guidelines on this—and they say, among other things, this: “In July 2001, the Cabinet agreed that all Cabinet papers seeking policy approval for proposals that will result in Government bills must address the issue of whether the proposed Act is to bind the Crown.” That’s Cabinet papers.

But the overarching requirement is that it—Cabinet—will make explicit decisions on whether draft bills should include a provision stating that the Act will bind the Crown. So only Cabinet can decide whether this Act binds the executive and the Crown. I would love to know whether or not the Cabinet Legislation Committee sat around that big table on the eighth floor of the Beehive and said, “Yes, this is a great idea; we should be bound by this bill when it becomes law.”

Simeon Brown: Well, it’s Chris Hipkins’ bill, so I’m sure he would’ve been—

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well that’s right, Mr Brown. Chris Hipkins is the true villain of this piece, the architect of this nonsense piece of legislation. When he was a bright young thing—probably in a Minister’s office in the Clark Government, giving education advice, I think he was—he probably thought, “I know, I’ll come to Parliament; my life’s work will be complete when I can pass a bill that talks about requiring plain language officers to be introduced.”

I may sound flippant, but it’s very important to know whether the member has sought Cabinet approval through the Cabinet Legislation Committee, that a piece of legislation this House and this committee is now debating has gone through Cabinet. And if it did, were they unanimous in their support? I’m sure it went through the Labour Party caucus, but, in order to bind the Crown, it’s very clear that Cabinet needs to give it the tick.

There are obviously, because we can’t sit without them, Ministers present in this Chamber; perhaps Mr Jackson or Miss Radhakrishnan—

Hon Member: Willie will get up.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yeah, here we go! And here’s the folly of all of this. We now have a bill which says “This is an Act that binds the Crown”. And the Act will do anything but bind the Crown, because there’s nothing binding about it. There are no consequences for non-compliance with this legislation. There is no expectation that there be consequences if one of the 88 Government entities and departments that will be bound by this—

Simon Watts: Eighty-eight!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That’s right, Mr Watts; 88 Government departments, in an Orwellian move. Winston Smith would be pleased with this. He probably in his wildest dreams could not have written a bill quite this mad. The Act will say it binds the Crown, but the Crown is not bound to do anything. There are no consequences for non-compliance with this legislation. So I get back to my central question: did the member sponsoring this bill go through the process required by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, that before an Act becomes law and binds the Crown, Cabinet needed to approve it?

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m not sure if the member Rachel Boyack was intending to take a call, but I’m very interested in the answer to the question posed by the Hon Michael Woodhouse, which I think is a very good question, around whether this bill has been through the actual processes or whether that was just something the member—or maybe Chris Hipkins actually put that in there years ago. It probably happened years ago when they were in Opposition and they just didn’t think about whether they had to do anything about it. But, you know, this is a real omnishambles of a piece of legislation and an omnishambles of a Government.

Hon Member: What does that mean?

SIMEON BROWN: Basically, omnishambles can be—if you open the thesaurus, KiwiBuild comes next to it as the definition.

Simon Watts: That’s not plain language; you said “Kiwi” and “build”. There’s no building.

SIMEON BROWN: That’s right; there’s not much building happening by this KiwiBuild Government.

Simon Watts: Kiwis can’t fly.

SIMEON BROWN: That’s right; under this Government the red tape is holding Kiwis back. But the question I’ve got is—back to the interpretation section, which talks about the definition of “public”. Now, I’m not sure if people have given much thought to the definition of “public” before, but this bill includes a definition of “public”, and it says here that “public includes a section of the public”. Now, I’m not sure about that, but that’s a bit of a circular type of argument in terms of that particular definition. But “public” includes a section of the public. In my view, the public is the public—everyone, we’re all part of the public. But a “public” in this bill could include a section of the public. So the basic failure in the interpretation section is it actually doesn’t define the word “public”, because the definition of “public” or the interpretation of “public” includes the word “public”.

Simon Watts: You can’t do that.

SIMEON BROWN: Well, I would have thought you can’t do it. Now, for the people listening at home, this is the ultimate solution looking for a problem. This is a bill which could have just been a Minister writing a letter to the Public Service Commission saying, “We expect public documents to be using plain language. Regards, Minister.” But, instead, we’ve got a multi-page report with a multi-page bill which is going to make 80 different departments employ people to do X, Y, and Z, and it can’t even define the word “public”. Now, I just think that’s absolutely ridiculous. I would like the member to please clarify what is the definition of “public”, due to the fact that the definition of “public” includes the word “public”, and whether there’s a plain language interpretation to that. Of course, putting it in Hansard may help down the road when a plain language officer is having to interpret whether they are actually complying with the legislation, and they’ll be able to open up Hansard and look at Rachel Boyack’s comments during the committee of the whole House and be able to take from the wisdom of this House the real intent that was meant by Rachel Boyack, and I’m sure they will find great inspiration and help in those statements. So I look forward to the member please clarifying the definition of “public”.

But I’d like to now just conclude my comments looking at clause 4B. Clause 4B(5) again provides another, I think, not very plain language interpretation of what I think it’s trying to convey. But it says here that “If a document contains a part that meets the requirements in subsection (1) and a part that does not, section 6 applies only to the part that meets those requirements”. Now, I find that quite interesting. So section 6, of course, requires plain language to be used in the relevant document. Section 4B talks about what documents are plain language. So what it says here—my understanding of what it says here—is that a document may be considered a relevant document for part of that document, but another part of that document might not be considered a relevant document. So we could have a document produced by a Government department, but only part of it needs to be in plain language, and part of it doesn’t. I’d just like the member to clarify to the committee, is she saying here that some documents only need to be partially in plain language, and, if so, where do you draw the line? Is it the first half or the last half? I look forward to the answer to those questions.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to take the opportunity—I was seeking the call earlier but I was a bit slow—to respond to the questions from my colleague Jamie Strange around accessibility. Ultimately, that is a discussion for Part 2, where that comes in. The bill has received a number of submissions from organisations like Blind Low Vision New Zealand, Community Law, and Citizens Advice Bureau, who work with people who have disabilities and require support at times to be able to interpret documents. Certainly, I’ve had representation made to me by constituents, and so I’m looking forward to discussing that further in the debate on Part 2.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you so much, Mr Chair. Although this has been treated as a jolly jape in the House this evening, I actually think that this bill brings something that’s extremely serious to the House. I am expressing some concerns about whether or not it goes far enough. I don’t mean to sound remotely critical, Ms Boyack, but the words “member’s bill” seem to be too complicated for members of the Opposition to understand, when they are asking questions about whether the member herself should have sought Cabinet approval.

Be that as it may, one of the people who made a fantastic contribution in support of this bill did raise the extremely serious question around democracy. This is something that I’d really appreciate your view on, Ms Boyack, especially with regard to this piece of legislation, because the submitter actually raises the extremely important point that this is a really important bill for democracy. I would like to hear your views on how this does actually bring forward greater access to democracy in this House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I thank the member Sarah Pallett for the question. It’s an excellent question. It actually goes to the heart of the bill, and the purpose of the bill is to ensure that people can understand what Government is asking of them. Actually, one of the things that we, interestingly, in the Governance and Administration Committee have also been looking at is matters related to public governance, to trust and transparency in Government, and one of the factors is people actually feeling that they are connected to Government. When people have documents placed in front of them that are gobbledygook, that they don’t understand—they don’t understand what’s being asked of them; they don’t understand what their entitlements are—we see these people come into our electorate offices. As an electorate MP, people will come in with letters that they don’t understand. It’s often, for example, letters from organisations like Immigration New Zealand, like the Ministry of Social Development, and they require support from agencies like Community Law, like Citizens Advice Bureau, like our offices to assist them to understand what’s in their document.

I recently had one which is a good example—it wasn’t actually a public sector document, but it was a good example—from Chorus writing to an 86-year-old woman in my electorate about her fibre being replaced. She was concerned that her phone line was going to be cut off. She’d taken it to the local Age Concern, who raised it with me. These are the kinds of things that come across our desks as MPs a lot. There have been examples I’ve seen in my office where situations have actually been life and death and related to people attempting to escape warzones, out of New Zealand and back into New Zealand, and weren’t able to understand the documentation provided to them. I mean, it’s not actually a laughing matter. It wasn’t a laughing matter at the time when we were trying to communicate with that constituent who was in a different part of the world and was trying to escape a warzone.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: It wouldn’t be covered by the Act.

RACHEL BOYACK: Well, I would say actually that it would, because the communication went to a section of the public. It wasn’t a one-off document; it went to a group of people. It went to an intended audience.

Simon Watts: Are you going to answer the question?

RACHEL BOYACK: So, to answer that question, a group of the public—

Simeon Brown: What does “public” mean?

RACHEL BOYACK: The hint, Mr Brown, is in the clause that talks about intended audience. One of the items raised in the discussions was that there will be times when we are actually looking to communicate with a group of people quite specifically, and the bill will cover that. So that was actually a very good example of a group of people who received the same communication, and my office was contacted around those concerned and there was a representation made to the agency by my office.

So thank you very much for the question, on accessibility in particular, and I look forward to discussing that further in Part 2.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Now, members, I am anticipating a closure motion on my right; however, we’ve now been going for 55 minutes. I’ll be looking very much for new material.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Absolutely!

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): And since we have a new member here, I’ll call the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Mr Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity to make a fairly plain speech on this Plain Language Bill.

I have a fear that, actually, some of the concern about this bill represented by my colleagues who have spoken on it so far may well be because of the lack of plain language in the application of the committee stage that we’re going through at the moment, by the member in charge of the bill.

I wonder how far is this plain language going to extend. Will it simply stop with the legislative process or will it start to invade Parliament itself? In that regard, I’d refer the member to Standing Order 5, so not too far into the book. If I may say, quite plainly, if the member turns over five pages to page 4—because there’s one page that’s unnumbered—then she will find Standing Order 5, which deals with Limitation on moving suspension.

I think given the fact that so many people seem to be unable to fully understand the plain language nature of this bill—because of its extraordinary complexity for a bill that sets out to do such a simple thing—whether the member might like to consider this Standing Order? That is—and this a question I’m asking to the member—“A member who is not a Minister may move a suspension motion only for the purpose of allowing a bill, provision, or other matters in that member’s charge to proceed or be dealt with without compliance with Standing Orders or other order to be suspended.”

Now, firstly, I’d like an explanation from the member in charge of the bill how this particular Standing Order could be improved by some plain language so that more people might understand it; and then once that explanation is given, if the explanation is in line with the attention of this particular Standing Order, will the member consider taking the action that this particular Standing Order advises?

The reality is that this is the guiding document for the way the House works. The guiding document for how legislation is to be dealt with through this House; how public debates are to be dealt with in this House; how a range of other procedural matters are to be dealt with in this House. If this document is not covered by the current bill, then I think that is something that needs to be sorted out and I would hope that, perhaps, the member might consider a Supplementary Order Paper that extends the plain language provisions to impact Standing Orders as well.

If we wanted to make it more complicated, we could go to some of the very early rulings that are found in Speakers’ rulings. Rulings from the 1900s, a couple in there from the 1800s, and even some very confusing rulings from the early 2000s, when there were some interesting people occupying the seat at that time.

So I conclude my contribution—not wanting to take the full time allocated—to allow the member to answer that question. One: what does that particular Standing Order mean; how could it be rewritten into plain language? And once that explanation is given to the House, will the member consider taking that option and making a motion, as is allowed by that Standing Order?

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

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

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Plain language requirements

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 6 to 11, “Plain language requirements”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair. I know everyone has been very excited to begin the debate tonight on Part 2, which has a lot of the substantive parts of the bill and which we’ve already had some questions on tonight, so I will possibly take a slightly longer call, depending on how long it takes to get through some of this information.

Part 2 states that “A reporting agency must take reasonable steps to ensure that all relevant documents for which it is responsible use plain language.” We amended, at select committee stage, clause 7 so that it was clear that the commissioner “must issue guidance”, rather than “may issue guidance”. We were quite clear as a select committee that requiring the Public Service Commission to have oversight of this legislation without actually requiring that they must issue those guidelines was inconsistent, so we made that change.

One of the important points we discussed at committee, which I do want to ensure is referenced a number of times throughout the debates in the House, is about the Public Service Commissioner looking at international best practice. There was a very specific reason why we did that. There is currently work going on internationally to develop an international organisation for standardisation (ISO) on plain language. For those watching, that’s an international standard that can then be applied for and applied by organisations internationally in order to show they comply with that standard. It’s very common in areas like health and safety and accounting practices, and we have some of our experts on plain language in New Zealand like the Write group, who are actually actively part of the development of that ISO. So what we want to point to quite clearly is that when that ISO is in place—and it could still be a few more years away—at that point, we would expect the Public Service Commissioner to be looking specifically at that ISO in order to develop the guidance.

I do want to take some time just to talk about accessibility. I’ve had members of my community come to me, for example, who are vision impaired, and there are really basic tools that can be used on documents—on things like PDFs—where all you have to do is push a button and the document is read out to you. I had a constituent come to me where that hadn’t been applied to a letter she received from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). She phoned the call centre to ask for the document to be read out to her because she couldn’t read it. They refused to actually read it out to her over the phone and said, “Maybe a friend could do that for you.” Considering the amount of time that she waited on the phone, the amount of time that that call took, the amount of time that it then took that person to go and find someone to read a document out to her, that’s all transactional time that didn’t need to occur if a simple tool like adding the button to turn into a reader had been used.

We had representation from members of the disabled community who said that guidance on some of these types of things—particularly on websites—had been issued by Cabinet but hadn’t been followed enough. They were really clear that they wanted to see legislation because they wanted the strength of legislation to actually show just how important these particular issues are to that community.

Madam Chair—it’s nice to see you, Madam Chair. We’ve had questions tonight about plain language officers, and I do want to talk about this quite specifically—about what their role will be. The plain language officers will have a very important role in terms of education and training of people within an agency. It is my view that there will be many agencies where that work will be picked up by an existing person working, probably, in a communications team within the agency. We have a number of public sector agencies that already have people assigned to do this work, that work very carefully on plain language within their documents, and that engage organisations like the Write group and others to consult on those documents and to train their teams in order to be able to write in plain language. When I was a junior public servant myself, in my first role, I was sent on some of those courses specifically for that reason. There could be times when an agency does not have someone that would be able to fulfil that role. There may be times when an agency is very small and does not have the ability to have someone in their team where they may need to outsource that work. Each agency will need to be able to assess that on their own merits.

There has been a lot of commentary in previous readings and in the media around suggestions from the Opposition that this is going to add cost to bureaucracy. I want to actually tackle that head-on. What we know is that when information is not presented to the public in a clear way, it adds an enormous transactional cost to that agency and to the members of the public struggling to understand those documents. The United States has legislation in place, and this legislation is based off that legislation—or they’ve been amended now, but it was based off the United States’ legislation. When that legislation was introduced, the compliance for people to pay things like taxes and fines actually went up as a result, because information was presented in a clearer way for people to understand.

There is evidence from a Toronto-based organisation that actually studied the business impact when members of their organisation had to introduce plain language. They collected the performance data on that organisation. They found that by introducing plain language, it improved employee productivity by 36.9 percent, it decreased employee errors by 77.1 percent, it decreased the frequency of calls to the helpdesk by 17.4 percent, and it decreased the duration of calls to the helpdesk by a forecasted 10 percent. They then forecasted a positive return on investment. What they found was that it had positive financial benefits for their organisation in introducing plain language. It’s that classic case that sometimes you need to invest in order to actually get the results.

So there may be some agencies that do have to make a small investment in a staffer who is able to support that agency through this change, but what the evidence shows and what the research shows is that it will ultimately have positive net benefits for the organisation in terms of transactional costs, compliance costs, and people, for example, paying their fines, people not having to phone MSD to have a document read out to them over the phone because a simple reader application wasn’t added to that document. I really wanted to tackle that head-on because I think that there’s been a lot of comments in the media that have been, in my view, a bit inaccurate around what this will mean for those agencies.

The other thing about plain language officers which I think will be really helpful will be the ability to receive concerns from the public. This is something that happens with privacy officers in agencies where you can find an agency, find out who the privacy officer is, and contact them to say, “We’ve had an issue, and I’d like to refer that.” That’s something that I certainly would find helpful as an electorate MP when a document does come through that is very clearly not clear and being able to send that somewhere for it to actually be looked at.

There was a specific addition we made into this part, which has had some commentary around 10A being added, which is the “[Bill] does not confer or impose legal rights or obligations”. We were very clear, and there was, I guess, some temptation at times to think that maybe it might actually confer some legal obligations, but we’re very clear that the duty from an agency is through to the Public Service Commissioner and then through the reporting mechanisms that exist that way—as opposed to potentially opening up the Crown to legal action. I know that the Minister of Finance will appreciate that the select committee included that clause within the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): I wonder if the member promoting the bill, Rachel Boyack, would be able to tell us whether or not, in the process of compilation of the bill, the research that was done before the bill was put into a form that would make it acceptable for the ballot, if there was any consideration—research, due diligence, whatever term might like to be applied—to just how many documents that relate to Government would need to be altered if this bill were to pass. Further, has there been consideration of who might do that scrutiny, who might be the body that goes through all of the literature that would relate to legislation and its application, scrutinises it, and makes decisions about its rewrite? Would this, in fact, be a new commission that the Government might be required to put together, with the appointment of people who are qualified in this regard—people obviously not too highbrow, but people who understood and could express themselves well in very plain language.

One of the things that immediately would come to mind would be the Standing Orders of this House. It’s not inappropriate in any debate to discuss Standing Orders; it’s one of the rules of the House because they are, in fact, the rules of the House. So I looked earlier at some Standing Orders that I think could do with quite a degree of clarification. I wonder if the member promoting the bill has had a discussion with the Clerk’s Office about how that piece of work might be progressed. I would refer the member so that I can give an example—because we’ve had very few examples given to us in the Chamber today of actual circumstances where some plain language rewrites of various documents might make a difference to the public. So I’m asking her to look at page 15 of the Standing Orders, and Standing Order 55, which talks about the early sitting or postponement of sittings during adjournment.

Now, think about what that means. So adjournment normally means that things have stopped—they are adjourned. But here we have a contradiction where it talks about the early sitting during an adjournment—a sitting where things are stopped, or when things are postponed. So my question is: will this bill reach this far into the operation of the House? It goes on to say, “Whenever the House is adjourned and it appears the Prime Minister”—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Order! I’m going to invite the member to come back to Part 2 of the bill, and I will direct him in so doing, at his leisure, but if he wishes to keep going, to—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No, sorry—I hadn’t finished.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Sorry, you were interrupted over here—I will just take a point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Order!

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I’ll sit down. Now can I stand?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! No. I would direct him to have regard to the fact that the “reporting agency means a Crown agent or a public service agency.” So if the member wishes to continue his contribution.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, that is exactly my point, Madam Chair—exactly my point. I started my contribution here, before I was interrupted by people who clearly weren’t listening to what I had to say, asking the question: how’s it going to work? Who is going to be the agency that makes these decisions?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Well, I’d advise the member to get on with it—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: And there’s no advice in what you’ve just given me to say that that’s answered.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean):—not defending his position.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Further, the Chair should not be answering for the member who’s in the chair.

So I ask again: how are these things going to be sorted out? And I’m asking for quite a practical example of how it might be dealt with, because this is very confusing. There is nothing plain about the language used on this particular Standing Order, where it talks about, firstly, it being adjourned, then it says the Prime Minister could say, “Well, maybe it shouldn’t now be adjourned.” But, then, that’s the Speaker who decides whether or not it is adjourned. And if it’s agreed with the Prime Minister that it shouldn’t be adjourned, then the Speaker is the one who decides when the adjournment shall cease and the House shall sit again. This document is full of this very, sort of, convoluted type of language. It’s there in that fashion to make it, believe it or not, easy for those who administer the place to do so. And that will be the case for thousands of documents that relate to legislation throughout the country. So I ask again: what will the structure be that allows this type of consideration to be done? I do hope the member answers in the context of the Standing Orders, of the part we’re looking at, at the moment.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I thank the member for the fascinating question, but I’ll talk through the bill in terms of how the reporting on the bill works. It’s quite clearly spelled out in the bill.

So clause 9, “Reporting agency must report to Commissioner”, says that the “reporting agency must report annually to the Commissioner on how the agency complies with this Act.” Clause 10, “Commissioner must report to Minister”, says that “(1) The Commissioner must report annually to the Minister on how reporting agencies have been complying with this Act. (2) The Minister must present a copy of the report to the House of Representatives within 20 working days after receiving it.” What that does is it brings some transparency into the reporting from the agencies through to the commissioner and through to the Minister. And we will receive annual reports from the Minister via the commissioner to this House on how agencies are complying with this Act, which will be very helpful in terms of transparency, to actually show us which agencies are doing a good job of including plain language and which ones have some more work to do. So it’s a very simple, very straightforward process.

We also amended the commencement date to time this approximately around the time of the annual review time frame. And it’s quite possibly the type of topic that could form annual reviews into agencies that report through to select committees. This is something we also discussed at the select committee process. A very simple process, and I thank the member for his question.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to inquire of the member about both the resource that’s going to be required for plain language officers and also add my voice to the question that Mr Brownlee asked, and that was: how many documents are going to be subject to this bill?

But before I do, I want to point out how confused this bill is and how confused the member sponsoring the bill is. In her first intervention on Part 2, she gave us this very interesting story about a constituent that had come to her with an email that contained a PDF that was sent by a Crown agency and how she wanted it to be read to her, and the Government agency had, basically, said, “Well, look, there’s a PDF reader that can do that for you, so off you go and we’re not going to help.” Here’s the problem with that: if it was contained in an email, is it subject to the Plain Language Bill? Because, as we found out in Part 1, if it’s a public document it’s subject to plain language requirements, if it’s in an email it’s not. So what if a public document is in an email? Is it subject to the law or not? Would there be a complaint? Is it validly laid? Would there be a sanction in any event? As we know, there isn’t any consequences for noncompliance, so we are completely wasting our time here.

But here’s my question to the member in charge of the bill—and it’s designed to flesh out the extent to which the public sector is going to have to engage plain language officers, as it set out in Part 2—how many organisations are going to be caught by this? Now, the bill talks about a Crown agent, as set out in Part 1, Schedule 1 of the Crown Entities Act. I don’t know what the entities listed in Part 2 of Schedule 1 or Part 3 of Schedule 1 did to deserve being left out of the scope, but lucky them! And also Public Service agencies, set out under the Public Service Act section 10A. And section 10A talks about, basically, all Government departments, all departmental agencies, all interdepartmental executive boards, and interdepartmental ventures—whatever they are—and includes Crown agencies for the purposes of Subpart 4. The Crown Entities Act goes through a long list of organisations: ACC, Callaghan Innovation, and so on. So I would like to know whether the member has actually counted the number of organisations that are captured by this bill. It’s fundamental to the question of how many plain language officers we’re going to have and how much resource—taxpayer resource—is going to be diverted into having these plain language police running around, vetting every single document that appears on every single website of every single Crown agency covered by the bill.

We didn’t have a departmental disclosure document, we didn’t have a regulatory impact statement, and we didn’t have a cost-benefit analysis, but I think this committee—it behoves us to work out for the member and the Government, who obviously support this, what on earth we are going to be committing to if this bill is passed: how many organisations, how many documents, how many plain language officers?

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to continue with the line of questioning that my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse is asking around plain language officers, because this is one of the key clauses of Part 2 of this legislation—plain language officers. Clause 8 requires: “A reporting agency must appoint as plain language officers for the agency 1 or more individuals (within or outside the agency) whose responsibilities include”—not just making sure that they’re plain language documents—“(a) educating agency employees regarding the requirements of this Act: (b) dealing with feedback from the public about the agency’s compliance with this Act: [and] (c) ensuring that the agency complies with this Act.” And there are three parts to that.

The core question I have, and I think the public would like to know, is: how many more bureaucrats are going to have to be hired because of this piece of legislation being passed by the Labour Party? How many more bureaucrats? Does the member in the chair, Rachel Boyack, know how many more bureaucrats will have to be hired by this piece of legislation being passed into law?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Will they get a uniform?

SIMEON BROWN: Will they get a uniform? That’s a good question, Mr Brownlee.

Hon Member: A high-vis vest?

SIMEON BROWN: Or a vest? That’s a very good question, because, if you read the three things, these are the plain language police, who will be walking around Government agencies, educating agencies regarding the requirements of the Act.

I find this quite amusing: they took out the word “complaint”. So you can’t complain anymore. The public can’t complain. They’ll still come to your office, Rachel Boyack—they’ll still come to your office—because they can’t complain to the department; they can only provide feedback. How soft and cool is that! How kind! They can provide feedback to the Government. Feedback? It sounds so soft and cuddly, doesn’t it? But you can’t make a complaint. You can’t turn up and say, “I can’t read that document.”, because that’s a complaint, but what you can say is, “May I suggest that you do this document differently, because I fail to be able to comprehend it?” You know, that’s the soft kind of nonsense in this.

How many people will have to be employed to be able to make sure that this piece of legislation can actually be enforced? And it’s in the context of an additional 14,000 public servants in the core Public Service. We know that’s only for the core Public Service. There are all the agencies and everything outside of that, but the core Public Service has increased by 14,000 more staff under this Government—14,000, at a cost of almost $2 billion per year. So the public are looking at that and going, “We’re facing a cost of living crisis and this priority from this member is to, basically, mean that more public servants will have to be hired at an unknown cost and an unknown number.” That really worries me. It really worries me that we’re going through the committee of the whole House and we don’t actually know that number. It’s not in the reports. It’s not covered by any of the advice. The member, if she knows it, I’d love for her to get up and answer that question and give me some surety. If it’s 10 or 15 people, that’s one thing, but we know it’s more than that, because every single agency—so if there are 88 agencies, as Mr Woodhouse was saying—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, that’s my best guess.

SIMEON BROWN: That’s his best guess. How many is it? Good question. If it’s 88, that’s 88 employees minimum in addition to what is currently in existence. That is absolutely enormous. And it says “at least”. I can’t imagine any public department saying they’re only going to employ one, because they need one to do the education, one to deal with the feedback, and one to make sure that they comply—at least. So I can see it being three times the number of agencies at least. It’ll be 250 people easily. It’ll be 250 people within absolutely no time under this Government. We see the largesse. This is just another picture of the largesse of Government. It’s absolutely extraordinary, isn’t it? Just the absolutely extraordinary growth in bureaucracy, and this is just another layer and more people under this Government.

New Zealanders are getting sick and tired of it, and they will be speaking up against this. They won’t just be giving feedback; they’ll be complaining, and they’ll be voting at the next election on issues like this, where they see the priority of this Labour Government is totally out of whack. So I’d like to know the answer to that question. There is more to get into, because it talks about “(within or outside the agency)”, and I’ll take the opportunity to take another call on that point shortly. But I look forward to the member answering my question.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I did cover a lot of the detail around public sector agencies and plain language officers in the earlier part of Part 2 when I took a call. I will just make a note again, just for the member Simeon Brown, that there are a number of agencies who already have people in place undertaking this work. That is the conversation that I’ve had with a lot of the experts who work alongside these agencies. There will be some agencies that may need to either task someone who is already inside the agency to do this work or who may need to employ somebody to do this work. That may happen. But what I can also tell the member is that we know from research that this will improve productivity, improve compliance, it will make our Public Service far more efficient, and it will ensure that people are able to engage and comply with what the Government is asking them to do.

I’ll just make a short comment on the note of increasing the number of public servants. Our public servants who worked throughout COVID, who worked to keep New Zealand safe, they are heroes of this country. I will always stand up, as part of a Labour Government, for public servants that have worked to keep people safe. I will always stand up for the extra police that we’ve pulled in to keep our country safe.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Order! I’m just going to pull Rachel Boyack back to Part 2 of this bill.

RACHEL BOYACK: I think that this particular line of questioning is one that has come up in previous debates, has come up in the media. I’ve been very, very clear, that, yes, there may be some agencies that need to employ someone in order to do this work, but many of our agencies are already doing this. Earlier today, I had an email with all of the nominees for the Plain Language Awards that happen every year. Many of our public sector agencies have been nominated for awards, which I’m really pleased to see, but there are many that have work to do. I know that improving plain language—and I note that the Opposition have stated on a few occasions that they do support plain language. It’s kind of starting to sound a little bit at the moment like maybe they don’t, but I know that those agencies that have work to do, this bill will ensure that they comply with this, and so it will give some teeth to the need for those agencies to improve their communications. Thank you, Madam Chair.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No, there are a number of Supplementary Order Papers as part of Part 2 of this bill.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair, because that’s exactly what I want to speak to. I’d first note, though, that Rachel Boyack refers—quite rightly, in my view—to the heroes of our Public Service. I’d tend to agree with that. But if they’re heroes, why does she not trust them to do their jobs well, because, essentially, what this bill is saying is that she does not trust them to do plain language in plain language. She quite plainly does not trust them.

But she also said that despite the fact that we still don’t know except to the extent that—I now know, Mr Brown, where the 88 number came from. It was actually in the initial briefing to the select committee that it’s 88, and probably about that many thousand public sector employees would be responsible for complying with the Plain Language Act. It’s probably closer to the population of Dunedin—over 100,000—that are actually going to be infected by this, or covered by this, in which case the heroic part about this is not so much the work that they do but the assumption from the bill’s sponsor that there won’t be any extra resource deployed to give effect to it.

So my challenge to the member is that if she is that confident that there won’t be a need to deploy resources—taxpayers’ funds—to comply with the Plain Language Act, she must support my Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) 242 and 243, because I have a disdain for this bill. I think this is a waste of Parliament’s time and it’s going to be a waste of public sector organisations’ time, and, frankly, it’s an insult to them.

But if she believes, as she has said, that the research shows that this saves money—it doesn’t cost money—then the very least she can do is support SOP 243 in my name, which amends clause 8 to include subclauses requiring reporting agencies to meet the cost of employing a plain language officer from within the agency’s existing funding and it must not receive any additional funding for the purposes of employing a plain language officer, and that subclause applies despite any provision or appropriation contained in any appropriation Act or imprest supply Act. That’s the bit of the side door closing, so even if there is a little bit more money, it cannot be used for plain language officers.

If she believes her own rhetoric—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: How have they checked that out?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —if she believes the research—goodness only knows, Mr Brownlee, but we’ve got to try, on behalf of the taxpayers—then she must support SOP 243. She’s just told this committee that there won’t be any extra cost but that, in fact, we might save money. Fine—put the amendment where her mouth is and support my SOP.

SOP 242 is pretty much along those lines as well, because it ensures that any appointed plain language officer comes from within each department to ensure that the bill doesn’t increase the size of the Public Service, because, goodness only knows—yes, they’re heroes. There are a lot more of them than there were five years ago—14,000 to 15,000, I think, Mr Brown?

Simeon Brown: That’s right.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That is a lot of public servants, and that’s a lot of extra people that could be designated our plain language police. Give them the high-vis vests and the clipboards, and set off what is, effectively, a make-work scheme for people who, hopefully, are already there, but not for people to be employed for this ridiculous purpose. I can’t support this bill, but the least we can do is to control the profligate spending on stupid projects.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Bills like this should not get as far as it has in Parliament. If we were to look at Part 2, “Plain language requirements”, clause 6 says, “Relevant documents to use plain language”, “A reporting agency must take reasonable steps to ensure that all relevant documents for which it is responsible use plain language.” Well, that’s a simple enough statement. That should be an expectation on every Government agency that they will use plain language in whatever language they publish their material in, so that people can understand it.

But, then, in this part, it goes on to explain how all this is going to work, and it, essentially, calls for the appointment of these plain language officers. Well, I can imagine that, inside Government agencies, there will be this absolute terror running through the place that the plain language officer is about to come along and start looking over the shoulder as various emails and other bits of correspondence are prepared and sent out to the public. Imagine the sort of things that will happen. Someone will write in their particular document—it might be a question, it might be something like, “Can I drive your car?” This plain language officer out the back, sitting over your shoulder, will say, “Well, is that the right question? Because can they?” And, of course, the answer will be “Yes, they can”, but the response will be “Yes, but aren’t they asking ‘May I drive your car?’” In which case, the answer may well be “No.” So there we have plain language confusion immediately.

Then, of course, once we go through all this, we’ve got these plain language officers going around picking up all sorts of other bits and pieces. All those little adverb words will be the ones that really get whacked about in this process. It will actually take more words to describe what the one word was planning to do in the first place. So it’s going to be one of those very, very time-consuming exercises. As my colleague Mr Brown pointed out, numerous bureaucrats are going to be added to the growing increase of people working in the Public Service. Except these people are not going to be in that heroic role that so many of our public servants have been in over the past number of years; they’re going to be there to police the internal organisation. That is just no way to get the best out of any workplace.

I think what’s really a kicker here is when we get to clause 10A. So, here, we’ve got a law prescribing that plain language has to be used; a law that prescribes that agencies have to appoint plain language officers who can go around and scrutinise the documentation coming out of that agency. But, here, we have, in the same law, clause 10A that says the “Act does not confer or impose legal rights or obligations”. It goes on to say, “This Act does not confer a legal right or impose a legal obligation on any person that is”—well, here’s a good place; it says, “is enforceable in a court of law.” I would say it should be “could be enforceable in a court of law”. So, immediately, we’ve got a plain language discrepancy inside the bill, if you accept that it’s a reasonable bill.

But why would we have an Act of Parliament that has no consequence? No answer coming from the member Rachel Boyack, who is promoting the bill. Why do we have an Act that says a person that “is” enforceable, when it should say it “could be” enforceable? It’s because it’s a nonsense bill, that’s why. It goes on to give all sorts of other bits and pieces of guidance on how the plain language should be operated and how those plain language officers should be going. It has to be, for example, an annual report from the Public Service Commissioner. You would presume this to be another one of those doorstop documents that litter this place or clog up computer networks, and that document then is presented by the commissioner to the Minister. So we’re now going to have a Minister for plain language, I presume, or a Minister responsible for plain language. I pity that poor fellow or woman—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Willie Jackson would love that role.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —coming into the House having to make any speech any day. Don’t give it to Willie Jackson, that’s for sure, because there’s the last place that anyone will find plain language. So what we’ve got here is a bill that is an utter—utter—and complete nonsense, and even goes on to represent itself that way in the text.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): I move, That the question be now put.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. I take this opportunity to talk about my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 244. This is submitted in great generosity to the member. I’m trying to assist the Government, the Labour Party, by, basically, trying to strip out the bureaucracy. So this particular Supplementary Order Paper deletes clause 8, which is about the plain language officers. I’d like to ask the member, firstly, did I write that SOP in plain language? I’d love to have her assessment of that, just for the laughs.

But the key point is that we’ve talked a lot about the increased bureaucracy. The member doesn’t even know how many additional staff. She got up and she said, “Look, some agencies already have some people who do this, but I don’t really know which ones they are and I don’t know which ones don’t.” And so, therefore, we could have dozens and dozens and dozens of people employed in this role to, effectively, be plain language police; to go along, as Mr Brownlee put it, looking over the shoulders of all of the public servants out there, checking to make sure they’re using the right plain language, and sifting through the documents to ensure that everything is—

Hon David Bennett: They’ll be known as “Sifters”.

SIMEON BROWN: They’ll be the “Sifters”, they’ll be the “Readers”, they’ll be the plain language police who go through. But what we know is this will be more people, more cost, and more taxpayers’ money, and, ultimately, that’s what it comes down to: more taxpayers’ money.

And the member talked about the benefit. Well, there’s no cost-benefit analysis done to actually determine what the problem is, what the cost impact of that problem is, if this solution solves it, and, if so, if the benefit is greater than the cost. And that’s a pretty basic type of analysis which should be undertaken by the member to actually identify, because the costs will be able to be accounted for. You’ll be able to work out what the cost is. But if you’re talking about 88 departments with three or four extra staff—250 people at $100,000 each—you’re quickly in the millions of dollars here. We’re not talking about small change now, we’re talking about tens of millions of dollars for the taxpayer to have to cover. And that’s tax money which isn’t in people’s pockets to help pay for bread and petrol and food and milk and all of those things. So, ultimately, this is a real issue. And so the question that needs to be asked is: are there other ways this problem could be solved?

And so I’m suggesting that, actually, bringing in hundreds of more staff—yes, some of them may be already in particular other departments, but hundreds of more staff—at a cost of millions of dollars is not the answer. Therefore, I’m proposing that we delete clause 8, delete reference to “plain language officers”, and therefore the requirements—which, as Mr Brownlee pointed out, aren’t actually requirements; they’re just sort of nice words and—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Suggestions.

SIMEON BROWN: —suggestions to maybe do these things if you feel like it. I mean, if I was a chief executive of a Public Service department, I’d be just saying, “Yeah, forget this. Thank you very much, Parliament, for writing that bill. It doesn’t put any requirements upon me to do anything.”, and chuck it in the bin. But, the reality is, we know that the diligent chief executives of our Public Service departments will want to be seen to be doing the work and they’ll be hiring people—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: You can’t say, “Thank you, Parliament.”; you say, “I thank the Parliament.”

SIMEON BROWN: —well, that’s right, “I thank the Parliament”—will be writing all of these things down and doing all of this work. So I ask the member to—and I’m asking all members in this Parliament, actually—to support my Supplementary Order Paper to remove the requirements for plain language officers. I hope the ACT Party will support my Supplementary Order Paper, thank you. I hope the Green Party will too. I’m asking Te Paati Māori—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: They’re closed minds over there.

SIMEON BROWN: Very closed minds on the other side, but this is genuinely in the interest to improve this piece of legislation to reduce the bureaucracy. Look, I mean, I still wouldn’t support the bill even if this Supplementary Order Paper was passed, but in the interest of trying to reduce the bureaucracy, trying to get it under control—

Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, OK!

SIMEON BROWN: —trying to actually respect taxpayers’ dollars, Mr Willie Jackson—something which the Government is failing to do every single day.

Hon Willie Jackson: Give me an example.

SIMEON BROWN: Well, what about the Public Interest Journalism Fund or your merger of RNZ and TVNZ—hundreds of millions of dollars. I could give you example after example, Mr Jackson. And this is the latest example, and this is a Supplementary Order Paper which helps to solve the problem. But I know, on the other side, there’s no interest when it comes to trying to reduce cost—no interest. “It’s taxpayers’ money, who cares. It’s taxpayers’ money, someone will pay. Oh, we’ll just increase taxes. Go for the KiwiSaver tax. Find some money somewhere else.” That’s what this Government does. And so we say no. And this is something which I suggest the members across the House vote in favour of my Supplementary Order Paper to remove the requirement of plain language officers.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Point of order, Madam Chair. I don’t like to do this, but I need to point out to the committee, in the interests of plain language, that my colleague just made a statement where he said that State service chief executives would be saying, “Thank you, Parliament.” You can’t do that. It would be—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you—thank you. That is not a point of order.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first speech on this bill, and I just want to take this opportunity to ask the member in charge of the bill to perhaps revise her desire to have this bill go through the House, for her personal career prospects. This will be what she is always known as having passed, and this is her opportunity to actually take it out now and reverse her decision.

The Labour Party is not supporting this in any way or form to help New Zealanders. This will be known as a bill that that individual member has put forward in her parliamentary career. And it would be a disservice to her parliamentary career to have it, really, coloured by this legislation and to have her whole career based on this bill. So there is an opportunity for that member to withdraw the bill after this speech and to take that opportunity to save her political career, because having plain language officers as the one thing that you’re known to have delivered isn’t really a great parliamentary career, is it? Now, it’s probably more than some of the other Labour members have delivered, I know, but there is an opportunity for that member to remove that now because—as members have said—it is a farce, this bill. Anybody listening to this debate this afternoon will be wondering why Parliament’s actually debating this when there’s much more serious issues that could be debated, even on a member’s day.

But this is just a silly and senseless piece of legislation. As the previous speaker would say, it’s inane as legislation, and that is true. The opportunity now is for the proponent of this bill to withdraw it, to leave with some dignity, and not to have their name associated with legislation like this that will not actually be of any good to anybody and will go down in her political career as—

Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, sit down.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: —and, no, Mr Jackson, I’m helping your colleague very seriously here. This is the kind of thing that you should be doing—helping your colleagues—rather than making them in a position where they have silly and senseless legislation and their names are attached to it. I’m sure that Mr Jackson could have found a much better idea that Rachel could have supported that would have actually then done something good in his portfolio, for example.

But, in effect, we are debating a bill that says you must appoint a plain language officer. It’s just a farce. It’s just crazy. There’s no point in it. There’s no reason for it. Who’s to say that officer’s going to make any difference on the ground to people actually being able to understand things? Then, legally, you’ve still got requirements you have to meet anyway. So it just doesn’t make sense in any way.

The member may smile, and she understands that this is not a serious bill. But there is an opportunity for her to leave with some integrity to the dinner break, if she pulls out of this bill now and just suddenly takes the opportunity to take awareness of what the public would be thinking of this legislation and save herself and the Labour Party from another part of grief. Because the Labour Party will be tainted, as well, by this legislation.

Hon Willie Jackson: Say that again.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Mr Jackson is saying something over there which can’t be heard because he’s not—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: It’s not in plain language.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Is not in plain language—

Hon Willie Jackson: I’m a quiet fellow!

Hon DAVID BENNETT: And as he said, he’s a quiet fellow. But, you know, that’s not plain language in the sense of this bill.

The other part of it is the precedent that this legislation will cause for question time when the Prime Minister ducks and dives questions—are we going to get plain language answers now? Is that going to be the precedent that has to be set in this House when Labour Ministers are in trouble and they duck and dive and hide behind adjectives and don’t say anything of any consequence?

Are we going to then pre-require the Prime Minister to actually answer a question on the economics because this bill is being passed? Shouldn’t that precedent actually apply then? Is that the reality?

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Michael Woodhouse’s amendment to clause 8 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 242 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Michael Woodhouse’s amendment to clause 8 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 243 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simeon Brown’s amendment to clause 8 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 244 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Part 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simeon Brown’s amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 244 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to our final debate, clauses 1 and 2, title and commencement.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s not my style normally to be flippant about titles and commencement dates, but I’m going to suspend that principle for this flippant bill, because I think the title should be amended to “The Rort on the Taxpayer Bill.” What we just heard through the votes against my Supplementary Order Paper was that Rachel Boyack, the sponsor of the bill, does not believe her own rhetoric. She doesn’t believe the research is going to show that there is a positive cost-benefit to this bill. She doesn’t believe money will be saved. She doesn’t even believe that no extra expenditure will be required, because, if she did, she would not have opposed the change in Part 2 that stopped the taxpayer being rorted.

So let’s be honest about what this is. This is a rort on the taxpayer. It is a fraudulent, negative waste of time, and that’s another suggestion for this bill, “The Complete Waste of the House’s Time Bill.” But more than that, I think this is “The Rachel Boyack Banana Skin Bill”, because Chris Hipkins has thrown the banana skin in front of Miss Boyack and she’s going to slip up, because nobody in the spirit of lost luggage and military manoeuvres repeal, no career in this House is advanced by the sorts of nonsense legislation we are debating right now.

There are many other things I think it should be called: the “PLO Bill”. Mr Brownlee decided these plain language officers would strike terror into the hearts of public servants up and down the country. So why not use the acronym? Because PLO is a terror organisation and these people should be—I would be terrified of them if they came my way. So there are a number of ways in which we can call this what it actually is, and it’s a euphemistic waste of time and the title should reflect it.

As far as the commencement clause goes, my colleague Simeon Brown will talk about this as well, I’m sure. But we have wasted this House’s time for long enough. And as Mr Bishop said in the first reading speech, the first thing the next National Government will do, or at least it will be very high on the list of priorities, is put a bonfire under the unnecessary regulations and laws that this Government has passed. And top of that heap is going to be the Plain Language Act.

So there’s a way to avoid that even being necessary and that is to delay the commencement of the Act until 30 days after the next general election, so the Act only comes into effect if Labour forms the next Government.

Hon David Bennett: No chance.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No chance. That’s quite right, Mr Bennett. But also what that will mean is this House will not need to waste another minute of its time debating this stupid legislation, even if it is to get rid of it. So let’s delay that. That will actually give—and I think Ms Boyack would agree—the 100,000-odd public servants who are terrified of the clipboard-carrying, hi-vis vest - wearing people that are going to come running around—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The Webster Dictionary is further along.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Spoken with such ratiocination, Mr Brownlee, I must say; there’s some plain language for you. We can avoid the unnecessary bureaucracy and the waste of this House’s time by delaying the commencement of the Act when it now seems certain that it will be passed. Shame on the Labour Government for supporting this member’s bill, but we can waste no more time if we delay the date that the Act comes into effect until 30 days after the general election.

If the Labour Government is so confident in its ability to win the next general election, why would they worry about that amendment? They should support Mr Brown’s amendment as a show of confidence in their ability to be successful for a third term. And if they oppose that amendment, then the writing’s on the wall for them. They know they’re—

Hon Willie Jackson: You never know, eh, you know.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —on the exit queue. Mr Jackson does. A number of them are dusting off the CVs and looking on the Seek website. Poor old Mr Rosewarne—he was only here for five minutes; I’m sure he would have been a good MP. But never mind. If he’s confident, he should support Mr Brown’s amendment.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break, and the House will resume at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, when we broke off for the dinner break, we were debating clauses 1 and 2.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 stand part.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 stand part.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

Bills

Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill. Members, we come first to the debate on clause 1. This is the debate on the title. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be in the Chamber this evening to discuss the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill.

This is a short bill, but an important one. The bill will add another layer of defence to our biosecurity system, which prevents threats getting in through our border. It protects our food and fibre sector and our environment.

This bill, essentially, provides someone who is in charge of a craft, be that ship or aeroplane, to provide information to the craft’s passengers about New Zealand’s unique biosecurity arrangements and the particular laws that we have to protect our biosecurity and biodiversity here in New Zealand. The type of information that’s required to be provided will be set out in regulations to be drafted by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). The bill was supported unanimously by the Primary Production Committee and reported back with amendments. The MPI officials made 11 recommendations, which were all accepted by the members.

This bill has been asked for by our food and fibre sector stakeholders, in particular. It’s been asked for, for a long time, because at the moment it’s voluntary to provide information about our particular biosecurity arrangements here in Aotearoa New Zealand. We know that not all airlines, for example, were providing such information at the time that the bill was drafted.

This isn’t a huge bill, so I’m not going to labour the point, but I welcome questions from members this evening.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Madam Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this bill or ask at least some questions of the sponsoring member, Steph Lewis, this evening. Congratulations on having the bill drawn, and well done for shepherding it through the House thus far. We have made it very clear that the National Party is going to support the bill, and we do encourage and support any measures to strengthen biosecurity law in this country, because we do recognise—like many others in this Chamber—how very, very particularly important our agricultural industry is to this country, its society, its community, and its economy, but also our native flora and fauna. And we’ve seen good examples of the likes of kauri dieback and the impact that’s had on our taonga, really—our native trees—and what a loss that would be if further incursions would take place.

I know the Primary Production Committee did canvas this, but I just would like to delve into it a little bit more, because, having not sat on the select committee myself, I really would like a further explanation as to why the decision was made to carve out private planes, boats, and so on that are arriving into our ports, because, to me, that would seem a risk, an unpoliced—so to speak—activity. I don’t know personally the numbers of people landing on our shores through our various types and varieties of ports, and I would really like to understand the level of risk and the level of exposure that they bring to this country, and why the decision was made to carve them out and what securities are in place to ensure that they do adhere to these upcoming rules.

Clauses 1 to 8

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Point of order. I seek leave for all clauses of this bill to be taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that course of action. Are there any objections? The question is that clauses 1 to 8 stand part.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. To the member Steph Lewis, congratulations on having this bill pulled. This is a short and relatively simple bill, but it is certainly an important one, as biosecurity has a huge impact on New Zealand as an island nation. We’ve certainly seen with Indonesia, for example, the impact that foot-and-mouth getting into a country can have on the economy and on animal welfare, and it’s something that we’re acutely aware of in New Zealand, and we need to keep these risk factors out. So well done on bringing this—like I say—relatively simple, short, but valuable bill before the House.

Just expanding on the questions that Nicola Grigg asked around the carve-out for private aircrafts, I note that in new section 17AA(1), inserted by clause 4, “This section applies to a large commercial craft that is on route to New Zealand territory from a point outside New Zealand territory on a flight or voyage that is intended to include arrival in New Zealand.” Has there been any analysis of the number of aircraft that would not be captured by this definition? And if you could, just explain to the committee the reason for having that carve-out provision.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Congratulations to the member Steph Lewis for bringing this, the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill, to the select committee that I sit on, the Primary Production Committee. It’s a great piece of legislation, I think. We ironed out a few kinks. I think we would reconcile that there were a few points of concern earlier on.

To the member, I’d like to bring her attention to clause 4—new section 17AA, I think would be the right determination. If we can take our attention there, it speaks to large craft, and I think it would help to answer some of the questions from the member Joseph Mooney. For my interest, and perhaps the interest of other members in the Chamber, what does the member who brought this piece of legislation to the committee of the whole House today feel about ships, as in vessels, coming into New Zealand? How will the audiovisual and the digital information being shared on vessels accommodate the fact that many of these international vessels—P & O Cruises, etc.—that are coming here have a plethora of languages on board?

Again, as you appreciate, I support the legislation, but I’m just interested to see how you iron out that concern, because, as it’s been well canvassed, our biosecurity is tantamount to a good economic outcome.

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the members for their questions. Please be assured that there are already very robust processes in place, as the committee was advised by the Ministry for Primary Industries—in particular, regarding small craft and yachts. Say you are sailing from Fiji to New Zealand over this summer break that we’re all looking forward to. There’s already a requirement that the masters provide a full declaration for biosecurity clearance before arriving in New Zealand. Small craft are also inspected upon arrival in New Zealand, and so that sets out that process in full.

The members might also be interested to note that one of the other reasons for excluding small craft is because the bulk of the small craft—in particular, aeroplanes—that would have been caught by not having a cap include flights like air ambulance flights. It would have included defence force flights, for example, or search and rescue flights, or even donor organ retrieval flights—all of which were not intended to be captured by this bill. In addition to that, cargo ships also have a robust process in place.

In terms of the member’s question around cruise ships: again, there is already a really robust process in place for our cruise ships that has been occurring for a long time, even prior to COVID. What happens is that the videos and announcements are played over the speaker and on TVs about half an hour, typically, prior to arrival in New Zealand and the disembarking of the vessel.

In terms of how those then become translated, the reason for moving the specifics around what information is required to be provided to passengers and the form in which it’s required to be provided into the regulations is to take account of the fact that technology is rapidly evolving. What we’re seeing is that more and more airlines and cruise ship providers are bringing out their own apps to provide to passengers that will have that ability to provide a greater number of translations to get that information across to incoming passengers arriving in New Zealand.

SIMON COURT (ACT): So I’m wondering, will the New Zealand Traveller Declaration be used as a tool to collect the information that’s proposed by this bill as needed to be collected? We understand—we’ve heard from finance Minister, Grant Robertson, in the past few days—that even though the New Zealand Traveller Declaration’s not required for the purposes of tracking and tracing passengers to control COVID-19, it will become the declaration to replace all other biosecurity and customs declarations. So can the member Steph Lewis confirm whether there is a role for the New Zealand Traveller Declaration to be used as part of the administration of the collection of this information that this bill seeks to collect?

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): In short, this bill doesn’t propose to collect any information. This bill is about providing information to passengers to educate them about what they can and cannot bring into New Zealand that may or may not provide a potential biosecurity threat to New Zealand biodiversity and our food and fibre sectors. As I mentioned in my previous answer, which the member may have heard, we are seeing technology rapidly evolve at the moment. There has been an indication that we are moving towards a digital border system, and there is absolutely scope to include the provision of information about our biosecurity laws here in Aotearoa New Zealand to passengers potentially through that app. That is a call for the Minister to make.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for clarifying that, Steph Lewis. Will there be a requirement for inbound passengers who have taken part in the PowerPoint, or whatever the digital form is that the information is proposed to be shared in—will they be required to complete an acknowledgment that they’ve completed the training, for example? Will there be a form that they fill out to acknowledge that they’ve read, listened, or viewed, and understood the information they’ve received; if not, how does the member propose to confirm whether the information, in fact, has been received and understood by the people intended to receive it?

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much. It’s good to see the Simons working in the Chamber here tonight. Hey, look, to acknowledge the member Steph Lewis—obviously, National continues to support the bill. There are questions about the use of the Parliament’s time around this, but overall it’s a good idea.

I suppose I just want to look in your clause 7—this is around penalties—so I have a couple of questions, if I might, to Ms Lewis. Does she feel that the $1,000 fine and $5,000 fine is sufficient? How did she arrive at those numbers?

But, more importantly, who, ultimately, is responsible for committing this offence? Because, as the member will know, if we jump back to clause 4 inserting new section 17AA, it’s saying here that the person responsible is in charge of the craft, but I’m not sure it’s very, very clear. Because when I think of a commercial aircraft, it’s the captain, which is perfectly fine—except the captain of, say, Jetstar or Air New Zealand is not the one setting the policies. So is that now, with Air New Zealand, Greg Foran and friends? Or—and I’m not trying to be silly—is it the board? You know, the Air New Zealand board: is it Theresa Gattung and friends? Or is it the purser? Because, often, it’s the air crew, not the captain, who are providing the information. So, for me, it’s just not actually clear who’s in charge of the craft—or, to phrase it perhaps a different way, the captain might be in charge of the aircraft, but she or he is not actually the one responsible. Does the member think that the law as proposed is clear enough?

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Chair. To the member Steph Lewis: I’m just asking around the new section 17AA provision, inserted by clause 4, and the decision to make this a strict liability offence. I just wonder if the member could just explain to the committee the rationale for deciding to settle on a strict liability offence. And, obviously, this is an offence that can be established without the need for proving the intention of committing the offence, so there is provision here that the captain of the incoming craft is required to provide information to the passengers, and I assume that that means that that is then imputed to the passengers that they then have the knowledge requisite to make the declaration or not. So just given that, I’d be interested in the decision to settle on a strict liability offence which doesn’t require that intention of committing the offence, and also how that’s related to the decision in terms of the penalty regime and the fines that can be imposed and the level that’s been set.

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Chair. To answer the members’ questions—all very good questions, thank you. In terms of the information that’s required to be provided, that’s going to be set out in the regulations, which will be drafted by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). The reason for the extension in the commencement clause of the bill is to enable MPI to go out and consult with key stakeholders, such as the airlines and cruise ship operators, to make sure that we’re getting the regulations right in terms of what information needs to be provided to passengers and how it’s provided to passengers. Also, putting it in the regulations enables that flexibility to take into account the changes in technology that we’re seeing at the border at the moment. The director-general of MPI will be involved in that process of confirming what information is required to be provided as well, and the form in which it is to be provided.

In terms of the fines and whether that amount is sufficient, the advice from MPI is that the range of fines—$1,000 for an individual or $5,000 for a body corporate—is consistent with similar offences already in the Biosecurity Act. The Primary Production Committee agreed with MPI’s advice and accepted that recommendation. Likewise, it wasn’t appropriate to include an element of mens rea. It was considered very unlikely that anyone would intentionally and deliberately try to obstruct our biosecurity laws. It was deemed appropriate in the context of other offences in the Biosecurity Act to make this a strict liability offence.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Look, thank you to the member Steph Lewis for engaging, clear knowledge of the bill. I’m still not clear—and it’s possibly the way I articulate questions—where the actual authority rests. Again, to draw her attention to new section 17AA(2), inserted by clause 4: “Before the craft arrives in New Zealand, the person in charge of the craft must—”, and then it follows on. Makes perfect sense that this has to be delivered, but does she believe that this is clearly, legally defined, who is in charge of the aircraft? And, again, I use the simple example: the captain of an aircraft is in charge, but she or he is not the one delivering this message; it’s the purser. As we all know, it’s the flight crew who, you know, do all the jazz hands stuff. [Waves hands]

Hon Member: The what stuff?

SIMON O’CONNOR: The jazz hands. Very important. Very important.

Hon Member: Give us a demonstration.

SIMON O’CONNOR: No, but I just did. Just go that way, and maybe to your left or your right—I’d prefer we all go to the right, just want to make that clear.

Hon Member: Where are the nearest exits?

SIMON O’CONNOR: The nearest exit for the Labour Government is the next election. But sorry, apologies—[Laughter]—I know, I thought it was pretty good. But no, quite seriously—[Interruption] We are really going a bit—so, long and short, how do we clearly define who’s in charge of the aircraft? Because, ultimately, the captain is not going to be the one delivering this message. And again, if we take something like Air New Zealand or Jetstar or Qantas, whoever, the person in charge of the aircraft is ultimately following orders from higher up. So does she think this is clear enough?

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): In answer to your question: yes, I do think this is clear enough. The person in charge of a craft is the person who is flying or sailing it into New Zealand, with passengers on board, who is then required to ensure that the information is provided in the form specified in the regulations.

However, in future, as technology evolves and there is the possibility—we wanted the flexibility for this information to be able to be conveyed through electronic apps on people’s phones, etc.—for this information to be provided at that point, in which case it may be a decision for the particular airline.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll bring the member’s attention, if I can, back to new section 17AA(3)(f), inserted by clause 4, and it speaks to “specify how long before a craft’s arrival in New Zealand the information must be provided.” I’m just trying to ascertain from the member: in that instance, then, it’s purely an operational discretion at the hands of the said captain or, you know, the vessel operator, etc. Is that not potentially problematic, insomuch that those may convey—should they fall into prosecution—that they had inadequate time to actually make sense of the information, because it’s fairly operationalised in terms of discretion, if you can understand what I’m asking?

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): To answer your question—the reason for the specification of how long before the craft’s arrival in New Zealand the information must be provided—that is because we do not have the ability to enforce laws outside our territory. So in order to be able to enforce this, what we want is for the information—if it’s provided, say, by an airline hostess reading out from a script, or provided on the TVs on an aircraft—to be conveyed to passengers as close to disembarkation as possible, so they’ve got time to remove that apple from their backpack before going through the Ministry for Primary Industries.

Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

Report of Committee of the Whole House

Report of Committee of the Whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Plain Language Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Overseas Investment (Exempt Investment from OECD Countries) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 31 August.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Speaker, thank you very much. National will be supporting this bill. We clearly have a view that foreign direct investment delivers jobs, it raises incomes, and it helps New Zealand grow. Therefore, it’s a pleasure to support this, and we hope that it will go to select committee, so that we can dig more deeply into exactly what the bill does. The challenge we have is that although the Government over the last five years say that they have freed up the investment regime, they haven’t; in fact, the opposite has happened. The majority of the changes that they have made have made it more difficult for responsible investors to invest in New Zealand. They’ve screwed the scrum in the direction of forestry, away from other assets. Good that we may have a few more trees planted, although not the billion trees they pledged five years ago that they would deliver for New Zealand. But, in effect, what’s happened as a result of that is the investment has gone in areas that it may not be as productive as the country needs it to be, nor has it benefited the economy as much as it should and hasn’t created the jobs that it needs to.

So when the Government says they’re doing a good job, they’re talking rhetoric and it’s not backed up by the statistics. Unfortunately, New Zealand’s ranking in the index of economic freedom has fallen from third to fifth place over the last three years. And whilst the Government would say, “Well, we’re still five out of all of those countries.”, we are going in the wrong direction, which means that investors around the world—responsible investors who have choices about where to put their capital to help economies grow—are looking less favourably at New Zealand because the direction of openness and ease of doing business is going, sadly, in the wrong direction. We’ve fallen further away from Singapore and Switzerland who are in front of us, both of whom have economies that have performed significantly better than New Zealand’s on average, but certainly over the last few years they’ve performed better than New Zealand’s when it comes to what’s happened around restrictions and COVID, and they’re getting so very, very much more investment than we are getting.

I mentioned—and this is something that we’ll want to look at at select committee if the Government decides to send this to committee for further investigation and discussion, because they’ll be backing up their suggestion that they are in favour of foreign direct investment in New Zealand. But one of the things this bill doesn’t fix and I think we need to look at is the change that was made around the ability to invest in productive farmland in New Zealand if you are going to plant trees on it. And, unfortunately, what that means is we’ve seen foreign companies and others come to New Zealand to buy farmland to plant trees where there could be very many other uses that are better for the economy, would create greater jobs, and would be better for New Zealanders, but the regime that the Labour Government has put in place does not allow that.

One of the areas that we’ll need to look at very, very closely is the impact or interaction this proposed legislation has upon free-trade agreements that New Zealand has entered into, particularly in as far as the most favoured nations provisions in our agreements where we give better conditions in one area—in this case, investment—to others that is not better than is in the agreement that we have with a country, we must extend to them as well. We’ll need to understand that better. But here is the simple position of the National Party: if you are a responsible investor and you want to come and invest and make an active investment in New Zealand—not put your money in a bank or something like that—that will help the economy grow, that will create jobs and help New Zealand pay off the significant amounts of debt this Government has run up and spent on things that actually are not working as well as they need to, then we should be considering that, we should be encouraging those investors to come.

This legislation would send a very clear message to companies and individuals of the OECD countries that New Zealand actually is open for business, as opposed to when the Prime Minister went across to Singapore on her very first trip when she left the country after the COVID restrictions were in place and went there and said, “We’re open for business and we’d like an extra 200 students to come down and work in New Zealand.” Well, that doesn’t actually do it. That doesn’t send a signal that we’re open. That’s not the type of things that responsible investors are looking for. They’re looking for an equal and fair playing field. They want less restriction and regulation, and they want to know that there is certainty that the Government of the day won’t just change the rules and take their investment out from underneath them. This piece of legislation starts to give them that certainty. There is not a single thing the Labour Government has done in five years that does the same thing. In fact, that’s why we’ve fallen two places to fifth.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. What a ridiculous speech that was. It didn’t even touch on the bill; just a series of swipes at the Labour Party’s policy on overseas investment, one which, while slightly different, is largely congruent with that of the National Party, in any event.

Historically, the National Party has been very keen on protecting our strategic assets, and that’s what the Overseas Investment Act does. Let’s just think for a moment, if we exempt OECD countries from the Overseas Investment Act, what that actually means. That means that strategic assets, things like our broadband network, could be bought by overseas countries. That is an asset which carries data of all New Zealanders and all Government agencies. So the Government of Colombia could buy our fibre assets. The Government of Colombia could be transmitting our most precious secrets for us. That’s what it means. That’s what the ACT Party wants. That’s what the National Party is supporting.

If we didn’t have this protection, our treasured high-country stations of the South Island could fall—[Interruption] Yeah, and here we have a party which has fought long and hard around the high-country reforms, and yet here they are saying “Don’t worry about it. Anyone can buy them. Let the President of Turkey buy them. He belongs to an OECD country. He can buy it.” What an absolutely fatuous, unprincipled, and, frankly, undermining position that is. You would sell the family jewels to anyone around the world. All we’re asking is that if someone wants to come and invest in New Zealand, are they a person of good character, is this asset a strategic asset, and are there any security risks involved? That’s the principles that underpin the Overseas Investment Act, and you would say “No.”

So, sure, we might feel we’re in pretty safe ground with some of our OECD partners, you know, Western European nations that have similar values. Oh, but did you know that Russia and Belarus were only recently suspended from the OECD? They’re two nations which have been participating in the OECD. And here you are, they will be back in the fold, quite likely, when peace breaks out in Ukraine, which we hope it all will soon, of course. But that’s what you’re doing. You’re just a knee-jerk reaction. I suppose they’re doing it to grandstand. I suppose they’re doing it because they know that this ridiculous bill is never going to see the light of day under any responsible Government. But I want New Zealand to think about what that means, because if they get into Government in the future, what will they do with our national assets? What will they do with our high-country farms? Our best farmland? The farmland that feeds New Zealand and much of the world, will that fall into the hands of countries which do not align with us in terms of democratic values and our approach to security?

They are really important questions that that side can’t answer. I’m looking forward to the summing up from the member in charge, because I’d like to hear him say whether he thinks our broadband network should be able to be owned by foreign interests like Colombia with no check whatsoever; whether Mexico should be able to invest in some of our most important companies and assets; or whether Costa Rica should be investing in our own high-tech and aerospace and space industries. These are all questions which need to be answered. And you know what? They’ve got no answer. They can chip away, they can heckle, but they can’t actually give a consistent answer. The reason for that is because there isn’t one.

So I’m very proud of the work that the Labour Party’s done around the Overseas Investment Act, stopping foreign buyers buying homes that Kiwis should live in. That was a really good step and we have tightened the framework, as the Minister of Defence will know, around the security test that we need to run the ruler over to make sure we’re not allowing foreign interests to, by stealth, gain a foothold in New Zealand’s security framework. This is a ridiculous bill. That’s a party without ideas. I can’t believe they’re supporting this kind of legislation.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you very much. I’ve met the first lawyer who can’t actually read. If you read the bill, it says that those investments are subject to the national security interest test, which would deal with that, Mr Webb—

Hon Member: Fearmonger.

DAMIEN SMITH: Yes, it’s pure fearmongering. Also, some of the major companies you’ve mentioned do have international shareholders. So Labour doesn’t want the world to give New Zealand money; it’s quite clear. We’re slipping away from our First World status by an unambitious Government who just, if they had any collegiality, would sit down at select committee and nut out a possible solution in this area. The time is right for this legislation, given the world economic events, and they could have killed it at the committee. But, no, because of pure dogma, they decided to kill it there. You had the opportunity tonight to provide my member’s bill a real fair hearing, and you just wouldn’t do it.

Labour and the Green Party have sold their own demise. In a year’s time, you’ll see that New Zealand wants real change, and overseas investors will be treated as friendly entities from the OECD countries right now. We’re not letting them walk in the door; we’re just saying, “If it’s a proper investment and it’s fast tracked, you can build supermarkets here.”, because there will be no supermarkets built in this country by the time the election comes, and Mr Webb knows that.

So Australia receives 80 percent more foreign direct investment per capita, and their median wages are 40 percent higher than New Zealand’s. So, under socialism, they’re happy to not let investment come in and keep people poor and keep young people from having proper jobs when they have to leave for Australia. Even amongst small nations now, on a per capita basis, Israel attracted twice as much as us, and even Estonia is beating us, attracting three times as much foreign direct investment as we are. This is all just about policy settings. This bill was just about looking at the settings and working through, with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), what could be done.

Grant Robertson promised me eight months ago that he was having a piece of work looked at by MBIE on foreign direct investment, and, “Damien, you should come along and sit down.” I said, “Well, Grant, I’ll wait for that.” It still hasn’t arrived. So, being the gentleman that he is, I’d like him to release the terms of reference for that, and I’ll send him a box of lamingtons to say thank you.

Also, the existing trade laws would have been grandfathered. No existing trade agreement would have been affected by this law. Ingrid Leary from the backbencher B-team who came in at the start to talk about this bill—I mean, the people over there have had no experience of international commerce, banks, or finance, and yet they’ve killed the bill just for the sake of killing it. If that comes from up top with Mr Robertson, I’m very disappointed.

Just to give you an example in Canada: Canada’s GDP, 72 percent of that is originated by foreign direct investment. In Australia, it’s 47 percent, and in New Zealand we are a measly 37 percent. New Zealand has closed the doors from the rest of the world and now we’re a hermit kingdom, and everybody in the Labour Party who’s not elected next year should move to Hobbiton and really hunker down and let us get on with the work.

Inward foreign direct investment in New Zealand is significantly lower than our international competitors and we have only ourselves and our policy settings to blame. This country’s starved of capital. It can’t do the infrastructure projects it needs to do and it’s because of bureaucracy. The capital is out there, the projects are sitting on the drawing board, but it’s the policy wonks that are getting it wrong. Even more scarily, external foreign direct investment, i.e., money going out to other countries—it shows that New Zealand has, on a global investment scale, only got 7.6 percent of its GDP dedicated to going offshore versus 40 percent in Australia. As an example in the United Kingdom—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! The member’s time is up.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Overseas Investment (Exempt Investment from OECD Countries) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 77

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill

First Reading

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

Democracy is a human right. It is, in a lot of ways, the one right that underpins them all. I don’t just mean the “one vote per person, every few years” style of democracy—as crucial as that is—but the right to a fair, equal, and accessible say in decisions that impact all of our lives and our communities; a say, as it is increasingly, in the way Governments handle the great crises of our time, from COVID to climate. We need fair rules because we see, all over the globe right now, the worry about democracy—the worry about whether rules are pitched in favour of some; not everyone. We see, when the rules are out of balance, disenfranchisement of swaths of people; we see a system where democracy is up for grabs to the highest bidder on the free market. We see historic barriers created by histories of discrimination, colonisation, and alienation, undermine democracy.

This is a core value for the Green Party of Aotearoa, and I do want to shout out to our leaders past who fought for MMP, who fought for the rights of disabled candidates, for young people, and for Māori. I hold democracy particularly dear to my heart because I have seen the world without it. I’ve seen my parents fight for democracy, I’ve seen oppression, and I have been displaced, as were my people, by the erosion of rights for minorities and for women in a system that undermined not just human rights but democracy itself. Now, our system here is strong, but it requires update and it requires attention. We don’t want an American-style democracy, where two big parties fight it out to represent a few with the deepest pockets.

When I first entered Parliament, five years ago, universal suffrage was already fairly eroded and there was almost no protection against a rising tide of elite foreign interference. Recommendations to fix and rebalance our system had, by successive Governments, been left under cover. They had been ignored. People had been left out. And I want to note that, when I first introduced this bill in February 2019, I was told over and over again that electoral reform was not a priority; that things are OK. Then we heard from our communities, we heard from our courts, the Waitangi Tribunal, and three out of five of the parliamentary political parties in this House last term got in trouble for donations breaches.

So this bill got some big wins. Since we started pushing, since we made democracy the centre of our work, we got a ban on foreign political donations; we got the lowering of the threshold of secret big money to $5,000; a repeal of the National Party’s blanket ban on prisoner voting, so that people sentenced to three years or less can now vote, and the onus to actually re-enrol people when we release them; allowing Māori to switch rolls at any time rather than waiting the arbitrary five years; extending voting rights to overseas New Zealanders who were left overseas by the COVID border closures in the 2023 election; and, as you’ll hear a lot, I suspect, tonight, an independent electoral review with experts making recommendations to strengthen our democracy by the end of 2023.

So what’s left? That’s what’s left in this bill. There is a lot. There are the suite of changes recommended by the Electoral Commission after almost 4,000 New Zealanders submitted on the strengthening of MMP review in 2012. That was buried by then Justice Minister the Hon Judith Collins, and successive Governments ignored it. I want to note that we’ve taken the full suite of changes that were recommended, because MMP is about a diversity of views being in this House; not just strengthening things for us. Lifting the ban on prisoner voting altogether: New Zealand is an outlier in democracies that we compare ourselves to when it comes to this. There is no criminal justice purpose to disenfranchising people, to cutting them off and alienating them from their communities. In fact, we know that it undermines their ability to be rehabilitated. We are making ourselves less safe to make politicians look tough on crime. But, more than that, it is a slippery slope whenever we say that Governments can make a moral judgment in assigning basic human rights to people. We don’t have human rights because we are good, but because we are human.

Allowing overseas New Zealanders to vote beyond 2023—again, we are an outlier. People can’t afford to come home every three years if they’re students overseas, if they have young kids.

Ending discrimination against 16- and 17-year-olds and allowing them the fundamental right guaranteed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—found to be the case by the Court of Appeal—to vote.

Simon Court: Why not six-year-olds?

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: The ACT Party thinks that six-year-olds are also in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as having the right to vote. They are not, I assure you, but 16- and 17-year-olds are. They have a legal right to be free from discrimination. They work. They pay tax. They leave school. They rent homes. They can have sex. They can’t vote. We know that young people are engaged with the issues around them. We heard them by the tens of thousands outside this House fighting for climate crisis. We hear them in our select committees all the time on mental health care, on public transport, on education. Being young in New Zealand today is expertise; nobody knows but them what it’s like to try and access mental health care, to try and access the job market, to have homes, and to use public transport. And this is a movement not led by me, but by young people. So here’s a shout-out—also to Make It 16—to Ralph, to Kate. We owe you for so many things, but mostly for your passion for our democracy.

So what about those big money donations? We still don’t have a limit on political donations in New Zealand, and we’ve seen how that undermines democracy all over the world—in particular, hindering climate crisis. We know that, when politicians are beholden to particular interests with deep pockets, ordinary people don’t have a shot and that one-vote-per-person democracy is a bit of a joke. So we don’t know what influence this has had, but we do know that elsewhere in the world, cigarette companies, gun lobbies, and big oil does hinder change that would benefit ordinary people who do vote. That’s what we need here, and I think most New Zealanders would be shocked to know that we don’t have a limit on political donations.

Now, I want to address the Attorney-General’s report that said the $35,000 suggested by this bill may breach free-speech rights, although he does say that a different amount may work. We don’t have an ability as non-Government MPs to feed into that New Zealand Bill of Rights Act assessment process. So we could have engaged with that, and that’s a systemic thing that we can change. But the best result today would be for this bill to go to select committee so the amount can be thrashed out with experts, with communities. We know Canada’s limit is $1,700, New South Wales’ is $7,000, and most of Europe has limits below $35,000.

I also want to talk about why the seemingly disparate aspects of this bill were selected. They were selected because they’re issues on electoral reform that we’ve already had inquiries for. We’ve had inquiries by the Electoral Commission, the Justice Committee, the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Waitangi Tribunal on these issues. So it is time for action. Strong democracies need election laws that are frequently updated, that are reactive to the changing world, and that are reactive to expert, non-politicised recommendations.

So I would hope that the Government can take party politics out of its vote tonight; that it can react to those recommendations, the inquiries that already have been. And, whilst we welcome the new inquiry, it would be heartbreaking to have that be relied upon as a reason to delay what we already know we need to see go to committee. The explanatory note for this bill reads: “Government electoral bills over the last decade have largely tinkered with the Act, rather than making more substantive reforms to safeguard our democracy for the future. This Bill seeks to bring impetus to electoral reform”.

Whatever happens tonight, this bill would have been a success. It has had more provisions adopted by the Government than not, and we have brought democracy to the fore. But sending it to select committee would show courage to take party politics out of democracy reform, to actually hear from the public, and that would be due process, that would put democracy at the heart of our collective work as lawmakers and representatives of the people.

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

Debate interrupted.

Personal Explanations

Debate—Reflections on Members’ Families

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation regarding an interjection I made during question time today.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Thank you. Today, during discussions around ministerial conflicts of interest, I observed that family members in successive Governments have been engaged within the Public Service in a wide range of roles, and conflicts of interest have been appropriately managed. New Zealand is a small country, and family members should not be precluded from public sector work simply because they’re related to someone holding elected office.

Later in the House, I interjected during question time, using Bill English and his family as an example. I did not intend to suggest in any way that the appointments involving his family were inappropriate; in fact, I was attempting to illustrate the opposite. I’ve worked directly with members of Mr English’s family, both in Government and in Opposition, and have found them to be very professional.

I regret that my interjection has been interpreted as suggesting the opposite of what I intended, and, on reflection, I also regret bringing the former member and his family into a debate that they were not part of. Accordingly, I withdraw and apologise for my interjections.

Bills

Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill is an ambitious bill, it has a lot of things in it. When looking at it, I actually did wonder—I haven’t asked the member responsible, Golriz Ghahraman, but it might be the entire, kind of, policy for justice for the Green Party, because there’s a lot in here. It wants to enable voters of Māori descent to change roll at any time. It wants to extend the voting age to 16 years, to remove the requirement for New Zealand citizens living overseas to have visited New Zealand within the last three years to maintain their voting rights, to give all people in prison the right to vote, to implement the Electoral Commission’s 2012 MMP review recommendations, to increase the transparency and safeguards on donations to parties and candidates, and, finally, to extend the reserve provisions to include all provisions that reduce eligibility to register as an elector or to vote in an election.

So the Labour Party will not be supporting this bill for two primary reasons. The first reason is that we are already addressing a number of these points, which I’ve outlined, in legislation that is currently before the Justice Committee. Secondly, those issues that are not currently in train within legislation before the House, those are part of an independent review of electoral law that is due to be reported back by the end of 2023.

So the Government has already recognised that we want to make the election rules clearer and fairer so that we can build more trust in the system and better support people to exercise their right to vote. This is a process that we’re pleased to have kicked off already. Progressing this bill past the first reading will simply duplicate the work that is already under way.

The issues in this bill are important, but they are already being addressed by bills that have been introduced to this House. The Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill, which is one of the bill’s proposed areas of reform, is something that is before the committee right now. We have heard submissions. We’ve heard really good submissions from different areas around New Zealand, from individuals and groups. We’ve been lucky enough to have that before us and we are due to report it back shortly. The Justice Committee is due to report back on 3 November, and that area will be before the House for a second reading.

The Māori electoral option is not the only option covered in this bill that is already going through the House. There are other issues, including increasing the transparency of donations, and also enabling citizens who have not been in New Zealand in the last three years, due to COVID restrictions, to vote—they are being addressed in the Electoral Amendment Bill, which was introduced by the Government earlier in the year.

We fully recognise the importance of trust in the integrity of New Zealand’s electoral system, which is why the Government is committed to increasing the transparency around donations to political parties. The issues in the Electoral Amendment Bill are similar to the bill we are debating today and require disclosure of donor identities for any party donations over 5,000, the number and total value of party donations under $1,500 that are not anonymous, the proportion of total party donations that are in kind or non-monetary donations, and also loans to candidates from unregistered lenders.

In addition to changing the rules around donations, the Electoral Amendment Bill will amend New Zealand’s electoral legislation to temporarily extend the ability of those New Zealanders overseas so they can vote in the 2023 general election, and allow for the regulated election period to shift if the election date shifts. The change in the Electoral Amendment Bill addressing New Zealanders voting from overseas is due to the challenges so many New Zealanders have faced, who are permanent residents and have been unable to return home after the past few years due to COVID-19. While many requirements have been lifted, overseas voters still face considerable financial, travel, health, and logistical barriers returning home, and we would not want to let this prevent them from participating in the next general election. Temporarily extending the overseas voting from three to six years for citizens, and one to four years for permanent residents, will uphold the rights of those Kiwis to exercise their democratic rights by voting in the upcoming election.

The other point that I’d like to make is the issues that are covered off in the independent review of New Zealand’s electoral law. These matters will cover voter eligibility, which could also include the consideration of permanent changes to the provision of overseas voters. This will allow for significant, permanent changes to our electoral rules, and will also be properly reviewed in a more thorough process than a member’s bill. We are fully committed to upholding New Zealanders’ democratic rights, and are already taking steps to strengthen this.

It’s important that I go over some of the areas that the independent panel will be able to cover. The independent panel is due, as I said, to report back by the end of November 2023. This review, in itself, will take two parts: a broader review led over the next 18 months; and targeted changes, also ahead of the general election, which I’ve already outlined. This review is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to consider how to make our electoral laws clearer, fairer, and more accessible.

The current bill that we are discussing is attempting to cover the same issues as this review but without the depth and the attention that an independent review can provide, especially when it is considered how many issues are lumped together in one bill. A crossover in issues that this bill and review both look at include a number of areas: voting age, overseas voting, funding of political parties, the length of the parliamentary term, and the Electoral Commission’s recommendations on MMP. A wide-scale review is better suited for ensuring New Zealanders’ electoral laws are fit for purpose. The review is an opportunity to take a good and proper look at how we run our elections in New Zealand. Progressing this bill will undermine the opportunity by duplicating the work that the review is undertaking, with, potentially, less attention to detail.

It’s important that any review of electoral law has broad public and cross-party support. Appointing an independent panel will ensure that the review is fair and impartial. Furthermore, a review is more of a thorough process than a member’s bill when covering such a broad range of issues that are so fundamental to our democracy and so important, as New Zealanders, for us to understand.

For these reasons, an independent review is fit for purpose and a better way to proceed, in terms of trying to understand what best changes to make to our electoral law in New Zealand. We are confident that the panel members have the right mix of skills, expertise, and diverse perspectives to lead this important piece of work. Public engagement will be a really important part of the review, so all New Zealanders will have the chance to share their views before the panel makes its recommendations. This bill wants to strengthen New Zealand’s democracy, but we are already doing so. We would like to have the ability for people to have their comment and to have their say in a wider submissions period than what would be provided through simply a member’s bill.

The importance of the review being independent is really important. I would like to highlight that maintaining public confidence in elections is critical for democracy, and it is that bipartisan support that is important. This review, as initially outlined by Minister Faafoi when announced, has consulted with all parliamentary party leaders in Parliament and Parliament’s Justice Committee on the terms of reference for the review. Consultation also included other groups, such as Māori organisations, youth organisations, universities, and the New Zealand Law Society, when seeking nominations for potential panel members. It’s critical that the review has broad public and cross-party support, and appointing an independent panel will ensure it is fair. We are confident that these panel members will do a good job in the area.

Labour’s position on aspects of electoral reform, as already mentioned by the member in charge of the bill, has addressed areas that are important to that member. The ban of foreign donations—in June 2022, justice Minister Kiritapu Allan announced changes to electoral law to bring together greater transparency for voters. Changes to electoral law, announced by the Minister, aimed to support participation in parliamentary elections and improve public trust and confidence in New Zealand’s democracy.

I would like to conclude by saying that this is an ambitious bill; it raises a lot of important areas, but these areas are already being covered, either by existing legislation that is before the House presently or those important topics that require an in-depth and more lengthy process that is part of the independent review. While we have a world-class electoral system, times are changing and the Electoral Act needs to continue and move with them. It is only proper that we give such an important process the right course. We do not support the bill proceeding.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a rare and great thrill for me to be able to join with our friends in the Labour Party and agree with them that, in an area of electoral reform, we’re on the same side. We both agree that something’s not right here, but we both agree that this particular bill put forward by the Green Party, the so-called Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill, is not a good one. It is one that we won’t be supporting, either, partly because of the reasons outlined by the previous Labour speaker, Ginny Andersen: that many of the issues put forward in this bill are to be considered over the next couple of years by the Government’s independent panel.

I do want to take issue, however, with the previous speaker’s reference to it being bipartisan. Quite frankly, it followed this Government’s definition of “bipartisan engagement” when it came to the selection of an independent panel, which is to say that they come up with a list of names, send them to us on a letter, and say, “These are the names that we want to appoint, and if you object, well, tough luck, because they are the ones that we’re still going to appoint.” And so it’s a very strange form of bipartisanship on their part. In fact, we’d have a very different view on how you could get a broader support for it. We do have serious concerns about a lot of electoral reform being pushed through by this Government without bipartisan support, and we can point to a bill currently before the House which we strongly disagreed with and they’re still pushing through regardless. So, unfortunately, they’re not quite consistent on those matters.

But, nevertheless, we agree with them that what this bill does is a whole bunch of things. One of them, of course, is giving murderers the right to vote—as one thing which seems like an odd and strange priority for any parliamentarian at the moment. We would sort of take the view that if you take somebody’s life, maybe you have forfeited the right to vote while you’re in prison for having done that. But, clearly, that’s a priority for the Greens to change.

When it comes to extending the voting age to 16, I’ll be very interested to see the arguments put forward over the months and years about that. I certainly would think that if we were talking with the Green Party about youth justice, they would have a very strong view that 16- and 17-year-olds are kids and should be treated very differently in the justice system and in a very different way to adults. Now, their brains haven’t formally developed, and so they’re not fully responsible for criminal activity in the same way as adults. But when it comes to electoral law, it’s a very different standard. So I’d be very interested to see how they square those two different views.

We could go through all of these issues, but the sad reality is that this bill, having being opposed by Labour—which, under the current electoral laws, have an insurmountable vote that will stop anything that they want to stop—this bill is, unfortunately, dead on arrival. And so whether we support it or not is irrelevant to the matter. But on that basis, I just want to make clear that we won’t be supporting it. Thank you very much.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call in relation to this bill. I just want to start by congratulating the member and recognising both her work on this bill but also her luck in it being drawn. Ms Ghahraman and I have known each other for a number of years, and sat on the steering board of an organisation called Action for Children and Youth Aotearoa, so we have a passion for a number of the same issues. And I am always excited to see the work that she’s doing on members’ bills because they come with strong values-based proposals. So I do want to recognise that.

However, as my colleague Ginny Andersen has canvassed, we won’t be supporting the bill today, so I’d just like to speak to some of my rationale behind that. Ms Anderson has already spoken to the significant overlap in terms of work, and it was actually really good to hear that acknowledgment from Ms Ghahraman, as well, that a number of proposals within the bill are already in train. So some of them are in front of the Justice Committee now—which is the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill—and there’s, of course, the independent review of electoral law as well, with the report due back no later than 30 November 2023.

So, in short, I agree with the need for us to be discussing these issues and these important processes. But I do think it’s important for us to know when we need to seek independent advice first. There are some signals within the bill in front of us today that indicate that they’re in that space. They touch several of the proposals; touch on areas of our law which are morally entrenched. That, in my view, gives them semi-constitutional status. And that, to us, should be an indication that there needs to be a robust process if there are changes to those areas of law. So it’s my view that a member’s bill just isn’t the right vehicle for a number of the changes proposed.

I just want to briefly explain, I guess, that term “moral entrenchment”. There’s a section within our Electoral Act, section 268, which creates “reserved provisions” and that restricts the repeal or amendment of some provisions, including the definition of the term “adult”, which is in section 3(1) and section 60(f) of the Electoral Act. This bill attempts, through clauses 10 and 11, to change those provisions.

So the reserved entrenchment provision clause says that that cannot be changed unless the change is passed by a majority of 75 percent of all the members of the House of Representatives, or has been carried by a majority of valid votes in what would be a referendum.

The reason it’s called “moral entrenchment” is that, in reality, changes could be made to those rules by a simple majority, first by repealing section 268 itself and then, in the absence of that section, using a simple majority to change the voting age. So it’s not true entrenchment, but it is an indication to Parliament that we need to be very cautious and step through due process if we are going to make changes in this area.

Now, this is what we are doing at the moment. It’s why we have the independent review; it’s why we have a non-partisan review as well. I understand that the previous Minister of Justice consulted with parliamentary parties across the House when setting the terms of reference, also consulted with the Justice Committee and a number of different organisations—including Māori organisations, the New Zealand Law Society, youth organisations, universities—when seeking nominations for the potential panel members. Due process for really robust work like this is incredibly important.

So, in short, the work is under way. It doesn’t just address the voting age; there’s also the length of the parliamentary term—which, interestingly, is another morally entrenched provision—and there’s an examination of the Electoral Commission’s recommendations on MMP as well, including things like changes to the party vote threshold. So I’m afraid I don’t support this bill proceeding through the House today, but I do believe these are issues that will be addressed through a separate track. Thank you.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill. Why? Well, let’s see how many ways we can count up in a short five minutes. I’m reminded, when I read the title of this bill, of places like the democratic republic of North Korea. Spoiler alert: it’s not democratic, and sometimes when someone protests too much, it turns out that what is labelled on the tin is not what is within. That’s very much the case with this so-called strengthening democracy amendment bill.

It does a number of things—or would if it had support from any party in this House other than the one that proposed it. It says it “[enables] voters of Māori descent”—that would be me—“to change roll type at any time.” So what it says is I am absolutely, sincerely committed to honouring my whakapapa today, but I might change tomorrow. Well, there’s a reasonable amendment to be made that somebody should not have to wait for seven years until there’s a specified date when they can change. A person should be able to choose to change on a particular day, but they shouldn’t be able to change continually at any time. That is insincere, it’s an insult to whakapapa, and it undermines faith in the democratic system because people go on a particular roll perhaps for political reasons rather than identity reasons. That is completely wrong.

It says “[extend] the voting age to 16 years.” Now, this could be reasonably debated by different people of different views. Once upon a time, it was 21; now it’s 18; perhaps it could be 16. But don’t let anyone doubt that the Green Party believes this is a good thing because it would introduce around about 120,000 more voters who pay almost no tax but enjoy getting Government benefits—in other words, more Green voters. That’s the only reason they want to do it, and they say it will increase participation. Well, that’s actually not true. What it’s found is that when people are allowed to vote younger, they vote more the first time they’re allowed, but then they vote less on their second vote. All that this change would do is bring forward the timing of that vote.

It says, “[remove] the requirement for New Zealand citizens living overseas to have visited New Zealand within the last 3 years to maintain their voting rights.” Well, this might not be popular with some New Zealanders overseas, but, frankly, if you’re not a tax resident, then no taxation without representation doesn’t apply. Those of us who are here in New Zealand under the scourge of the IRD giving away a third to half our income every year, we do have an interest and a say in where this country’s going. So that’s wrong too.

“Giving all people in prison the right that vote.” OK, so everyone has a bundle of rights. You can’t move; you can’t freely associate; you get locked in a six-by-four cell. The Green Party’s happy that people should be in prison but they’re not allowed to take away their right to vote. Well, actually, that’s not right. If you lose all of those other rights, maybe part of the punishment is losing the right to vote periodically as well. But if the Green Party is going to campaign on increasing the rights of convicted rapists and murderers, the people who aren’t currently able to vote, then I guess that is up to them.

“Implementing the Electoral Commission’s 2012 MMP Review recommendations.” What they want to do is say that if you win an electorate seat, you have to also win at least 4 percent of the vote to get your party’s proportional share. I really do need another five minutes to go through the history of how MMP was designed in Germany and what the 1986 royal commission considered in terms of the population of—

Golriz Ghahraman: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. That was a mischaracterisation of what the bill contains. People winning electorate seats would enter Parliament under the Act, so that’s wrong. He could correct it, or we can move forward.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That’s not a valid point of order, but you could continue on your remaining—

DAVID SEYMOUR: Point of order. I seek leave for my speech to be extended by an extra 10 minutes so I can correct the record for the member’s benefit.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That is absolutely an invalid point of order. You’ve got 55 seconds to go.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I have every right to seek the leave of the House. Is there any reason why you wouldn’t put that leave?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That leave is put to the House. Is there any objection to that? Yes. You have 55 seconds.

DAVID SEYMOUR: People at home might ask, “What is it that the left are afraid of that they wouldn’t give him another 10 minutes to talk?” They don’t like it up ’em.

And finally we find that they wanted to put a legal cap on how much a New Zealand citizen should give to a population. And you know what? The Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act said that it is inconsistent with the bill of rights to limit someone’s right to give their money that they’ve earned to a political party to campaign for their views. This is the party that talks about democracy but doesn’t follow it, and then—

Golriz Ghahraman: Point of order. That was, again, an incorrect statement of the Attorney-General’s statement. The Attorney-General said that the $35,000 limit suggested may breach the right, not putting a limit at all on political donations.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): It’s not actually a valid point of order.

Golriz Ghahraman: Sorry, just a factual error.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Point of order, Madam Speaker. In all seriousness, I actually would like to seek leave for another minute because the clock’s been running down while I’ve been needlessly and pointlessly—it was running down.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): When a point of order is taken, the clock is stopped.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, it actually wasn’t in this instance for quite a while.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I was watching. David Seymour—16 seconds.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Point of order. Well, actually, you’re supposed to take a member at their word. I just told you that I was—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): And you are also supposed to take the Chair at her word that she’s been watching the clock.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Madam Speaker, it’s gone down another second while we’ve been having this point of order. It was 16 before and now it’s 15.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I put leave to the House that David Seymour seeks another 10 minutes—

DAVID SEYMOUR: No, no, no. No; just one minute now. I’m being reasonable.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): One minute. David Seymour seeks one minute. Is there any objections to that? There is an objection.

DAVID SEYMOUR: I make the simple point that Golriz Ghahraman, in introducing this bill, said colonisation had undermined democracy. Golriz Ghahraman doesn’t even understand that without colonisation, there would be no democracy in New Zealand. That’s how it got here; that’s why she’s wrong about everything—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member’s time is up. Before I call Jamie Strange, may I just remind members that when they’re taking points of order, those points of order should be valid and based on actual Speakers’ rulings; not just that they don’t agree with the statement or the part of the speech of the previous speaker.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to bring a little bit of decorum to the House after the relative shambles of the last few minutes over that side of the House there. I think the ACT Party and the Green Party should just sort of hold hands and maybe just get on a little bit every now and then. But anyway, that’s up to them.

I appreciate the opportunity to take a call at the first reading of the Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge the member for bringing this bill to the House, and as other members have said, acknowledge the passion of Golriz Ghahraman in this area.

Now, you’ve heard previously from speakers on this side of the House that we will not be supporting this bill, and those reasons have been fairly clearly outlined, primarily based around the fact that we are already doing work in this area. When I was growing up, at dinner time my mother and father would often say to me, “Your eyes are bigger than your stomach”, which would mean that I’ve got a little bit too much food on my plate and I think I can eat more then than I can. If I could just give a little bit of advice to the member, I feel like, in this bill, she’s probably trying to bite off a little bit too much in one bill. Seven really large chunky areas in one member’s bill is possibly a little bit of an overreach. Maybe if the member had chosen one of these areas, who knows what may or may not have happened. But seven fairly large areas around this bill: enabling the voters of Māori descent to change roll at any time; extending the voting age to 16; removing the requirement for New Zealand citizens living overseas to have visited New Zealand within the last three months to maintain the voting rights; giving all people in prison the right to vote; implementing the Electoral Commission’s 2012 MMP review recommendations; strengthening transparency and safeguards on donations to parties and candidates; and extending the reserved provisions to include all provisions that reduce eligibility to register as an elector or to vote at an election. Seven really large chunky areas of electoral law that the member has tried to bring to this House. Obviously, it’s quite clear from the speeches that this bill will not progress.

Now, I did mention before that this Government is undertaking some work in this area, the independent review of electoral laws, and it will pick up on some of these points. I’d just like to offer my personal reflections on some of these points. Extending the voting age to 16 is an interesting topic. It’s one that is regularly canvassed by people, particularly on the election trail. I’m sure members of this House have been asked this question at many candidate meetings. My personal view is I’m actually open to this idea. However, I do believe that if we are going to change the voting age to 16, then the first vote should be at high school. There should be civics education, there should actually potentially be a voting ballot box at the high school. Research shows that if someone votes for the first time that they’re eligible, then there’s a high likelihood that they will continue to vote. If someone doesn’t vote the first time, if they miss the first time, then they often don’t come back to voting until they’re maybe in their thirties, forties, maybe when they buy a house, maybe have children. So, look, I think it is something that is worth exploring.

There was another interesting one that sparked my interest that was around the length of the parliamentary term. Obviously, it’s three years at the moment. Some people would argue it should be longer than three years. In the UK, it’s five. The United States is four, for example. I think there’s an interesting nuance here in New Zealand that we don’t have an Upper House. So three years, yes, it is relatively short, and generally it is challenging for Governments because, if you come into Government, you spend the first year setting up, second year doing things, and third year straight into the campaigning. But the reality is, without there being an Upper House in New Zealand, we don’t have quite the checks and balances that other jurisdictions have. The three-year term, effectively, becomes a balance for this. So I’m not sure whether extending to four, without some form of Upper House, is appropriate. Yeah, but just a little reflection on that one; thoughts for those in the House tonight.

The Electoral Commission’s recommendations on MMP: changes to the party vote threshold. Now, this is set at 5 percent, and I see I’m running out of time—I could seek leave for a little bit more time but I won’t try that. So I’ll just summarise: some interesting points here, but unfortunately for the member, this side of the House won’t be supporting.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Look, one of the things I have found in life is that the more you try to insinuate something in the title, the less it actually is. And so saying this is “strengthening democracy” is the first indicator it’s doing the complete opposite. While I do not take away from the intention of the member putting this forward, Golriz Ghahraman, this is just a grab bag of Green Party wish lists to gerrymander the whole system. It’s not how we do electoral law reform. To give credit to Government, they’re putting reviews in place, Justice Committee’s review, a grab bag of seven ideas—

Golriz Ghahraman: They came out of the justice review.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I know, I’m on the Justice Committee, which is one of my delightful biases that I’d much prefer that we do our normal reviews of each electoral cycle than a member’s bill, as I say, with seven rather arbitrary and inconsistent ideas, as I say, under the somewhat Orwellian double-speak of strengthening democracy. This will do the complete opposite, other than, of course, strengthening the democratic results that the Green Party would want.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): After that uncharacteristically short and taut and to-the-point contribution from my friend Mr O’Connor, it is a pleasure to rise and discuss this very interesting bill, which I regret that we cannot support, simply because we’re doing it already. Ms Ghahraman called it disparate. My colleague Ms Andersen called it ambitious. Mr Strange got homespun and referred to it as having eyes bigger than its stomach. All of those descriptions are somewhat true: it is something of an omnibus. I think I will personally stick with more homespun and go with: this is a member’s bill that has possibly bitten off more than a member’s bill should.

But let’s talk about what is in this bill, because these are all important ideas that do deserve respect. The first is enabling voters of Māori descent to change roll at any time. The second provision is to remove the requirement for New Zealand citizens who have been living overseas to have visited New Zealand in the last three years to maintain their voting rights, which, of course, is a very pertinent issue at the moment, following on from COVID. The third point made in the bill is that it would just strengthen transparency in safeguarding rules around donations to parties, another important issue. The fourth idea is giving all people in prisons the right to vote. Fifth, we come to extending the voting age to 16. The ambition is fairly staggering. Then, sixth, we go to extending the reserve provisions to include all provisions reducing eligibility to register as an elector or vote in an election. And then, finally, implementing all of the Electoral Commission’s 2012 MMP review recommendations.

These are all worthwhile, important ideas to canvass. So worthwhile, in fact, that we are already doing them. Ms. Golriz, with commendable confidence, referred to the Government as having picked up her ideas. There is a difference between correlation, of course, and causation, and I believe that most of these important points predate the terms of most of those of us speaking in the House today.

So let’s go through exactly what is being done here. First off, taking point one, the ability of Māori voters to change roll type at any time. Now, we announced on 9 June we’d be progressing this through, and so we are doing. On 21 June this year, the Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Bill—my goodness, we give these things snappy titles—

Simeon Brown: Where’s the plain language?

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: —was introduced to the House. We are working on it as we speak. It is before—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Brown, you will not come and yell something when you come into this Chamber. You will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Simeon Brown: I stand, withdraw, and I apologise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Feel free to join and debate, but make sure you’re sitting down when you do it.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: So point one we’ve already got covered. Then we come to point two, which is the overseas voters point, the one made so pertinent by COVID and the lockdown restrictions. We are also progressing law changes to this one that will include a temporary amendment to enable New Zealand citizens who have not been in New Zealand for the last few years to bypass the normal requirements for the next election. And, again, we have this bill in and we will be progressing it in time for the next election.

Then we have the donations point, and, again, the same Electoral Amendment Bill which is going to deal with COVID restrictions—and I think it is appropriate that those be dealt with on a temporary basis—they will also be dealt with in that same amendment bill.

Giving prisoners the right to vote, giving all prisoners the right to vote—this is something that was canvassed as recently as three years ago, when we allowed all people in prison for three years or less to have the right to vote. It seems somewhat premature to start again and revisit it.

And finally, as my colleague Ms Walters so eloquently pointed out, some of the other provisions which would look to change the points which require a referendum—these are constitutional law points, they shouldn’t be part of a member’s bill.

We are, however, undertaking a wide-ranging and independent review of the remaining points. I’m not unsympathetic to many of them, including the ability of 16-year-olds to vote, but that’s for another day. I cannot commend this to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Congratulations to the member for having the bill pulled, but the National Party opposes this bill. The Labour Government has already implemented an independent review of electoral laws and is due to report back later this year and that is the appropriate place to consider changes to electoral law. There can be a few things as important as determining how people can select those who represent them in this House, and the appropriate place to do that is in the independent review of electoral laws rather than on a hodgepodge basis, which this, unfortunately, is.

Staggering individual electoral law changes risks having changes all over the shop that are unaligned and could have unintended consequences. In fact, the Attorney-General has already raised concerns about the bill, which is indicative of why electoral laws should be considered thoroughly. Electoral law is, of course, incredibly important and should be thoroughly considered on a cross-party basis. So we do not recommend this bill to the House.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill, and I want to join some of my colleagues in congratulating the member sponsoring this bill for having the bill drawn and for bringing some really interesting issues to the House. As you would have heard from previous speakers from the Labour Party, it’s not a bill that we will be supporting today. However, I believe that most of us come to this House in order to enact real change, and so I think it should be some consolation to the member sponsoring it that a great number of the ideas that she has suggested in her member’s bill have, in fact, either have already been adopted by the Government or form part of an independent review. So I’m sure that the change itself will be reward enough for the work put into this bill, even though I understand that she may be disappointed it’s not progressing.

So what I thought might be interesting to do is just to go through the main points in this bill and just spell out exactly, really, what’s happening already in this space for clarity. One of the key points raised in this bill is enabling voters of Māori descent to change roll type at any time. I think that’s a very valid point. I was pleased to see the then Minister of Justice—Kris Faafoi—announce that we would be making this change in time for the 2023 election, and I understand that this is currently before the Justice Committee at the moment.

Another thing that we’ll also be implementing before the 2023 election will be removing the requirement for New Zealand citizens living overseas to have visited New Zealand within the last three years. That’s a really practical, pragmatic change on a temporary basis due to the obvious travel restraints we’ve had through COVID-19. So that’s also happening as well.

Also, prisoner voting rights: last term, there was a reversal of the 2020 changes that were brought in by the National Party that had limited voting rights for prisoners, so that’s something that’s also been implemented. We’ve heard at length today about the implementing of the Electoral Commission’s independent changes, and, in fact, we’re supporting that review, which is due in November 2023, as I understand it.

There are also other things: strengthening transparency around donations has been announced by the current Minister of Justice, Kiri Allan, and other law changes have been announced in order to remove the requirement for local government candidates to have their address published. So that’s another type of electoral reform.

One thing that, as a list member, I was particularly interested in was looking at the section in this bill as it related to list seats. It’s something that I’m quite interested in in relation to how list members fit in and the role that we play within the democracy that we have. I was quite surprised at the extent to which this bill looked to change some very entrenched provisions that have been in place for a very long time within our democracy.

So, for example, to go through a few of the things, this bill is, I understand, proposing: a threshold change from 5 percent to 4 percent, which is something that has been discussed throughout the time that I have studied our politics and our democracy—a significant change. There also wouldn’t be coat-tailing, as it’s colloquially known, under this bill. So I think even in some circumstances, there would be a reduction in the number of seats within this Parliament.

In New Zealand, we don’t have an Upper House, we don’t have state government, and we don’t have regional parliaments, so that would actually be quite a significant change, I think, which is being proposed within this bill. Now, that’s not to say that I don’t think there’s value in debating these ideas as they’re outlined in this bill. I think that very many of these ideas have merit and have been discussed from a constitutional perspective in relation to the best way for us to see our democracy progressing. The thing that I would agree on with members on this side of the House and also members in other parties is that a member’s bill is, in my view, not the appropriate way to move forward significant changes within our constitutional frameworks, and that is what this bill proposes to do.

So I do commend the member for bringing the bill and for allowing us to have these very interesting discussions and to reflect on a lot of the work which is already taking place in this very important area, and I don’t begrudge her the opportunity to bring a bill on an important subject matter through the member’s bill process. We are all members of this House; we use the tools that we have to draw attention to the issues that we feel are important. But, unfortunately, I will not be commending this bill to the House today. Thank you.

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

Hon Member: One more.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh sorry, my apologies.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): It’s all right, and congratulations, I believe this is the first time I’m speaking with you sitting in that Chair, Mr Speaker.

It is a great pleasure after four years to have this bill heard, debated in the House, in the four months since it’s been introduced. We have done the crucial work of bringing the voices of people like the Electoral Commission, the 4,000 people who were heard by them in the MMP review, the Justice Committee, all of the people who’ve submitted there, the Waitangi Tribunal, the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeal. That, by the way, is where the seemingly disparate parts of this bill come from. The idea is that once we as a House hear from those expert independent institutions, that is the way to do bipartisan electoral review. So it is heartbreaking to hear the National Party say we need another inquiry. It is heartbreaking to hear the Labour Party say that we will do an inquiry on matters that have already been the subject of inquiries, without a commitment to, in fact, implement those recommendations once we have them.

There will be a lot of people engaging. There’ll be sector-based people, there’ll be NGOs, there’ll be communities who will come and pour their hearts and souls in to telling us what democracy should look like. But they’ve already done that on the subject matter issues that are contained in this bill. That was my point in putting them together.

It’s disappointing but not surprising to hear the Opposition will oppose this bill. You know, having already addressed the disappointment with the National Party’s refusal to take up matters that they oversaw an inquiry, I’ll turn to ACT and say: when will the one-vote-per-person ideal that you keep trotting out actually apply when it’s not to do with opposing Te Tiriti - based democracy? That seems to be the only time that ACT believes in one vote per person.

We’ve heard the National Party belittle young voters and say that they will only ever be voting one way or another. Well, we actually don’t know. The idea that you would limit democracy because you feel that the voters that you are disenfranchising may not vote for you, that’s callous. It has no place in this House.

So the pressure is on Labour. You have announced—not you, Mr Speaker, but the Government—an inquiry. But we haven’t yet heard from the Minister or the Government a commitment to that implementation. We know that things like prisoner voting, that disenfranchisement, came through a single-vote majority member’s bill. We know that the MMP review sat buried since 2012. So there is another inquiry. We don’t want it to turn into a Welfare Expert Advisory Group situation where we have robust, independent recommendations that sit rotting away. It would be heartbreaking to see that inquiry so inspiringly announced be used only to vote down this bill, to impede a proper debate of these issues in select committee after we’ve heard from our highest courts and institutions, and then to see that inquiry going nowhere.

The people out there in the nation that first declared full suffrage are watching. They expect better from us. Future voters, young people, are watching. The Make It 16 campaigners—their movement; not mine— expect us to put party politics aside. They expect us not to askew democracy in favour of political parties who are already here: the big parties, the parties most able to get those big, deep-pocket donors, the parties most able to reach their already institutionalised voters. They expect better from us, and we have our democracy at stake. It’s a mixed-member democracy, and we know globally that that is under attack. We know globally that interference is a real thing. We know that the more people that vote, the more different kinds of people that vote, the stronger that our decisions will be in this House. That is what we are here for. So let’s hear that commitment from the Government.

I, tonight, with the Green Party will celebrate that we did get, in the face of being told repeatedly that electoral reform is not a priority, more than half of this bill, step by step, put into Government law. It is a win for democracy. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 12

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

Noes 108

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Increased Penalties for Breach of Biosecurity Bill

First Reading

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I move, That the Increased Penalties for Breach of Biosecurity Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Primary Production Committee to consider the bill.

It is indeed quite a pleasure, really, to stand up and speak in this House. I do it very rarely these days, and so this is quite exciting, even more so exciting because I’m speaking to my—I think it’s my fourth—member’s bill. I’ve only had one winning strike and two fails, so I’m going to have a crack at this one.

This is a bill that’s very dear to my heart. It’s quite a simple bill, but I do hope that this member’s bill will go some way to providing further deterrents to any person or individual who is determined to bring a biosecurity threat across our border into New Zealand, and why is that important? Well, I think we all know, but since I’ve got a member’s bill in front of me, it behoves me to explain why it is important to protect our borders and increase the fines and disincentives to try and smuggle items into the country across our border.

The first threat that I want to outline, very briefly, is the sheer number of biodiversity threats that can and occasionally do, unfortunately, come to New Zealand. I think, probably, if I talk about threats such as myrtle rust, that is a significant threat which has reached New Zealand, and it is now occupying an awful lot of Government time and resources to try and stay across that threat.

Now, not all of these biosecurity threats come across our borders. Some of them blow in on the wind, and that is just a feature of having an island nation surrounded by water. But we are rich in biodiversity. We are rich in nature and in native habitat, and we can, and we must—and we have a collective will to keep it that way, as much as we can by strengthening, I would suggest, disincentives to smuggle across the border.

So it’s interesting in this world of politics that every now and again a member of the media pops up and takes a genuine interest in what we’re doing. A rare thing, I understand. But it just so happens that Mike Houlahan of the Otago Daily Times (ODT)—known to many of us in the South—writes a weekly column on a Saturday. We all wake up on a Saturday morning and, before we do anything else, we all grasp our phones and we go clickety, clickety, click click click, “Southern Say”—which is the name of Mike Houlahan’s column in the ODT—and he writes something salient about what is happening with the southern MPs around the south of the South Island. Not always complimentary, but just occasionally—I don’t know; maybe once a decade or something—Mike Houlahan might find something complimentary to say; thank you, Mike Houlahan.

But seriously, folks, this is one journalist who takes a serious interest in parliamentary process, parliamentary practice, and has taken, which is wonderful, an interest in my biosecurity bill. So I’m going to quote from him, because I want him to get extra bang for his buck, having sat down late on Friday night to write this column. He says—and I quote—“It does not take a great deal of brain power to work out what the Bill would do if it became law … the fines for those auditioning for a role on Border Patrol, by attempting to bring unwanted flora or fauna into New Zealand [the penalties] will be upped substantially.”

Thank you, Mike Houlahan—you’re right on the button. “If you lie about having something on the specified list of exempted goods in your possession—behaviour which will almost certainly guarantee your consideration for a TV appearance—the fine for doing so will we upped from $400 to $1,000.”—just as it says in the bill. I carry on: “Double down, and erroneously declare that the stuff still isn’t yours after having been asked by officials about those things and the fine will hike from $1000 to $2000, and you can start asking the director to please film you from your best side.” Anyway, it goes on. So, Mike Houlahan, thank you so much for doing the work and having a look into the bill and describing it so neatly for me.

So I will go through the main provisions of the bill. I do want to recognise the interest across the House in what is a serious piece of legislation. It’s not perfect. It’s not going to solve by any means the problem of people wishing to bring in contraband across the border, but I think it makes another step in the right direction, and I welcome support across the House if and when it is forthcoming.

So it is a simple bill, as I say. There are some provisions in the bill which will amend two pieces of legislation, and one secondary piece of legislation. So it amends the Biosecurity Act 1993. It amends the Biosecurity (Infringement Offences) Regulations 2010, and also it amends the Immigration Act 2009. The Immigration Act amendment really provides for a strengthening of officials to deport persons. It really codifies in legislation, in the Immigration Act, the ability for immigration officials to deport persons who try to smuggle items across the border.

So, as I say, the bill is simple. It recognises, I hope, and makes a contribution to dealing with the biosecurity threats that come across our border. It also recognises that New Zealand has a very high economic reliance on our primary industries, which is why I am nominating the bill to go to the Primary Production Committee. All I need to say—there’s only two further words I need to say in that regard, and that is foot-and-mouth disease. If we thought that M. bovis was a disease that threatened New Zealand farming—that sends a shiver down everybody’s spine in this House because it’s touched all of us, in most parts of New Zealand—when I say foot-and-mouth, then that’s an entirely different thing, and that is a biosecurity threat which is knocking at our back door.

I see Jo Luxton over the other side of the House. Jo Luxton chairs the Primary Production Committee, and I do know that that Ms Luxton is going to address the House, and she’s going to be fulsome in her support of this bill. So, members, thank you for your time, and I do hope that you commend this bill to the House.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a call on this bill in the name of Jacqui Dean, who I recently had the pleasure of travelling to Canada with. I actually enjoyed just listening to the member’s contribution this evening, and it’s very clear to us—right across the House, I think—the member’s passion that she has for biodiversity and protecting I guess what you would call our way of life here in New Zealand from potential threats of pests coming across our borders and upsetting our farming, our rural sector, and our horticultural growers, etc.

I’d just like to begin my contribution with something that we are probably all familiar with every time we take flight around New Zealand or into New Zealand, if you are on a plane that has one of the wee videos that plays. It talks about tiaki. On the video, it says, “Tiaki knew that we don’t inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we only borrow it from our children.” And I think that’s a really nice way to start off speaking about this bill this evening—

Simeon Brown: It’s not even a safety video anymore.

JO LUXTON: —which I am pleased to say, Mr Brown, this side of the House will be supporting, at least until the select committee stage.

What this piece of legislation does, is it increases the conviction from $1,000 to $2,000 for making an erroneous declaration regarding possession of specified goods; it increases the infringement fee from $400 to $1,000 for the same offence; and it provides an immigration officer with the power to refuse entry to a temporary entry class visa holder if the person has failed to comply with the requirements of the Biosecurity Act 1993 or if the person has failed to comply with any direction of request made by a biosecurity officer.

So I am looking forward to having this piece of legislation come to our select committee. I think right across the House, it’s fair to say that we are all in support of anything that increases and strengthens our efforts to protect New Zealand and our biosecurity. But we just need to determine whether this bill is the right way to do this.

Defending or strengthening biosecurity here in New Zealand is actually a responsibility that’s on all of us. It’s a responsibility for all of us to ensure that we do our best to protect our farmers and growers, particularly here in New Zealand. Now that we have the borders reopening, our risk begins to increase further. One of the other things that increases our risk in this space is also our warming climate, so that’s something that we need to bear in mind as well.

As the member mentioned before, we are a trading nation and we trade off our clean, green, and pest-free image. I just want to acknowledge all our farmers and growers, who’ve actually carried us through COVID and who’ve ensured our export-led economic recovery, and we support efforts to increase the protection for our primary sector.

We’ve seen—and the member Jacqui Dean spoke to this very briefly—some of the impacts of what can happen when we have an incursion of certain types. She’s talked about myrtle rust as an example. But I just want to touch on M. bovis, which the member also mentioned before. You know, it certainly has an impact on our economy; there is no doubt about that. I think there’s been more than $660 million spent over the last four years fighting M. bovis.

But it’s actually not just the economic impact that happens when we have an incursion; it’s actually the toll it takes on humans. It’s on our farmers, it’s on their families, and it’s on all those that are perhaps involved in the whole primary sector relating to the type of incursion that has happened.

Our farmers—and I’m thinking of our dairy farmers in this particular conversation when I’m talking about M. bovis. The electorate that I represent—Rangitata—Ashburton has been one of the hardest-hit areas in the country with M. bovis.

I’ve seen firsthand the toll that it has taken on our farming community: the angst, the tears. When you know that you’ve got M. bovis on your farm, you are milking cows—you’re able to milk them until the end of the season—you care for them, you look after them like you ordinarily would, but you know that when milking finishes, they are going to be destroyed. And you have spent years and years and years putting time, effort, sweat, and tears into your herd to get it to the space that you want, producing the milk that you want, the best that you can.

This member’s bill actually ties in quite nicely with one of the bills that we heard about from my colleagues earlier tonight, which also amends the Biosecurity Act—the member that had that bill: Steph Lewis—whereby it is going to be a requirement that all incoming passengers on certain craft must be shown or displayed a video about what you can and cannot bring into the country.

That’s a really important piece of legislation that we’re seeing coming through the House as well. Again, our select committee has worked on that bill, and I have to say that when it comes to things like that, you know, we’re a very collegial select committee and we take these things very, very seriously.

So I see that this piece of legislation—or this member’s bill, I should say—could potentially be an additional tool that we have in our toolbox alongside the likes of the one that we have had in committee stage around the incoming passengers earlier this evening.

When I talked a bit about the economic impact that we have when we have biosecurity incursions, I just want to take a moment to talk to the House—when I find my piece of paper that tells me about it—about when we have had things such as the Queensland fruit fly, and I just want to run off a few figures. In 2012, when we had to respond to it, it cost $1.5 million. In 2014, it was $1.2 million and again in 2014, $1.1 million. In 2015, it was $16.1 million, and again in 2016, $1 million. That is a lot of money that it costs to fight to try and eradicate and rid pests from our country.

Hon Member: It’s a huge challenge.

JO LUXTON: It is a huge challenge. I just want to also talk about the fact that we have one of the most beautiful environments here in New Zealand, where people love getting outdoors, enjoying our bushwalks, enjoying our flora, our fauna, our fishing, and everything that we have to offer from a tourism perspective.

If we have incursions of certain types, all of that is put at risk. You know, we risk losing fish, we risk losing certain flora and fauna, and often those sorts of things are a taonga and specific and native to our country. And we already have several thousand species of flora and fauna that are at risk of extinction. So we need to do everything that we can in order to protect those.

So I want to thank the member for bringing this bill before the House. I want to congratulate her for having had her member’s bill drawn from the ballot box. Fourth time—according to the member across the House. That’s pretty impressive. There’s some people that spend all their time—many, many years—in this place and never have one bill drawn.

So I want to congratulate the member on having her bill drawn, a bill that I think is hugely important to us here in New Zealand, for us as a trading nation and a country that has some of the most beautiful flora and fauna around the world. I commend this bill to the House.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I would like to join with others around the House in congratulating the member Jacqui Dean for getting her—all of the members, actually, for getting their biscuits out of the biscuit tin. I’ve had a couple of biscuits in there as well, and sometimes your biscuits come out and sometimes they don’t, and that’s just how the cookie crumbles.

Hon Members: Aw!

TEANAU TUIONO: It’s 9.05 p.m., folks. I join with colleagues across the House around the support for very strong biosecurity measures as well. I guess all of us around the House want to make sure that we do the best things that we can do for our tamariki and for our mokopuna: making sure that they have clean rivers to swim in, making sure that they have forests that haven’t got kauri dieback tramped through them, making sure that those things are there, making sure we do all the things to make sure that we revitalise the biodiversity, and making sure we do the best things that we can do to take care of the flora and fauna. It’s also very important to make sure that we do all the things as well to protect the regions and to protect the provinces, acknowledging the role that the provinces have in making sure that we have food and fibre and jobs and that way of life for folks as well, and making sure that biosecurity measures are in place as well.

This bill proposes to do a number of things. It increases the immediate infringement fee from $400 to $1,000 for the offence of making an erroneous declaration relating to possession of specified goods at the border. It also increases the conviction penalty for the same offence from $1,000 to $2,000, and it gives immigration officers the power to deport those on temporary entry class visas who breach any of the requirements of the Biosecurity Act.

I guess where we’ve landed on this is whether this is actually going to do what we want it to do. I look at the fee going from $400 to $1,000 and think, “Well, will that actually stop people from actually doing these things?” I do want to acknowledge the other biosecurity bill that we did have in the committee of the whole House, the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill—that we talked about as well. This bill, possibly, at first glance, for us anyway, looks like a solution looking for a particular problem.

Simeon Brown: That’s the Plain Language Bill. You’ve got the wrong speech notes.

TEANAU TUIONO: We are not yet convinced that this will actually—that’s the Plain Language Bill? You’re three hours a bit late, mate.

So we’re not convinced that this bill will be the right mechanism to actually carry out some of those problems. As I followed through the previous biosecurity bill, there were very specific things that it was trying to address. It was looking at making sure that videos were available, and that those videos were made accessible in other languages as well, because when people come into the country, they have to make sure that they understand the conditions and the rules that are here when they arrive here. Is that the problem that we’re dealing with, that this bill is trying to do? Is it a language issue? Is it an access-to-information issue? Is it actually trying to deal with people who have nefarious intentions in terms of trying to bring stuff through, and are they doing it through the planes or not?

So where we’ve landed on this, at this particular point in time—and I understand that in order to get this through the House, you need to have the support of both Labour and National, and congratulations to the member for being able to do that, as the bill will land at the select committee—is that there is not sufficient clarity enough for us to support the bill at this time. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Well done, Mr Speaker. It is a great pleasure to take a call on this bill and, like everyone else, congratulate the Hon Jacqui Dean on bringing it to the House. Despite what some people think, this side of the House is always really pleased when we can do something that further strengthens and protects our rural communities. This protects a lot of things in New Zealand, but rural communities are one of them. And it does make us very pleased on this side of the House, because many of us do live in rural communities and we’re very aware of the impact of the breaches that have been described tonight.

I just want to share a little story about the snake. I once was on a flight back from South-east Asia a few years ago and sat next to a lovely young English backpacker who was really excited about coming to New Zealand and spending time in our beautiful outdoors. But it’s a long flight from Bangkok and we had a lot of time for her to tell me about her adventures and about the time when she had to stand up for herself and kill a snake with a rock. And she was so proud of herself that she kept that snake and she actually had it in her backpack and was going to take that trophy with her back to England, which, of course, was via New Zealand. So she was a lovely young woman who really valued our beautiful open spaces and she had no malice but she was about to expose our economy and our ecology to a potentially fairly significant risk. She truly had no understanding of what she was about to do, but money talks. And we all know that the size of a fine says a lot. It says that we take our biosecurity seriously. Even if she didn’t understand why, she understood a little bit more about the fact that she needed to take it seriously. And the idea that she might be refused entry into the country or that she may be hit with a fine of potentially $1,000 or $2,000 might help her to sharpen her mind.

We all know why—we’ve heard about it in the House tonight: the threats to our biodiversity, our native flora and fauna, the economic cost. We know that there are people in this House who have not just experienced M. bovis and the impact financially but on your heart, right? And we don’t want to expose our farmers to those sorts of risks when we can protect them. It is our way of life. The travel restrictions that could come about—we’ve heard about foot-and-mouth disease and what that would do not just to our exports but to our way of life as we had to shut the country down to eradicate it.

The importance of stopping these things at the border is immeasurable, really. And it isn’t just about sorting out those jandals as we come back from Bali. We have to think about—and we know from M. bovis—what happens when things do slip through the gaps. And it isn’t just about the immediate response. We heard from the Commissioner for the Environment this year about the impact of plants coming into the country and eventually becoming weeds, and the fact that for every four native plants we have three exotic plants that have naturalised. That’s taken generations to happen and will take generations to eradicate. We know why. And the really important thing about upping the sanctions is that it makes it a little bit more likely that those coming across the border will have a wee think and focus the mind.

And it isn’t just the smugglers that the Hon Jacqui Dean talked about—those who need to be deterred—but actually I think the more dangerous behaviour which is complacency; possibly much more dangerous. Those careless and hopeful young backpackers, maybe they’ll read that advice—and there is a lot of it—about what they need to declare, that they won’t necessarily lose everything that they declare, but that they need to do it for the sake of our nation. So that is why we support this bill going to select committee: so we can have a good dig into how it fits into the broader commitment that this country has made—not just tens of millions of dollars into biodiversity but how we strengthen our laws across the board. So we will be pleased to discuss it and make sure it fits into our arsenal to protect our economy, our way of life, and most importantly our flora and fauna. I commend this bill to the House.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasant surprise and something of a rarity to have a Labour caucus actually understand pragmatism and practicality when it comes to legislation, and agreeing with it. So, to canvass the bill, what a wonderful piece of legislation, and I just want to—

Simeon Brown: You woke them up.

MARK CAMERON: You certainly did there, Simeon Brown. I just want to contest the Hon Jacqui Dean on her “simple” bill. I actually think I’d change the wording to a small bill but an important one, an immensely important one. As has been well canvassed in the House, the primary sector is worth umpteen billions of dollars—something like $52 billion to $53 billion—to our overall wellbeing, economic wellbeing.

ACT fundamentally supports the bill and, as has been well canvassed before in the House, to use the Hon Jacqui Dean’s words, it’s a simple piece of legislation that increases the offences regime from $400 to $1,000 and, for a conviction fine, from $1,000 to $2,000. I think that’s a nonsensical argument to make when we’re talking about the potentiality of a biosecurity threat coming into New Zealand and potentially doing billions of dollars damage to the overall economic wellbeing of the country.

Just to canvass a couple of the biosecurity issues that we are currently confronted with, for those that are either naive to these issues or simply don’t know for various other reasons: Queensland fruit fly, pea weevil, fall armyworm, granulate ambrosia beetle—gracious me; I don’t know what that thing looks like but I can only imagine the damage that pest does. Apparently the granulate ambrosia beetle consumes some 350 different plant species. Try and reconcile that into economic terms. And that beetle’s also found, interestingly, in dozens of countries including in Australia, our nearest neighbour and one of our largest economic trading partners.

I’m not going to overplay my hand here. This is a wonderful, simple—to use the Hon Jacqui Dean’s wording—piece of legislation and, yeah, ACT supports this bill.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Fa‘afetai lava, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to rise as the MP for the beautiful Takanini to speak on this first reading of the Increased Penalties for Breach of Biosecurity Bill. Again, like my colleagues, I’d like to commend the member in charge, the Hon Jacqui Dean, for presenting the member’s bill to the House. Again, like you’ve said—what the member has presented—it is another step in the right direction, adding another layer to protecting our biodiversity.

What the bill proposes to do, like colleagues have mentioned, is the $1,000 to $2,000 increase for the conviction fine and also the infringement fee from $400 to $1,000. But I think the third point is really important, because I think that is more of a deterrent, I believe, and that is for the immigration officer to have the power to refuse entry to a temporary entry class visa holder. The reason why I see this as really important is I watch Border Patrol on TV as well—we all do—and it’s quite interesting what we see on TV, with the different entry points into Aotearoa. I just want to mention and acknowledge the hard work that our customs officers do, because I see many of our passengers arrive here and sometimes they may have missed, on the declaration card, presenting items which may be small, might be fruit, and can be chucked away. But then I see others who deliberately do not declare it, and they have bags and bags of goods that are prohibited. How much of a risk that is to our biodiversity is huge.

So I acknowledge that having an immigration officer have those powers and for people to get educated on the three new points of this bill would make a huge difference in deterring that sort of behaviour. Like our select committee chair has mentioned, it is all our responsibility to protect Aotearoa from pests and disease, and it is really important that, as the border has opened, Kiwis and foreigners that come to Aotearoa make sure that we are declaring, because Aotearoa has that reputation of being clean and green, and we want to keep it that way.

The environment—seeing the impact of unwanted pests and disease. I think about the environment I see in my electorate of Takanini. We have beautiful parks and habitats and natural ecosystems, from Barry Curtis Park at the northern end, the Botanical Gardens, Totara Park, all the way down to Bruce Pulman Park. We have a beautiful stream that goes right through the electorate and borders with Arena Williams and other MPs through here, and that’s the Puhinui Stream. That’s a stream where we’ve had mana whenua and Auckland Council come into agreement that we need to make sure that we uphold that stream that provides life to that natural ecosystem. Having these diseases and pest that come through the border will impact that. We don’t want that to happen, especially with our residential area, with our kids playing near the stream, and we want to make sure that they don’t get sick as well.

I turn to the economy and the primary industries and the impact that has on our farmers and growers here, and the economy, as the previous speaker has mentioned, and the huge billion-dollar industry that that provides.

Rachel Brooking: $53 billion.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA: That’s right: $53 billion, that provides to our economy in Aotearoa. So it’s really important we protect our farmers and growers in that environment as well.

I do have a friend who works at Auckland Airport and does the Customs control there. It is really hard when they have to face so many passengers that get off. Things do slip through, and the risk is that of destroying our environment, spoiling our waterways, reducing animal, plant, and fishing stocks, and as Kiwis, we love to fish and do all those—

Angie Warren-Clark: We love our fish.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA: Yes, that’s right—and the illnesses that causes into our livestock as well.

I sub on to this select committee. I’m not a full member on the select committee, but I always love hearing and learning. I do know about hand, foot and mouth, which affects our kids, but foot-and-mouth, definitely, for animals. So I commend this bill to the House.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to take a call. My congratulations also to the member, the Hon Jacqui Dean. It’s a great little piece of legislation. I am not going to be on the select committee to hear this, but I do think it’s important that we progress it to select committee to see if we can do some tightening up or some decisions about where we’ve landed with this piece of legislation. But I am quite impressed that the member has managed to have four bills drawn. I’m a little bit envious also, I must just say. So congratulations.

I think we all agree that biosecurity is incredibly important to our country, and we are all here in this House unanimously agreeing that this should progress through to select committee. I’m going to just talk a little bit about what the bill does, although that has been quite well traversed, and then I thought I would take an opportunity to do a little 101 on a couple of biosecurity issues that we have in this country.

So very quickly, the bill amends the Biosecurity Act 1993, the Immigration Act 2009, and the Biosecurity (Infringement Offences) Regulations 2010. It increases penalties and it also, as we’ve heard, gives the power to enable temporary visa holders to be withheld from or to leave the country if they fail to comply. So that’s pretty much it. There’s not a lot to the bill, but it’s useful. These members’ bills are, I think, often best when they are simple but have a clear reason to exist.

I live in the beautiful Bay of Plenty; Tauranga Moana is my home. One of the reasons I wanted to take a call on this bill tonight is because of the amazing agriculture that we have in our community.

Hon Member: Close to the glow of Hamilton.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: It’s not close to the glow of Hamilton; it is a jewel in its own right. So one of the things that we have, as people will be aware, is the Port of Tauranga, which is almost like an international airport, but for boats—OK, it’s getting late. So the reality is that we have a lot of stuff coming into our ports, and I wanted to just talk about something that I’ve talked often about with Zespri, our kiwifruit industry, as well—the brown marmorated stink bug. I have a prop, people. OK, there are two things that distinguish it from the normal stink beetle, but apparently if you squash it, it smells just the same. So this will decimate our industries here.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Is that the one that was on the PM’s shoulder the other day?

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: No, it is not the one that was on the PM’s shoulder. So this will decimate our industry. It is so very important, and I want to ask you all to keep an eye out for this, but also to be aware that if you come across a pest such as this, there is an 0800 number to ring. Go to the Ministry for Primary Industries—

Glen Bennett: Stop, drop, and roll.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: No stop, drop, and roll. Go to the Ministry for Primary Industries website and find out what to do if you come across these kinds of things. The other thing—because I love my oceans—is also a pest that we have in this country: it is the Asian paddle crab. Now, the Asian paddle crab has only just made it into Tauranga Moana. So one of the things that I’m asking the people of our community to do is—these things are edible—go out, make sure you identify them, eat them, get rid of them, because they will destroy our ocean environment as well.

So with the 30 seconds that I have left, I would just like to say that while it’s been a little bit of a joke and a little bit of a laugh tonight, so late in the day, I do think this is a really important piece of legislation. I do think that these are threats that are serious and should be taken seriously, and so, therefore, I do commend this bill to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I think there was a plain English bill earlier in the day—I think it was a pretty crap bill; sorry, that’s probably more colloquial than plain. But I thought—to make it relatively simple, I think this is a good bill.

Hon Member: Yeah.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Yeah. I want to commend Jacqui Dean for getting this bill up and, by the sounds of it, near unanimity, apart from the Green Party, who have yet again found an excuse not to sort of involve themselves.

A pretty simple bill. Pretty simple bill. Makes sense. I just flew back in to New Zealand recently, and thought to myself, $400 is not a lot of money; $1,000 might make people think a little bit further.

It’s a good bill. It’s a good bill. I think I’ve said it’s a good bill. There’s really not much more you could say. I could pause a bit more for dramatic effect. [Pauses] Probably just did.

Simeon Brown: Very plain English, Simon.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I think it’s great. I think it’s very plain English. Very simple. Not messing things up. No, it’s a very good bill. Jacqui Dean’s done well to bring it to the House. I’m pleased that there are a number of parties—hopefully, all—that support this. Anything we can do to protect our environment, our farmers, and our trades is worth supporting.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before I begin my speech this evening, this is the first time that I’ve stood in this House since the death of Queen Elizabeth II, and I just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge her passing—an exceptional woman who, when I was growing up in the Channel Islands, we referred to as the Queen Duke in acknowledgment of her ancient title of Duke of Normandy. I think it’s really important that we just acknowledge that 70 years of service to your community is an exceptional achievement. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for indulging me.

I’m rising in support of the Increased Penalties for Breach of Biosecurity Bill that’s been brought to the House by the Hon Jacqui Dean, and I’m absolutely delighted that you have had—sorry, not you, Mr Speaker, but that the Hon Jacqui Dean has had this bill drawn from the tin. Like many people, I watch Border Patrol with keen interest and watch with increasing horror as we pass through that half an hour, I believe it is, as insect-riddled objects and suitcases full of half decomposing fish and other food products were revealed to our eyes.

But the serious part of this is that the risk that it poses to our extraordinarily beautiful and precious country can’t really be overstated. I lived through the foot-and-mouth outbreak in the United Kingdom. I can still remember, even though I was relatively young, television footage at the time of mountains of cattle corpses that were burnt in farmers’ fields in an attempt to bring the disease under control, and heartbreaking scenes as farmers watched heritage strains of cattle being burnt in their fields—decades; in some cases, centuries of careful breeding by farmers who cared so deeply for their animals and lost their livelihoods. But, actually, the loss for them was far more personal and extraordinary and extremely touching, and it isn’t something that I would ever wish to see again, but particularly not for the farmers of New Zealand. So it is important that we do take strong action to protect our farmers, our biosecurity, our plants, and our native fauna as much as we possibly can.

Like many people, I fly pretty frequently because I was born in the United Kingdom and immigrated into New Zealand in 2004. I’ve flown backwards and forwards a fair few times from the UK, and I was one of those people that initially used to bring half a suitcase full of treats and snacks, full of the foods that I believed I couldn’t live without. But I was really careful to ensure that none of the foodstuffs that I brought posed a risk to our precious country here. One of the things that I used to bring by the kilo was proper Marmite, and the definition—

Rachel Brooking: No!

SARAH PALLETT: —of proper Marmite is the hill, Ms Brooking, on which I will die, but it doesn’t pose a risk to New Zealand.

I’ve also been part of a travelling party that experienced what we call the $400 tomato, as one of one of the members of our party had actually brought some food from where we were staying on to the plane for consumption on the plane and then completely forgotten about it. But as we’re aware, breaking the law, you can basically do it unintentionally. You can do it by accident. You can do it because you forgot. You could do it because you’re careless, but at the end of the day, that tomato did potentially pose a really significant risk to our precious lands here. So this bill would see the $400 tomato turn into the $1,000 tomato, and completely appropriately, in my view, because anything, as I say, that can discourage people from breaching those precious and important laws is to be encouraged. I commend this bill to select committee and to the House.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m delighted to take a call on this Increased Penalties for Breach of Biosecurity Bill.

I was very pleased to be in the House for the Hon Jacqui Dean’s first speech on this bill—and I’ll be here for her second one—and her description of a Saturday morning if you are an Otago- or Southland-based MP, because it was entirely accurate. In terms of, you wake up on a Saturday morning and quickly go to the Otago Daily Times website to see what Southern Say has said. It’s not always good. But I was delighted to read the particular Southern Say article that the Hon Jacqui Dean just quoted from, because, of course, Mike Houlahan was quite right. This is a simple bill but it’s an important one. He explained it very well.

From listening to the other speeches in the House tonight as well, I have learnt that I need to start watching that border control programme. It sounds very interesting, indeed. It’s something I’ve been missing out on.

Of course this is important because biosecurity is so important to New Zealand. There’s two main reasons why it’s so important, and we’ve heard that from the other speakers as well. One of them is because agriculture—the primary sector—is, of course, the backbone of the country, as we’ve heard from other speakers. We’ve got over $50 billion of export earnings from that sector estimated for this year. Of course, it’s just incredibly important, not only for our own food security but for that of the world. Some of our colleagues often say in this House that we can feed 40 million people, and that’s important.

Of course, the other reason why biosecurity is so important—well, why is biosecurity important to agriculture? It can, of course, destroy it. We’ve heard just then from Sarah Pallett about her experience in the UK with foot-and-mouth disease. We’ve been lucky—well, not just lucky; we’ve put a lot of money, a lot of investment, a lot of laws like this into avoiding things like foot-and-mouth because it can shut down the entire country. We saw those pictures in Britain in the early 2000s, I think, of the fires of those animals being burnt and the trauma that that caused for the communities that live there. It was a horrible time and not anything we want, which is, of course, why so much money has been put into M. bovis and to do that bold move in the past Government to try and exterminate it or eradicate it, because it has such dire consequences for our economy in that case.

The other arm of why biodiversity is so important is our indigenous flora and fauna. We know at the moment we’ve got myrtle rust. It’s a big problem. We don’t actually know how it got into the country. It might have been through some fruit from Australia, or it might have been on the wind. It’s a fungal issue. But these different pests, whether they are an animal or a fungi, can do great harm to our quite unusual indigenous biodiversity that, of course, we want to protect.

It’s for those reasons that we care about biosecurity, and we don’t want these things to come into our country. So that is, of course, what this bill does. It’s trying to dissuade people, incentivise people, to not bring in what was a $400 tomato and is now a $1,000 tomato. We’ve heard quite a lot about that change to the schedule, which makes the change from $400 to $1,000 in Part 3 of the bill. But it’s also important to note that sections 109 and 157 of the Immigration Act are amended, and that is where people don’t comply with the directions or a request made by a biosecurity officer. That is then something that becomes an offence, and it has got stronger standing than it does at the moment. So I think those would be good issues for the select committee to look at, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to thank members across the House for their very good contributions to this simple, small member’s bill of mine. I want to reflect how wonderful it is to sit in this House for nearly an hour and listen to biosecurity issues, to have a very good discussion around those threats to the economic wellbeing, the social wellbeing, and the environmental wellbeing of New Zealand. I think that this has largely been a non-partisan discussion with some very unique contributions, almost without exception, to what, I would argue, is one of the most pressing issues we have in New Zealand. And we all know what those are. We all know about M. bovis, we all know about foot-and-mouth, we all know about marmorated stink bugs—

Nicola Grigg: I didn’t.

Hon Member: We do now.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Well, we do now. And when you see a stink bug, you look at it really closely these days. But why do we do that? Because incursions across our border threaten our very way of life and they threaten our environment. And that has been the most satisfying part of this discussion.

I have to say, though, that Teanau Tuiono was struggling, and it took him a full 2½ minutes of his contribution to talk himself into not supporting this bill.

Simeon Brown: We know he wanted to.

Hon Member: He wanted to—he really did.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Well, my colleagues are saying he wanted to—I believe he did. And I can only reflect that we have in this Parliament the Green Party, which is becoming more and more disconnected from what really matters in New Zealand. And I would argue that for a party which calls itself green, they have failed to live up to their name tonight. But what I will say about other parties around the House is that there has been a near universal acknowledgment of those things that matter to us as citizens, as members of our communities, and as parliamentarians. And so I want to thank everybody very sincerely for that.

As I said, the Increased Penalties for Breach of Biosecurity Bill is a small bill that makes a couple of changes. It empowers Immigration officers to deport people who wish to bring things into New Zealand which will damage our environment, which will damage our community, which will damage our economy.

I do hope that the Primary Production Committee invite me to come along to consideration of the bill, because I remain very, very interested in its outcome. And once again, I do want to acknowledge the contributions across the House and thank you, members for your support. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Increased Penalties for Breach of Biosecurity Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 110

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10;

Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.

Noes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

That the Increased Penalties for Breach of Biosecurity Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is,

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.

Bills

Companies (Directors Duties) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā—a pleasure to take this call. I move, That the Companies (Directors Duties) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee to consider this bill.

Glen Bennett: Good committee.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Excellent committee, well led, and I do hope that it will get the opportunity to take this bill and really improve on what is, I think, a small but very good and important idea. All this bill really does is make it abundantly clear that companies are able to act as responsible corporate citizens. In effect, this bill will confirm, in law, what many companies have been doing for a long time: taking into account the wider impact that they have on society, the community, and the environment.

A company is a separate entity, it’s got its own legal rights, duties, and obligations. Importantly, those obligations are ring-fenced; directors and shareholders are not responsible for the liabilities of a limited liability company, except in extraordinary circumstances. But I think we’ve always got to remember that a company is a legal construct—it doesn’t have a mind or will of its own; it’s simply a creation of the law—and a director is an agent, and by duty of a company that he or she directs. They have a duty to “act in good faith and in what the director believes to be the best interests of the company.”—that’s what section 131 of the Companies Act says. And it’s always the law in relation to companies and, indeed, fiduciaries generally.

But somewhere along the way, the interests of the company have been conflated with making profits alone. It’s clear that a company must be solvent and mustn’t act recklessly, risking the creditors’ funds. However, it’s never been the law that there is a legal obligation on a director to seek to maximise profits at the expense of all else. While the law places minimum constraints on the behaviour of companies in respect of the activities of that company, I think we can expect more, and, by in large, companies deliver more.

So, first, this bill will enable companies to understand that the interests of a company—even a company which is seeking primarily to provide a return on investment to shareholders—can take into account a wide range of considerations in determining the best interests of the company. This shouldn’t be surprising; anyone who’s read Larry Fink’s 2021 letter to CEOs, in which he warned that companies who ignore stakeholders do so at their peril, would understand that even a company that seeks to maximise profits has to take into account the wider context in which it does business, and it’s only going to be sustainable in the long term if it does so. But, secondly, the bill recognises the really important place of companies which have, as a key objective, a goal other than profit, those entities which have, as their mission, some social impact, environmental, or other outcome. It’s long been the case that these entities, whatever you label them, have existed. However, often an incorporated company hasn’t been seen as an effective and useful vehicle. They’ve leaned towards other entities, like trusts, incorporated societies, friendly societies, industrial and providence societies, credit unions, and the list goes on.

But the need for a more flexible approach is clear, and that’s something that the Ākina Foundation, in its report Structuring for Impact: Evolving Legal Structures for Business in New Zealand, really points out. The fact is that the limited liability company is really flexible. It can be a useful vehicle for such projects: it can bring capital and shareholders together; it can bring together the disparate views of shareholders, in the form of a board of directors; and it can act as a legal person in entering into legal arrangements. So it’s no wonder that many social enterprises, impact companies, and B Corporations used a limited liability company as a vehicle. This bill will make that easier and better. I’m not sure it’s going to be quite the great leap forward that has been suggested by Andrew Davies of B Lab, but I do hope that it marks the beginning of a positive change, which was suggested by Steven Moe, another real champion of impact companies and investment in New Zealand.

The bill itself is short, even tiny. The operative clause is only a few hundred words at most, and it only adds one subsection to section 131 of the Companies Act. That section simply makes it clear that what we can take into account when determining what’s in the best interests of the company is much wider than perhaps has previously been put forward.

It’s interesting that the interest of a company has been departed from in the UK quite significantly. In their Act, they say that the directors must act to promote the interests and success of the company, but they take a much more modern formulation of that, which has much wider measures.

I do want to point out that this bill is my own formulation of what the law should look like, but I’m absolutely not wedded to it, and I really think the select committee has good work to do in examining carefully the proposed formulation and improving, adding, and perhaps even subtracting from it. So I really look forward to that and—as Jacqui Dean said previously in respect of her bill—I look forward to working with the committee on that.

I do invite the committee to consider all of those clauses. For example, the bill states in new section 131(5)(a) in clause 4 that the company may recognise the principles of Te Tiriti. I’m sure that the sentiment is clear that companies are able to put Māori interests, principles, and values to the fore; whether that’s the best formulation is another question. It may be that the net needs to be cast wider to take into account different and wider conceptions of Te Ao Māori interests, principles, and values to the fore; whether that’s the best formulation is another question. It may be that the net needs to be cast wider to take into account different and wider conceptions of Te Ao Māori. So I look forward to any expansion on that.

New section 131(5)(b) proposes that directors may take into account “reducing adverse environmental impacts”. Again, the objective, I think, is clear, but I’m not a scholar in that area. I’m sure that those words can be improved to better capture the ability of a company to take into account the impact it may have on sustainability and the environment more generally.

New section 131(5)(c) states that the company may seek to uphold high ethical standards. That could come in a number of forms, whether it’s sourcing goods that are certified as fair trade, or not sourced from areas occupied by belligerent forces—which we see in Ukraine and, of course, the West Bank—and also reassuring that its own products are marketed honestly and fairly. That’s not saying meeting the bare minimum legal standards but doing more and better, which may not reach the same profit standards, but it will be a more sustainable—in every sense of that word—business model, which puts perhaps at a higher rating, at a higher—

Angie Warren-Clark: Value.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —value—thank you—the interests of the community, customers, and stakeholders, rather than merely shareholders and profit-takers. So I really do hope that there are improvements to be made there.

In some ways, that’s simply an extension of following and, of course, protecting and promoting the interests of employees as relevant stakeholders. It’s a real labour value, and one that says that we should look to not just shareholders as part of the stakeholder kind of constellation but also employees as an important part of the health and wealth of any company.

So I think it’s really important that we look carefully at that and look at how it can be best expressed. But, really, what this is saying to the corporate world: “Let’s rethink what companies are. Let’s ask ourselves whether it might not be better to say: what is the purpose of a company?” Now, shareholders can, through a board of directors, say, “The purpose of this company is to give me money—to give me a return on investment.”, but I don’t think every shareholder is that venal. I think many shareholders want a much more balanced approach, and I want for shareholders to be able to speak to their directors, through the company vehicle, to say, “We put other values higher than mere profit and we want to see our capital used to improve the wellbeing of New Zealanders and the international community in a much different and better way.”

I think that this bill helps companies achieve that. It’s an enabling bill. It’s not a mandatory bill. I think it’s a real improvement and step forward, and I do hope that other parties around the House will support it, because what it does is it gives more rights and more freedoms to shareholders and directors to improve the welfare of a company’s shareholders and New Zealanders. Kia ora.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Where to start? Because what this member who’s brought the bill to the House really has said is that, actually, he’s not sure what companies are for and that he has written this bill himself but he’s not sure of quite what he said in each of the clauses and that the select committee should go away and try and fix this for him because he’s not a lawyer. He’s then gone on to say that, actually, although it’s not written in law and that it’s not necessarily the case because it’s not required by statute that all companies in New Zealand maximise profits above all else. What absolute rubbish. He quoted something that somebody said there supposedly in support.

Actually, if we look at what’s happened since the bill was drawn from the ballot, those of legal mind who work in this area every single day who go out on behalf of shareholders to prosecute companies’ directors that are not doing their jobs properly, but who advise companies large and small in New Zealand, including the Government, have said—at best, Roger Partridge, the chairman of the New Zealand Initiative, said, “The directors duties bill is well meaning but harmful.” I think he’s wrong; I think it’s well-meaning but, actually, will make no difference at all with the exception that what we know is when this Parliament passes a law, even when the law says you may do something—in this case, everything the member said they may do actually is already possible, and Companies New Zealand already consider these things. Many of them consider all of the things that he said that he wants them in law to say they may. But, actually, what happens—the courts and advisers to companies and lawyers and others say, “Parliament’s passed a law that says you may, but that means you actually must take it into account and consider it whilst you go about your duties.”

Now, he would say that’s a good thing, the member who’s brought the bill before the committee, but the problem with good intentions is actually the consequence thereafter when it enters into law. All we need to do is look at the Government backtracking quickly a short time ago around the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill (CCCFA), which was well intended; it was actually well-meaning. We were told by the Minister in the House that it was really only to clarify, and nothing would change, but, actually, what has happened is banks have decided they have to take completely what Parliament has suggested to an extreme, and people can’t get their mortgages, who previously would have been able to. And there’s extra greater cost there—so much so that the Minister has said that we’re going to have to fix that, less than year after it’s come into effect.

So the problem that we have when a member stands up in this House and says, “I’ve written this bill myself; I’m not a lawyer. These are the things I intend it to do. However, I’m not sure it will do that because there’s lots of ways to read it. Please, select committee, can you make sure you can fix this for me, as the unintended consequence will be actually greater challenge and cost and altering of what businesses do.”

Now, here’s an example of how it could go so very, very wrong, because in saying “may”, there will be companies around the country where directors say, “Well, Parliament says we may do this, so we should consider it.” And they may take action which means they’re not able to pay their debtors, they’re not able to pay their bills, and they’ve had to weigh that up and say, “Well, we think we want to consider the Treaty and environmental impacts and other things.” And they make decisions that mean they’re not able to pay their bills. No, it’s not about insolvency as the member has said; it’s, actually, directors of a company have a duty to make sure, yes, they’re solvent; and, two, they can pay their bills.

Actually, what this is doing where they’re already able to consider these things but they have an obligation—not about profit but about running a company properly, paying their tax, paying their bills, making sure that their debtors are not put at a disadvantage and that they will receive payment for their services, they now will have other things they need to consider. And there will be cases—just as we saw with the CCCFA which had a different consequence than we were told as a Parliament—where people don’t pay their bills to directors and they will have a defence.

Chapman Tripp, who I have a lot of respect for—I don’t have a lot of respect for all lawyers or law firms, but, in this case, this is a very, very serious company—has gone through this bill in detail, talked about the bits that could be helpful, the bits that are not harmful, but the bits actually that not necessarily could cause harm, and have come to the conclusion and said it’s virtue signalling: “In our view, the bill adds nothing to existing law of directors’ duties, and is a virtue signal to the stakeholder theory of corporate governance.”

Well, if that’s the case, why didn’t this member actually take the time to talk more widely, seek advice, talk to those that are experts in this area who know about drafting, and come up with something that would actually have the intention of what he wants, which is better corporate governance? This won’t do it. This House passing a piece of legislation, merely saying you may do some things that you’re already able to under law but we’re going to confuse this by writing it in law, rather than a company director being able to consider things that are important for that company, actually is not a good use of the House’s time, and it’s not a good use of the member’s bill process, because there are so very many important issues that this House actually could do something about. Sadly, this is not one of them.

You know, directors have to uphold ethical standards already. They must do. They must meet the requirements of New Zealand law when it comes to the environment. They must do that—they must do that. If the law says there’s an environmental standard, they must meet it. If they don’t, they are breaking the law. We heard an example from the member who’s moved the bill who said earlier—

Dr Duncan Webb: Do better. Aim higher.

Hon TODD McCLAY: He’s very angry now because he realises he should have done a bit more work. But we’ve heard from the member earlier that there are companies that go out there who wilfully promote their products, knowing that they won’t do what they’ve said. That’s already against the law. This is not a good piece of legislation. It’s not a good use of the House time. In essence, at best, it is virtue signalling, but it will end up being harmful, and the National Party will be voting against it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House is suspended and I’ll resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting to consider Government orders of the day. Thank you everyone for your day’s work.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 9.58 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 21 SEPTEMBER 2022

(continued on Thursday, 22 September 2022)

SPEAKER: Kāti rā tēnā rā tātou katoa. Kei te haere tonu te Whare i tēnei ata i runga i te tukunga iho o rātou mā te wāhi ngaro, Matua, Tama, Wairua Tapu me ngā Anahera Pono, te Māngai hei tautoko mai, āianei ake nei, āe.

[Greetings to you all. The sitting of the House continues this morning on the auspices of those of the divine realm, the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, and the Faithful Angels, with support of the Speaker, now and for ever, amen.]

The House has resumed for the extended sitting. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Maniapoto Claims Settlement Bill.

Bills

Maniapoto Claims Settlement Bill

In Committee

Parts 1 to 7, Schedules 1 to 6, and clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Maniapoto Claims Settlement Bill. I’ll remind members that it will be helpful for members to ask multiple questions, if they have them, of the member in charge during their call. We come to first to the debate on Part 1.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I seek leave for all questions to be taken as one.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is no objection.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Just for the benefit of many in the committee, we have a technical process to go through. There are some very minor amendments that have to be made to the Maniapoto Claims Settlement Bill, and, largely, that reflects the changes in other legislation that have happened since the deed was signed. So there is a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name, and it’s Supplementary Order Paper 235. It makes those minor and technical changes that I talked about, and this is not in the order in which they appear in the bill. The first concerns auditing requirements, the second clarifies the date of transfer of the emissions units, and the third is a change to the name of the relevant health authority, which follows the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act, which we passed earlier this year.

Clauses 203 and 212 of the bill require the final financial report of the Maniapoto Māori Trust Board and the Maniapoto Fisheries Trust to be audited by the Office of the Auditor-General. But, as the Maniapoto Māori Trust Board and the Maniapoto Fisheries Trust are not public entities, it’s not appropriate or required for the Auditor-General to carry out that audit. That reflects changes made to the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955, so that requirement is removed.

The second point, as I said, relates to forestry emissions—so the emissions that accrue for certain forests—because there will be rights to Crown forest - licensed land transferred to Maniapoto. The practice has been for the rights to the units to transfer at the time of settlement. The Forestry Emission Unit Trust advised the Government early this year that the law appears to be that the right to those units doesn’t accrue until legal title to the land has passed, but, as we find with many settlements and the transfer of Crown forestry land, that can take up to five years, which would mean that the iwi would miss out on the benefit of those units. So the amendment in this SOP means that the transfer of those emissions units happens on settlement, not on transfer of title of the land.

Then the final change is that the reference to “the Waikato District Health Board”, which was in the original version of the bill. It is now changed to “Health New Zealand”, which is the legal name of the entity Te Whatu Ora—Health New Zealand, which has taken over the responsibility for all the old district health boards. So that change has been made as well.

None of the changes affects the redress package, they’re all very minor, and the changes have all been agreed between the negotiating parties. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House with those technical changes.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 235 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Parts 1 to 7, Schedules 1 to 6, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended stand part.

Parts 1 to 7, Schedules 1 to 6, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Maniapoto Claims Settlement Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

SPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, this bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I present a legislative statement on the Maniapoto Claims Settlement Bill.

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

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Maniapoto Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.

Tākiri mai ana te ata

Kia rongo a ngākau mārohirohi

Korihi ana te manu kaupapa

Ka ao, ka ao, ka awatea

Tihe mauri ora.

E mihi ana ki a koutou kua tae mai nei i runga i te karanga o te kaupapa o te rā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. E mihi ana ki te hunga mate, haere, haere, haere atu rā. Ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā tātou.

Kia whakamānawatia ngā mana o ēnei whenua e tū āhuru nei. Tēnei au, otirā mātou te kāwanatanga e mihi nei ki te kaupapa o te wā. Maniapoto, kua hīkoi koutou te hīkoi roa kia tae mai ki tēnei rā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[The morning has dawned

A brave heart is heeded

The bird of purpose sings

It is day, it is day, it is daylight

Behold there is life.

I acknowledge those who have come here today for this occasion. Greetings to you all. I acknowledge those who have passed, rest in peace. To the living present, I greet you.

Let us honour the authorities of these comfortable lands. The Government and I acknowledge this occasion. Maniapoto, you have traversed a great distance to get here to this day, greetings to you all.]

This is a significant day for Maniapoto and for the Crown. I’m honoured to move the Maniapoto Claims Settlement Bill to be enacted into law and for Maniapoto to finally receive the benefits of a settlement that has been long hard fought for and which is long overdue.

I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge the passing of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Last week, Parliament adjourned in order for this House and New Zealanders to pay their respects to Her Majesty, but last week we were scheduled to have this reading in the House, and so much effort has had to go into rescheduling, not so much for this House but for the many representatives of Maniapoto who are here today. I want to acknowledge the patience and understanding of those who have had to reorganise their schedules in order to be here for this third reading today. It has allowed us to appropriately mark our respects for Her Majesty, and appropriately pay respect to Maniapoto and this significant day for you.

We are joined in the House this morning by Maniapoto, who have travelled to Wellington from all parts of the motu to witness this final reading of their settlement bill. I want to extend, again, my warm welcome to you all, not just to those in the House but to those who are watching at Pipitea Marae and those who are watching at home in the rohe, Te Rohe Pōtae, because we know just how significant this bill is and how significant this reading is. This is a momentous occasion and it is testament to the significance of the settlement to your iwi and, actually, to the whole of Aotearoa New Zealand.

I acknowledge Te Nehenehenui, the post-settlement governance entity of Maniapoto, and all members of the Maniapoto negotiating team. Maniapoto representatives in the House today include Bella Takiari-Brame, chair of Te Nehenehenui; Matua Tiwha Bell, former chair of the Maniapoto Māori Trust Board; Matua Pat Stafford; and other kaumātua, trust board members, and staff. I also want to acknowledge the tūpuna who began this settlement journey for Maniapoto and who are no longer with us today. This settlement could not have happened without the determination and dedication of all those involved.

I acknowledge my colleagues in the House who whakapapa to Maniapoto, especially the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, the former lead negotiator for Maniapoto, who began the negotiation process and for whom this settlement carries special significance. I acknowledge the previous Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson, who began the settlement journey with Maniapoto. And I acknowledge all my colleagues in the House—those who were there this morning at Pipitea Marae to welcome Maniapoto and to welcome Maungārongo, the taonga that Maniapoto has lent this House for the period of five years as an expression of their trust in this House and the Crown.

As we celebrate this milestone, it’s important to reflect on where we have come from. In 1840, your tūpuna signed the Treaty at Kāwhia and at the heads of the Waikato River. Maniapoto rangatira, including Taonui Hīkaka and Haupōkia Te Pakaru, put their trust in the Crown and the commitments that the Crown then made. But the Crown abused that trust, and over the last 180 years, the Crown repeatedly breached the solemn promises it made under Te Tiriti. It indiscriminately killed and injured your people during the Waikato Wars, including women and children, who were non-combatants. One such event, when the Crown attacked Rangiaowhia Pā, was so atrocious that we are now working with your whanaunga, separate from your settlement, to address this mamae.

Following confrontations with the Crown, it subsequently labelled your people as rebels and confiscated land in which you had interests. Despite strained economic circumstances, you provided shelter and manaakitanga to your whanaunga who were displaced by the wars and by raupatu—a responsibility which the Crown discharged. It’s to the Crown’s great shame that it treated you with such disdain and disrespect. In these circumstances, it’s understandable that you enacted a puru, or an aukati, to preserve mana whakahaere over your rohe. Your dedication to keep your lands and people safe, both then and today, is resolute and is a quality to be admired.

Over the 1880s, the Crown and Maniapoto engaged in negotiations and agreements to remove the aukati, manage Maniapoto land, and allow the passage of the North Island main trunk railway, Te Ara-o-Tūrongo. These agreements were known as Te Ōhākī Tapu.

As described by the esteemed rangatira Rewi Maniapoto, Te Ōhākī Tapu was like the planting of a tree of goodwill so that both parties could enjoy its fruits. But, again, the Crown dishonoured its promises. The railway was supposed to bring prosperity to your tūpuna, and the Crown was to only purchase as much land as was required for its construction. So the aukati was withdrawn, construction began on Te Ara-o-Tūrongo, and the vast tide of Crown purchasing swept into Te Nehenehenui. That’s why the symbolism of so many of Maniapoto who have come to Te Whanganui-a-Tara today by train is so important. It reflects what happened at that time.

It is right that the Crown atones for the pain and suffering it has caused your people. The Crown will deliver its long-overdue apology at Te Tokanganui-ā-Noho marae on 4 December this year, following the 150th anniversary of that great wharenui, and I look forward to accompanying the Prime Minister as she delivers that apology.

You have brought with you, as I said before, the taiaha Maungārongo. He will be on display at Parliament for the next five years. This taiaha has been used by Maniapoto to guard the boundaries of the aukati. When the aukati was withdrawn in 1885, the rangatira Wahanui gifted Maungārongo to the Crown, symbolising the coming of peace between the Crown and Maniapoto. We regard Maniapoto’s offer to lend the taiaha to Parliament for five years as a gesture of reconciliation. This taonga is a symbol of our renewed partnership.

Maniapoto’s association with their whenua is central to their history. Maniapoto have a deeply felt responsibility as kaitiaki in their rohe that has been passed down through the generations.

No settlement package can ever fully compensate Maniapoto for the magnitude of loss you have suffered. It’s a testament to your extraordinary grace that Maniapoto have chosen to accept the current package and move towards a period of reconciliation with the Crown. With $165 million in financial redress and a commitment from the Crown to establish a true Treaty partnership which supports the aspirations of the iwi, I’m confident that Maniapoto will have the means to chart their own path.

I express gratitude to the Maniapoto kaumātua and tūpuna who took the first steps towards reconciliation. They had a clear vision, and I deeply regret that many are no longer with us to witness this momentous occasion where their vision becomes a reality.

I must acknowledge the hard work of the Maniapoto Māori Trust Board, and, in particular, its two chairs throughout negotiations, Tiwha Bell and Keith Ikin. Negotiations can be long and difficult. However, through this time, you did not compromise on the values and aspirations at the heart of this settlement, and you’ve worked tirelessly to persist to achieve the best for your people.

I have absolute faith that Te Nehenehenui will continue to lead Maniapoto with the same foresight and integrity, and I wish the new chair of Te Nehenehenui, Bella Takiari-Brame, and her team well. I want to also thank and acknowledge all the Crown agencies who worked on the settlement, and the chief Crown negotiator, David Tapsell, for leading the Crown team.

Lastly, I thank all the people of Maniapoto for your strength, determination, and dedication in carrying this important kaupapa. Today, we reaffirm the Maniapoto-Crown relationship. Your strength and independence means you do not need the Crown to guide you. It’s important that the Crown respects your mana whakahaere as we grow our partnership. Today marks a new beginning in realising the promises made to Maniapoto, and it’s my sincere hope that this settlement and new partnership based on mutual trust, respect, and cooperation will provide for the future wellbeing and prosperity of Maniapoto. Kia tau ko te maungārongo ki a tātou katoa.

[Let there be peace among us all.]

I commend the Maniapoto Claims Settlement Bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

SPEAKER: Ko te pātai kia whakaaetia te mōtini.

[The question is that the motion be agreed to.]

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, huri noa i te Whare nei e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Tēnei te mihi, nau mai haere mai te iwi o Ngāti Maniapoto. Nō reira, mauria mai ō whakaako ki te kaupapa, e huihui ā tākata. E mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Greetings to the Speaker of the House, greetings to all. To the tribe of Ngāti Maniapoto, I acknowledge and welcome you. Therefore, bring your teachings to this matter that brings people together. Acknowledgments to you all.]

It is a pleasure to rise, as the member for Southland and the National Party spokesperson for Treaty negotiations, in support of this legislation’s third and final reading. To the elders, leaders, and members of Ngāti Maniapoto who are witnessing this auspicious and significant moment—either here within Parliament or from their homes, or wherever in the world they may be—I extend a very warm welcome. This settlement, this bill, and this process is about you. It’s about your tūpuna. It’s about your uri. Ngāti Maniapoto have waited a very long time to reach this point, especially since it’s taken over 30 years to complete the process between Ngāti Maniapoto and the Crown, but, obviously, this story goes back much further.

There are many things that we can disagree upon in this House, but one thing that we agree on across all parties is this process of a Treaty settlement, and I think that is a very special thing that we can reflect on and see as we have all the members of Ngāti Maniapoto in the House today. The finalisation of this settlement and its journey through the House of Representatives is testament to the decades of hard work and negotiations between Ngāti Maniapoto and the Crown, and it signifies the beginning of a new relationship between both parties based on trust, cooperation, and a commitment to living up to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

I also note that this bill completes a settlement process which began under the former Treaty negotiations Minister Christopher Finlayson under the then National-led Government, and I note that the then Minister Finlayson went to Kāwhia to meet Ngāti Maniapoto elders and negotiators, visited sites of significance, and then signed the agreement in principle with Ngāti Maniapoto in 2017. I recognise the leadership and efforts of the current Minister of Treaty negotiations, Andrew Little, who has shepherded this process through to completion today. I also acknowledge the efforts of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta as former lead negotiator, for whom this is of special significance.

We also acknowledge the tireless efforts of Ngāti Maniapoto negotiators and, as Minister Little said, the tūpuna who have done much work over the years prior. Some, unfortunately, cannot be here to see this today, but we remember them. We also acknowledge the Te Arawhiti officials, who have worked tirelessly as well through this journey.

Ngāti Maniapoto’s legacy is etched into the history of the King Country and into Aotearoa New Zealand. Had it not been for the generosity of Ngāti Maniapoto leaders in times past, the construction of the North Island main trunk railway through the King Country, which was begun in 1885, would have been delayed for many a year. I note the significance and the symbolism in the fact that many members of Ngāti Maniapoto have travelled here today by train to witness this historic moment, and I also note the extraordinary significance of the taonga taiaha Maungārongo, which is being entrusted by Maniapoto to be cared for here in Parliament for five years to symbolise that this is a relationship that is beginning on trust between the Crown and Ngāti Maniapoto. This is powerful symbolism of that agreement.

The Maniapoto settlement package is one of the largest ever negotiated. It includes financial redress which will in total be worth approximately $177 million, relationship agreements with various Crown agencies, the transfer of 36 sites back to Maniapoto as cultural redress, the first right to purchase Crown lands in the future, an agreed historical account, and an acknowledgment of Treaty breaches and a formal apology for those breaches.

Ngāti Maniapoto’s historical grievances relate to loss of life in conflicts with the Crown and to bearing the costs of the New Zealand Wars. The Crown deliberately undermined Maniapoto independence, failed to uphold promises made in the 1880s relating to Maniapoto land administration and self-determination, and acquired Maniapoto land in an aggressive manner.

The historical relationship between Ngāti Maniapoto and the Crown carries a legacy of socio-economic and cultural deprivation. Key grievances of Ngāti Maniapoto relate to the Crown’s invasion of the Waikato region and the confiscation of that part of the Maniapoto lands which lay north of the Pūniu River. The impact of this invasion and the ensuing conflict on Maniapoto included the loss of life, the destruction of property, and the significant burden of providing shelter to refugees; the loss of independence and territorial autonomy, which Ngāti Maniapoto had held until the 1880s; the Crown’s failure to uphold various agreements made in the 1880s relating to Maniapoto land administration and self-determination; the aggressive way the Crown acquired Ngāti Maniapoto land using monopoly powers and various forms of unreasonable pressure; and substantial public works takings, particularly for the Tokanui hospital and Waikeria Prison.

This settlement contains an apology from the Crown for its acts and omissions in breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi—and the acknowledgment that the Crown failed to uphold its promises in Te Ōhākī Tapu in breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi. Specific breach acknowledgments in the deed include acting unjustly and sending Crown forces across the Mangatāwhiri River during the Waikato War, including indiscriminately killing non-combatants and looting and destroying property; breaching the Treaty by confiscating land in which Ngāti Maniapoto had interests; unfairly labelling Ngāti Maniapoto as rebels and failing to provide for refugees entering the Maniapoto rohe; and also failing to protect Ngāti Maniapoto tribal structures from the operation and impact of the native land laws, particularly the individualisation of tribal lands, which led to massive alienation of the tribal lands Ngāti Maniapoto had cherished for centuries.

There’s also cultural redress, which recognises the traditional historical, cultural, and spiritual associations of Ngāti Maniapoto in places and sites in their rohe which are owned by the Crown. This allows Ngāti Maniapoto and the Crown to protect and enhance the conservation values associated with those sites. The settlement will vest 36 sites of cultural significance in Ngāti Maniapoto, including three jointly vested sites.

As I noted at the outset, the National Party supports this settlement and it is very pleased to see it come to its third and final reading today. No settlement will ever compensate for the mamae that Ngāti Maniapoto have endured for many generations, but it has been a long journey, and we acknowledge that for Ngāti Maniapoto to reach the point that we are today.

This settlement is, ultimately, not just about the past; it’s not just about the present, but it is about the future aspirations, the future mana, and the future success of Ngāti Maniapoto across future generations. It is my sincere hope that this settlement will lay the foundation for an aspirational future for the people of Ngāti Maniapoto, whether it be in Te Rohe Pōtae—the King Country—in and around Te Kūiti, Ōtorohanga, and Te Awamutu, or wherever whānau may be. This settlement forges a new relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Maniapoto and it will be a real catalyst for growth and empowerment for present and future generations. The National Party commends this bill to the House. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour):

Whakataka te hau ki te uru

Whakataka te hau ki te tonga

Kia mākinakina ki uta

Kia mātaratara ki tai

E hī ake ana te atakura

He tio, he huka, he hauhū

Tihei mauri ora!

Ka hoki ngā mahara ki a rātou mā kua wehe atu ki te pō, ngā mate kei waenga i a koutou, ngā mate kāore i konei mō tēnei rā whakahirahira, nō reira ngā mate haere, haere, haere atu rā. Rātou ki a rātou, tātou ki a tātou. Ngāti Maniapoto, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Tainui waka, Tainui tangata, he uri tēnei o Te Arawa e mihi atu nei ki a koutou i tēnei wā tonu nei. He tino hoa tātou i a tātou, mai i te hoenga mai o Tainui waka, o Te Arawa waka i Hawaiki. Nō reira, e aku whanaunga, tēnā rawa atu koutou.

[Cease oh winds of the west and of the south

Let the bracing breezes flow over the land and the sea

Let the red-tipped dawn come with a sharpened edge, a touch of frost, a promise of a glorious day!

The breath of life!

We remember those who have passed, the bereavements among you, those who have passed and cannot be here for this auspicious day, therefore rest in peace. Let those who have passed be together, and return to those who are here. Ngāti Maniapoto, greetings to you all.

Tainui waka, the people of Tainui, as a descendant of Te Arawa I acknowledge you at this time. We have been great friends, since the paddling here of the Tainui and Te Arawa waka from Hawaiki. Therefore, my kinsmen, I greet you.]

From the very days that we left Hawaiki, Te Arawa and Tainui have had a very special relationship, and we carry that today. On your very significant day, we stand by you—yes, physically—because, back home, we’re neighbours, but, today, on your significant day, it’s appropriate that we mihi to you and this, your special settlement. We acknowledge those that are not here, our kuia and our koroua who have passed on and who are unable to be here to witness this very, very special occasion.

As chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, it’s never an easy task to listen to the submissions, and I want to thank everybody who made submissions to our committee. They tuned in online—it was at a time where we couldn’t be together—and we heard submissions from all around the country, actually, because, as we heard this morning in the pōwhiri, over 90 percent of Ngāti Maniapoto don’t live in the rohe of Ngāti Maniapoto. So we had submissions coming in from all over the place, and that was very special—some people that were very supportive of this settlement; some people that didn’t want a bar of it—but we have to make a decision, and we have to go with it. We have to consider the best interests of the majority of the people, and that’s the place that we’ve arrived at today.

To those people listening at home, I’m a history graduate, so this is a masterclass, actually, in how the Crown, in days gone by, sought to completely annihilate a tribe, to take away everything that they had going for them, and to test them—to test them in every way possible. Throughout the course of the submission hearings, in getting a real deep understanding of the plight of Ngāti Maniapoto, it’s been a history that I hope that all children around New Zealand get to understand, especially the children within the rohe of Ngāti Maniapoto.

I am pleased that we, as a Government, have made it so that we will be teaching our New Zealand history in schools, and Treaty settlements are a huge part of that. There’s so much to learn, and the Crown has a big role to play in that learning.

The Crown, through this settlement, acknowledges all of the wrongs that it has done. We, the people that occupy these seats at this point in time, look back in horror at the kinds of things that happened to the people of Ngāti Maniapoto over time. It is lived history; it is traumatic history, and the people that are sitting here in this gallery and all of those people of Ngāti Maniapoto that are watching from Pipitea Marae, that are listening at home on the radio, and that may be watching Parliament TV are the uri of that trauma. They carry that on their shoulders, and it’s nothing to be overlooked or to diminish. This is a very significant thing.

In the Crown acknowledgments of the settlement bill—how do you take down a tribe? Well, first of all, you take away their language. As with many iwi around the country who have had to endure and many iwi that have come to this House to settle their historical Treaty claims, many say that they lost their language, and, actually, the loss of language is a huge thing. It’s one way to strip a culture of everything that makes them unique.

The Crown at the time sought to open up the main trunk line, and I note the appropriateness that, for many of our whānau who have travelled here today, they came on the train—the train that has been a gift and a curse in both respects. It was a gift because it opened up opportunities for New Zealand and it was Ngāti Maniapoto that put that up. It was Ngāti Maniapoto land that the main trunk line went through, and the Crown didn’t really uphold its bargain in returning that same value of economic benefit back to the people of Ngāti Maniapoto, and, for that, the Crown apologises.

Before 1840, Ngāti Maniapoto were the sole kaitiaki of Te Nehenehenui, and, over time, the Crown ignored its responsibilities according to the Treaty—the Te Tiriti partnership—to be able to look after Te Nehenehenui. Again, take away the language and take away the environment, and you’re doing a really good job of stripping a people of everything that they find special. For far too long, the Crown has ignored the inadequate housing, the inadequate education, and the inadequate healthcare of the people, and the inadequate employment opportunities of the people.

I was shocked to find that, in the first four decades of the 20th century, there were lower pensions for the people of Ngāti Maniapoto than there were for the rest of New Zealand. I was also shocked to find out that, actually, when it came to conscription—the forced enrolment of people to go to war when we had the First World War—Ngāti Maniapoto were conscripted from the Waikato-Maniapoto district. Despite the fact that the Crown knew that Ngāti Maniapoto were coming forward voluntarily to participate in the First World War, they still conscripted men, and there were men that went away and there were men that died and they are the grandparents and the koroua of some of the people that are here honouring this very significant day.

The Crown also acknowledged that it further acquired Ngāti Maniapoto land through compulsory takings for what they called scenery preservation. It acquired 3,000 acres of Ngāti Maniapoto land when it knew that all it needed was a few hundred acres for the purpose at the time. It was unjust and it was wrong.

It’s a big burden to carry all of that. It’s packed on to their shoulders, and it makes this an incredibly humbling experience to be somebody who stands here, on behalf of the Crown, as a Māori and as Te Arawa, to acknowledge everything that the Crown did and to hope that, in the future, by acknowledging everything that went wrong—the warts and all—by acknowledging the bloodshed that happened, and by acknowledging the role that the Crown had to play in this here, the hope is that we can move forward. For that, you have to give kudos to Ngāti Maniapoto for even being here: for going through this process, for being humble enough to sit at the table, and for being humble enough to have brought a gift with them this morning—their maungārongo—to actually acknowledge the reconciliation that they want and to understand the role that the Crown has played, the wrong that the Crown has played, in their historical journey.

So to you, Ngāti Maniapoto, we stand by you today on this, your incredibly significant day. As our Minister, Andrew Little, said, we’ll come to your rohe and we will stand there on the marae, shoulder to shoulder, as the Crown representatives. We will stand by our Prime Minister as she reads that apology to you and we will be there to grieve with you. Our tears will flow, our noses will run, but, actually, it’s something that we need to complete this healing process.

I acknowledge you all for having gone through this. It’s not easy—it’s not easy for you; it’s not easy for us—but it’s necessary for you, as a people to be able to move forward for the benefit of your tamariki mokopuna, who will inherit, hopefully, the good stuff and acknowledge the other stuff that happened. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, mauri ora ki a tātou katoa.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would really like to put out a heartfelt thanks to Maniapoto for the special event that we held at dawn this morning. It was such a pleasure to be there, and I want to thank Teanau Tuiono for helping me. I’m not one of those in the House that has great te reo, but, between Teanau and Tāmati Coffey, they helped me through a few things, and it’s like who am I, as “Ngāti Pākehā”, to be here standing here, talking to you? But you’re in my heart. I really felt in my heart what happened this morning, and it was absolutely beautiful and it was such a pleasure to be there.

I also want to acknowledge the gift of the taonga that you are going to trust Parliament with for a period of five years. That’s a big call because this is not a place that Maniapoto or many other iwi have any reason to trust. I think that all of the dialogue that’s gone in the past few years in terms of getting to this place has been building trust, and I really want to thank you for that opportunity.

It’s been a very long road for you, and it’s also been a very difficult year for you because earlier in the year, when I went to the signing of the deed of settlement, most of Te Kūiti had COVID, a lot of Ōtorohanga had COVID, and there were only a few people here that could actually participate in that very significant event, and that was noted. But, goodness, haven’t we noticed you all arriving here today, and I am really taken by the way you’ve arrived on that train. With all of the injustices that have been done to you through building that main trunk line, you’ve come here today and you’ve shown this country that Maniapoto is back, so good on you.

I also just wanted to say that I want to acknowledge the loss of the Queen and I want to acknowledge that there has been substantial reorganisation in your path to get here, as you were supposed to be here a week ago, and the death of the Queen has actually delayed that. I would like to mention her passing and acknowledge the new King. But what I would also say is that while we’re changing a few things in this country and Queen’s Counsel are turning into King’s Counsel and we’ll be looking at banknotes and all of those sorts of things as to how we develop in the new world, the King Country was the King Country, and your rohe is the King Country, and so no name changes up there—you can be very proud of where we all come from.

I would like to acknowledge, first of all, the Hon Chris Finlayson, who’s now a KC, for starting this work and going out to the beautiful place of Kāwhia—the King Country and the Maniapoto area is really one of the most beautiful areas in this country—and starting that work. I would like to acknowledge the Hon Nanaia Mahuta for the work she did through this process—incredibly, she is one of the people that got us to where we are today—and then, of course, the Hon Andrew Little for coming through and finishing this process with you.

It’s always a beautiful time in the House when we do Treaty settlements. It’s always very emotional, and, most of the time, what you see in this House can be fairly argy-bargy, but what I love is the collective agreement of how everybody works together to make these days very peaceful and heartfelt.

I’m not going to go through some of the history, because I could never could portray the history like Tom Roa portrays the history. Watching a programme on television recently and the stories that come together—I just feel your pride today, and I feel the way that we’ve acted together. But what I would like to acknowledge is all of you. I would like to acknowledge Tiwha Bell, and the other person I would like to acknowledge while I’m acknowledging Tiwha is Leah Bell. So in my first year in Parliament—it’s eight years this week since I arrived here—the first Youth MP that I had was Leah Bell, and Leah did you all proud. She was a wonderful Youth MP to have. I bumped into her recently in the street and I had a chat, and she really carries your mana extremely well and it gives me great pleasure in knowing that your wonderful younger people—and we saw some of them this morning—are going to keep everything up with the mana of you all.

I’d also like to acknowledge Keith Ikin, who’s come in more recently and taken over, and all of you that have been involved. It’s been no easy path and there’s obviously been some give and take along the way, and I—it’s always a deficient moment when we do these Treaty settlements, because the generosity. We can never make up for what happened—none of us in here can ever make up for it—and it always strikes me as very generous of anyone who settles in this way, because we can’t make up for everything that has been lost, but what we can do is we can move forward together. I’ve only known a number of you for about eight years and many of you I still have to get to know, and the last 2½ years of COVID has made it much more difficult for us to interact with each other, but I want to just mention the apology because that’s really important.

When we did the Parihaka settlement, that was really interesting for me because I went to school with a lot of those people. I always think back to those days—when we were at school, no one ever talked about it. It was almost like it was history. It was buried, it was done, no one talked about it, and we always knew that Parihaka was up that road. None of us ever knew the significance of it, we didn’t know what it was for, and I just thank goodness every day that we’re starting to make progress and we’re coming a long way in interacting as people together.

So while I don’t have the long association with Maniapoto as I do with Parihaka in Taranaki, where I come from, I’ve certainly appreciated the eight years so far that I’ve been able to interact with many of you, and I think what’s going to happen from here on in—obviously, some of these sites that are associated with this and that you’ve negotiated in this piece of legislation are wonderful. You know, Kāwhia Harbour, the most beautiful place in the world; the Marokopa Falls scenic reserve—I mean, I’m not going to read all these out, but there’s just some fantastic places in here.

I think, probably, the places that we speak about less favourably over the years are places like Tokanui, which were taken. The history of that place is nothing to be excited about. There are a lot of sad memories for people who went through in a time in our history when we actually didn’t understand mental wellbeing as well as we currently do. It was an awful time.

So it’ll be great seeing all the work going on to restore what has been settled, and I look forward to working together for you. I’m sure, from now on in, every time I sit in Stoked Eatery and the train goes past, it’s going to bring back memories of today and this morning. I think it’s just absolutely fantastic that you’ve all arrived and that you’ve all been able to get here.

With that, I’m just going to say well done, congratulations, thank you, and let’s move on with the future and find some great opportunities together. Thank you.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Tuatahi e mihi ana ki a koutou Ngāti Maniapoto, i whakarangatira i a mātou i tēnei wā. Rawe, rawe ki te kite i a koutou i tēnei rā, nau mai, he rawe kei konei katoa. Ka whakanuia mātou e koe i te aroaro. Ka kite ahau i a koutou katoa, ka kite i tōku whaea, i a Ngāti Maniapoto i ngā rā katoa, ia rā. Koirā te take he rā pai tēnei ki ahau, he aha hoki tana tino whakahīhī. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, haramai, nau mai.

[Firstly, I acknowledge you, Ngati Maniapoto, who have honoured us by your presence today. It is great to see you today, welcome, it is great to have you all here. We are honoured by you being here in our presence. I see you all, I see my mother, I see Ngāti Maniapoto on all days, every day. This is why this is a good day, it is also very proud. I acknowledge and welcome you.]

Lovely to see you all here today to celebrate this kaupapa, and a special thanks, as our Minister said, to chair Bella Takiari, Matua Tiwha Bell, the former chair Matua Pat Stafford, and Keith Ikin. It’s just terrific, some of the work and some of the contributions that have been made in terms of Ngāti Maniapoto. But I want to say that today is not a sombre occasion; this is an occasion to celebrate. We can be happy, and we can have a laugh too—we can have a laugh too. It’s not all doom and gloom.

I want to celebrate the chief negotiator of Ngāti Maniapoto, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta—homai te pakipaki for Nanaia. I’m really, really proud of her, as other Māori members are, because she was the chief negotiator and she had to work with Mook Hohneck and Peter Douglas. I mean, that must have been tough, you know? It must have been tough to manage those two and get through a Treaty process, and we know how hard that Treaty settlement process is, as you go from Māngere down to Piopio and to all the different areas.

I want to say to the tuāhines—who, as we know, are going through a bit of a tough time at the moment—kei te pai. We’re all here to celebrate—we’re all here to celebrate—and, you know, I always say that if you don’t have a conflict of interest, you can’t be a Māori anyway. But we won’t go there. We won’t go there, because otherwise I’d be conflicted out of this House. But I listened to Bella Takiari this morning, and terrific was her kōrero as she talked about mana wahine. You know, she’s got that little sort of jive, and then she sort of started her—I heard it, Bella—and it was so neat because she was talking about our Minister Nanaia and what she had to do and how she had to work through this settlement. It’s a tough business.

It’s a tough area—some of you know that. So when I think about Ngāti Maniapoto, I think about mana wahine like Bella and like Minister Mahuta, and I think about my mother. Every day, when you talk about Ngāti Maniapoto, she used to say that to me every second day, “You are Ngāti Maniapoto first and foremost—not Ngati Porou; Ngāti Maniapoto.” Oh yes, I got that—I even thought about that when she died. So I think about her today and how she’d be celebrating—how she’d be celebrating. This is a happy occasion.

She was absolutely Ngāti Maniapoto, as my auntie was, who was the last of our line—98. Auntie Kath, who died at Mokau, the last of our line. She died—when did auntie die? Four weeks, or two months ago, at 98 years of age. She was the last of her line, the last of the Batley line—another mana wahine.

I’ve got another one up there—she’s still alive—Auntie Christine. She’s another mana wahine—these kuia. Now, Maniapoto, could you put her on your board, please, Bella? She’s not getting quite enough votes, and I want to use this occasion to promote her. That might be seen as a conflict of interest—it is!—but she runs Taumarunui. I’m so proud of her. The National Party promoted her, she keeps reminding me. John Key went up to her place, so we’re trying to get up there, Auntie. Peeni Henare has been there. But John Key and some of them have gone up and celebrated her—as Barbara Kuriger and them know—and she’s another mana wahine.

You know, all these fantastic women epitomise Ngāti Maniapoto—epitomise Ngāti Maniapoto—so well done to all those women.

I thought I’d better chuck a couple of men in, because they’re not too bad, you know. Keith Ikin did a wonderful job, and I want to mihi to him because he covered all the whakapapa stuff at Mum’s tangi, and that’s really important—connecting all the Ngāti Maniapoto whakapapa.

I want to mihi to Tom Roa because, you know, I think Tom Roa is a show-off—eh, Peeni? We had our Wiki o Te Reo Māori last week. We started off and we were meant to have Tom doing the mihi. I mean, he’s only meant to do the mihi, but he steals the whole show, you know, and he gives us a whole speech about—oh, it was magnificent, Tom. But you’re not going to be speaking at another Government initiative after that—you can’t steal the show from myself and Peeni Henare. So well done to Tom Roa, and this is a day where we celebrate Ngāti Maniapoto people.

Just before I finish, I want to say hello and all the best to my uncle, Alan Batley, who’s still the chairman of the Mokau marae, despite my sister over here trying to unseat him, I think, at the—that’s us, though, eh? That’s Ngāti Maniapoto. But we’re trying to get them together. My sister Huinga Rowanne, and my uncle—and they’re positioned strategically in the House today. So well done to my uncle, and we’ll work it all out, as we try to do in Ngāti Maniapoto and in here.

But what we must work out, people, is how we distribute this $165 million. When you hear about 90 percent of our people not being in the Maniapoto area, I want to know what the process is going to be so that all Ngāti Maniapoto can benefit from this settlement. Will they have to go back to Piopio? I mean, how on—oh no, I shouldn’t say that. Jenny-May Coffin will be furious! Oh, it’s a beautiful place, Piopio—it is, really. I mean, come on, I named my daughter after Āria. Her name is Te Aria, because her grandmother told me to name her Aria.

But, really, do we have to go back to our areas, where there are 26 people living there, to access our Treaty rights? We must come up with strategies as iwi.

It’s not just Ngāti Maniapoto. These are the things that we’ve been trying to work through for years and years, myself and Rawiri Waititi’s father-in-law—oh, that’s right, that’s another conflict of interest. John Tamihere is his father-in-law. John Tamihere—myself and John have challenged iwi to find the right strategies in terms of hooking up with their whanaunga, because the reality is that your whanaunga live in Māngere, they live in Ōtara, they live in Porirua, and some of them will never come back to Taumarunui, Āria, or wherever. They’ll never come back, but does that really give you the right?

I ask you today to hold their right and hold their settlement rights. I think this is something that Bella and the board have to work through, because too many of our people are missing out on their Treaty rights.

Too many of our people are missing out on their Treaty rights, and this is something we have to work out in terms of Te Ao Māori. We can only do so much in this Government. Whether it’s a Labour Government or them, it’s all the same. We can’t do everything for the people, and we can’t manage the operation at ground level. You have to, and you have to work that process out, or otherwise we’ll always have to work through the allegations of iwi elitism and that type of thing.

I’m not saying anyone is part of that iwi elite today; I’m saying let’s think about how those rights are extended to our whanaunga in the urban areas. It’s a kaupapa, as many of you know, that has been part of me for most of my working life, and I’m proudly Ngāti Maniapoto, although I never got voted on to the Ngāti Maniapoto board when I stood. I got close, but that was about seven or eight years ago. I probably got—

Rawiri Waititi: I think you’ll still be struggling after that speech.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: He’s right—I’ve probably got no chance now that I’ve been in Parliament. But it is fundamental and it is incredibly important.

But I just wanted to say, today, that I want to mihi to you all, and have a think about that. I congratulate us as a nation when we take these types of settlements—$165 million. Everyone in the House knows that the settlements are probably worth 10 times that amount. I see Rahui Papa there. Tainui: they settled $170 million in 1996, and they probably could have settled for $10 billion, eh, Rahui—$10 billion.

We have given to this nation. Maniapoto—Maniapoto—has given to this nation. It’s an honour to be part of your tribe, and I honour my mother today. Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Straight up, just to declare my conflict of interest, I’m, unfortunately, just a Ngāpuhi whānau, and I am not related at all to Willie Jackson.

Tākiri ko te ata

He manu kororī

He manu kororā

He reo anō tērā nō tuawhakarere.

Haere rā te pō.

Ngāti Maniapoto nā koutou anō tērā. Ngāti Maniapoto, te tereina o Ngāti Maniapoto, nau mai, haere mai, whakatau mai rā ki tēnei o ngā teihana, ki te Paremata. Tautoko katoa au i ngā kōrero kua kōrerohia ki roto i te Whare i tēnei rā ki te whakanuia ā koutou mahi.

Kei te whakaaro ake au ki ngā āhuatanga o te tereina i te mea ko tēnei ngā Kākāriki e mihi nei ki a koutou me te whakaaro ake ko tēnei iwi he iwi atamai, he iwi kerēwa, he iwi i mōhio ki tōna hītori, ngā painga me ngā raru o ngā tereina. Heoi anō kei te koke whakamua ki ngā āhuatanga i te mea ko te hunga e kake ana ki runga i te hoiho rino, ki runga i te tereina ka mohio mai kāore he waka anō ki runga i te ara, nō reira he pai tērā mō tō tātou nei taiao, he pai tērā mō tō tātou nei āhuarangi. Nō reira ko tēnei ngā Kākāriki e mihi atu ki a koutou mō tō koutou nei tauira i tēnei wā.

Kei te whakaaro ake au ki ngā āhuatanga, i a koutou i haere mai ki runga i tērā tereina, i te mea e ai ki ngā kōrero i huri rauna te tereina mai i te Rohe Pōtae i tau ki Kirikiriroa, i tau ki Te Kuiti, i tae ki ngā wāhanga katoa o te Rohe Pōtae, ka tae mai ki konei. Kei te whakaaro ake ko te teihana i tau tēnei tereina o Ngāti Maniapoto i tēnei wā ko tēnei whakatau kerēme, ko tēnei whakatau kerēme. Heoi anō, ka mutu tēnei ka rere te tereina ki hea? Ka rere te tereina ki hea?

Me rere, me tau ngā tereina katoa o tō tātou nei ao Māori ki te mana motuhake o tō tātou nei ao Māori. Ki te mana motuhake o tō tātou ao Māori, te tino rangatiratanga i kōrerohia tō tātou Tiriti o Waitangi ki roto i tana wāhanga tuarua. Ko te Tiriti o Waitangi tērā, ko te tino rangatiratanga. Nō reira, Ngāti Maniapoto ko koutou anō te tauira i tēnei rā, nō reira tēnei ka mihi, tēnei ka mihi.

Tautoko katoa au ngā mihi ki a rātou mā kua riro atu. Nōku anō te hōnore, nōku anō te whiwhi kia tae ki Pipitea i tēnei ata ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero, ki ngā kōrero o tērā pāpā o tātou, Tom Roa, i te mea ko au anō tērā kei waho i te wā o te petihana, te whakanui i te 50 tau o te petihana. E tika ana tō Willie, i kaha matou ki te whakarongo ki a Tom Roa, i wareware katoa ngā kōrero a Willie Jackson i taua rā. Nō reira, e te pāpā, e mihi ana ki a koe. I areare katoa ngā taringa o aku nei tamariki i haere mai i te Papaioeia mai i te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Manawatū ki te whakarongo ki a koe.

Otirā nōku anō te whiwhi ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero o ō koutou nei kaumātua i te pae i te ata nei ki Te Pipitea. Me mihi au ki te āhuatanga o te taonga i whakatakotoria ki Pipitea, me mihi au, me mihi tēnei Whare ki tērā o ngā āhuatanga kia tau tērā taiaha, kia tau te Maungārongo ki te poho o te wharenui.

Me te whakaaro ake he kōrero pai tērā mō tātou katoa e tohe nei ki roto i tēnei Whare i te mea he tau pōtitanga kei te haramai, nō reira, he tauira pai tērā mō tātou ngā kaitōrangapū kia mau te rongo, kia hohou anō te rongo, kia kōkirihia ki ngā whakaaro e hapaitia te ngākau o tēnā, o tēnā o tātou, ō tātou nei uri, ō tātou nei tamariki, ō tātou nei mokopuna, tēnei mea te maungārongo. Nā reira, Ngāti Maniapoto ko koutou anō tērā i whakatakotoria te tauira me ōna āhuatanga, me tōna hītori kia mahara anō tēnei Karauna kia mahara anō tēnei Kāwanatanga, kia maumahara anō tēnei, tātou katoa te Pāremata o te noho tau i waenganui i a koutou me te Karauna. Otirā he tauira anō mō tātou mō ngā tau kei te haere mai.

Ko tēnei pire, tē taea te whakatau ngā nawe katoa, tē taea te whakatau ngā mamae katoa. Tērā i rongo au i te wā i tae mai a Maungārongo ki Te Pipitea, i rongo au i ngā kōrero o te hītori i te wā o te pakanga, i ngā pakanga whetū, o tātou nei whānau i whakarere atu te pakanga ki ō rātou nei whenua, ki ō rātou nei takiwā kia tae anō rātou ki waenganui i a Ngāti Maniapoto. Kei te whai rātou he āhuru mōwai pērā ki a Parihaka i taua wā.

Nō reira, me kaha tēnei Paremata, me kaha tēnei Kāwanatanga kia maumahara anō tērā o ngā hītori. Nā reira kia ora anō tērā hītori me akona ki roto i ngā kura, me akona tērā hītori e pā ana ki a koutou o Ngāti Maniapoto, e pā ana ki ngā āhuatanga o ngā pakanga whetū, kia akona ki roto i ngā kura auraki, kia akona ki roto i ō tātou kura kaupapa kia mōhio mai ō tātou tamariki, mokopuna he aha te hītori, he aha ngā kōrero tuku iho kei raro i ō rātou rekereke, kei raro ō rātou nei waewae, kia mōhio mai rātou ka tū au ki roto i tēnei whenua ko Aotearoa, kei te mōhio au i ōna kōrero katoa, ā, ka tau anō te wairua o tēnā whenua o ō tātou tamariki mokopuna. Nō reira me kaha tātou ki te whai i tērā o ngā āhuatanga.

Ko tēnei pire, ka whakamana te pire nei i te Whakaaetanga Whakataunaha i waitohu rā e te Karauna me Maniapoto hei whakatau i ngā kerēme hītori Tiriti o Waitangi katoa o Maniapoto, i hua ake i ngā mahi, i ngā āwaretanga hoki o te Karauna i mua i te tau 1998. Kua kapi te rohe pānga o Maniapoto, ko te Rohe Pōtae tae atu ki te tai moana e pā tata ana me tētahi wāhi o te āpure ohanga rāhui.

Kei roto i te pire ko tētahi whakarāpopoto o ngā tātai kōrero o ngā kerēme, otirā ngā hītori i kōrerohia nei te Whare, tae atu ki te ōhanga ā-tinana, ā-ahurea, ā-wairua hoki o te iwi. Ka mau hoki ko ngā whakaaetanga me te whakapāha kei te tāpae rā e te Karauna ki a Ngāti Maniapoto.

Kei roto i te pire nei ētahi ritenga e pā ana ki tētahi puretumu whakataunga me mātua whakature kia ū ai, tae atu ki ngā rawa ahurea, ngā rawa taiao, te puretumu tauhokohoko me ētahi ritenga e pā ana ki te whakahounga hangahanga. Ko taku manako mō tātou katoa, otirā ki a koutou o Maniapoto kia mau tonu ki ērā ngā kupu o ngā mātua tīpuna.

Kāore e kore ka pērā koutou, he iwi atamai, he iwi kerēwa. “Kia mau tonu ki tērā, kia mau tonu ki te kawau mārō, whanake ake, whanake ake, whanake ake.” Me tērā o ngā kōrero o te koroua a Rewi, i pēhea tēnei hononga o te āhuatanga o Te Tiriti o Waitangi? E kore e oti, e kore rawa e oti. Ko tōna oranga mō ake, ake, ake, ake. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, Ngāti Maniapoto, tēnā tātou katoa.

[The day is dawning,

Birds on the land,

Birds on the sea,

Their call is from ancient times.

Farewell oh night.

Ngāti Maniapoto, that is your saying. Ngāti Maniapoto, the train of Ngāti Maniapoto, welcome to this station, to Parliament. I am in full support of what has already been said in the House today to pay tribute your efforts.

I am considering the attributes of a train, because this member of the Green Party acknowledges you and considers you to be an intelligent and clever tribe, a tribe who knows their history, the good and the bad of the trains. Nevertheless, you are moving forward to what is ahead because those who ride the steel horse, on the train, know there is no other vehicle on the path, therefore, that is good for our environment and for our climate. Accordingly, we the Green Party acknowledge you for your example at this time.

I am considering the circumstances when you came here on that train because, according to accounts, the train travelled around from the King Country and stopped in Hamilton, Te Kūiti, and went to all the parts of the King Country and then arrived here. I think the station this Ngāti Maniapoto train has now arrived at is this claim settlement. However, when this is complete, where then will the train go? Where will it go?

All the trains of our Māori world should journey towards and arrive at self-determination of our Māori domain, to the autonomy of our Māori world—the sovereignty spoken of in article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi. That is what the Treaty of Waitangi is about: sovereignty. Ngāti Maniapoto, you are the example today, I therefore acknowledge you.

I fully endorse the acknowledgments of those who have passed. The honour and the good fortune is mine to have been at Pipitea this morning to listen to the speeches and to the narratives of our elder Tom Roa, as I was also there outside at the time of the petition, the 50-year commemoration of the petition. Willie is correct in what he said, we listened so intently to Tom Roa that we forgot everything Willie Jackson said that day. So, sir, we acknowledge you. My children listened attentively, they came from Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Manawatū in Palmerston North to listen to you.

I am also fortunate to have heard your elders, your orators on the bench this morning at Pipitea. I must acknowledge the nature of the treasured item that was laid down at Pipitea, I and this House should acknowledge the circumstances around the laying down of the taiaha, Maungārongo, in the bosom of the meeting house.

I think this is a good narrative for us here debating in this House, as an election year is coming. As such, that is a good example for us politicians to be in a state of peace, to make peace, to champion ideas that uplift the hearts of each and every one of us, our children, and our grandchildren, this thing peace. Therefore, Ngāti Maniapoto, it was you yourselves who presented the example and all that comes with it, its history, so that this Crown, Government, and Parliament are reminded of the resolving between you and the Crown. Indeed, it sets the example for us for the coming years.

This bill cannot settle all grievances, it cannot resolve all the pain. I heard this at the arrival of Maungārongo to Pipitea, I heard historical accounts of the wars, the battles of the stars, and of our kinsmen who fled the battle on their lands and districts and sheltered amongst Ngāti Maniapoto. They were seeking refuge, similar to Parihaka at that time.

Accordingly, this Parliament, this Government must remember this history. In order to keep this history alive, it should be taught in schools—that history about you of Ngāti Maniapoto and the circumstances of the battles of the stars should be taught in mainstream schools and within our Māori-medium schools so that our children will know the history and traditions that lie right there beneath their ankles and feet, so that they know when I stand here in Aotearoa I know all her stories and the land of our children and grandchildren will be tranquil once again. We must pursue this situation.

This bill, this bill empowers the deed of settlement signed by the Crown and Maniapoto to settle all the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Maniapoto that resulted from the Crown’s acts and omissions before the year of 1998. It covers Maniapoto’s area of interest, the King Country to the adjacent coast and a part of the exclusive economic zone.

In the bill, there is a summary of the process of the claims, indeed the histories that were spoken of in the House, including the physical, cultural, and spiritual economy of the tribe. It also includes the agreements and apology tabled by the Crown to Ngāti Maniapoto.

In this bill are provisions regarding a settlement redress that must be enacted so that it is fixed, including the cultural and environmental resources, commercial redress, and provisions for renovating buildings. It is my hope for us all, and indeed for you, Maniapoto, to hold fast to the words of the forebears.

There is no doubt you will do this, you are an intelligent and clever people. “Hold fast to that, hold fast to the fighting formation, move onwards, rise up.” Also that saying from the elder Rewi, how has this relationship of the nature of the Treaty of Waitangi fared? It will never end. It will endure for all time. Acknowledgments to you, Ngāti Maniapoto, and to all.]

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa, and welcome to this Whare. Welcome to your Whare, this place where we get to come to a conclusion on what has been a very long time of negotiation. I must admit it is not often that I agree with Willie Jackson, but he is right in that this is a celebration. It’s a celebration of great achievement where we can recognise what has occurred in the past and move forward together as iwi and the Crown.

I’ve not had the opportunity to speak on this Maniapoto Claims Settlement Bill, and I feel very privileged to be able to do so now in this, the third reading, as we come to its conclusion. I feel privileged because ACT have always supported the Treaty settlements. We do believe in them and we think it is a way that we can unify together as a country and move forward. It’s a way that we address the wrongs that have occurred so that we can move forward together.

In that respect, I’d like to acknowledge the iwi of Maniapoto and the hard mahi that you have done to get to this point. As I read up on the claims, I read that there are over 277 of them. I hear of the passing of those that started these negotiations and the advancement of those that started on your behalf and now sit, as Nanaia Mahuta does, as a Minister in this Whare as well. I acknowledge all of that work, and for those that have passed and not seen this completion, I acknowledge them as well.

Ngāti Maniapoto is somewhat unique in that you have been able to retain your autonomy, or your self-government, for longer than most other iwi—possibly Tūhoe might be up there with you as well—and I think that this is important because this tribe has been one that has fought the Government for a very long time, and did so so strongly. I am of Ngāpuhi descent and I understand that feeling of constant fighting to be able to manage what you know is right for your people, those that have passed and those in the future. You retained that autonomy up until the 1880s, and my understanding, of course, is that then the Government reneged on some of the promises that they’d made to you, but you fought valiantly all the way through.

With this, cultural redress is important, because when we look at the pain and the suffering that our iwi have had, to have this acknowledged by the Minister in this Whare—some of those wrongs—is very important. It’s an important part of this process and the apology that is to come is even more so, and this allows us to move forward with the Crown and iwi as this entity that is in agreement. It, of course, begins with the acknowledgment and it ends with the agreement, but the mahi in between to get to those points, working out the solutions, is always a constant. In that respect, I acknowledge the Supplementary Order Paper that came to the House earlier to also tidy up. It means that just because we sign it, it doesn’t mean that it’s over. We can continue.

The claims settlement bill has taken some time to work through and I acknowledge the resolve of Ngāti Maniapoto to get here. The Government, as I mentioned earlier, had breached their agreement. They actually breached article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi, which guaranteed that the sale of Māori land would be done in a way which protected Māori interests, and when the Government came through in the 1890s and aggressively purchased Māori land in the Ngāti Maniapoto rohe without regard to article 2 and respect to Māori land rights. It is great for me to see this being acknowledged here, in this Whare today, by the Crown of today.

We notice that the redress includes natural resources. There’s forestry, commercial redress, titles to land, some reorganisation of governance and fisheries matters as well. But, more importantly, it’s about the apology, because the Crown did break their promises back in the 1800s, and I acknowledge the loss of 250,000 hectares of land back then.

The Māori townships of Ōtorohanga and Te Kūiti, they were self-governing back in the time, and the Government replaced the devolved self-government by legislating to create the Waikato-Maniapoto Māori Land Board. They took away your ability to govern yourselves, and by promoting legislation without consulting Ngāti Maniapoto, the Crown failed to respect Ngāti Maniapoto rangatiratanga. Even today, it is inappropriate for the Government to push central government ideals on to local communities, even in this modern time, so it’s important that we do understand and we move forward together, because when we can do that as one, we will have much better outcomes when we can have these agreements.

But I do want to point out that I am in agreement with Willie Jackson: this is a celebration. You have achieved so much and you have worked so hard, and the apology that’s still to come will be the way that we can finalise that and finish that movement forward. In that respect, I do want to also acknowledge the taonga that you’re bringing to this Whare for us to hold for five years. I think that’s very special. That’s so great—when you look back at the things that you have lost and yet you’re willing to move forward.

This is a celebration of the mahi that is coming to a conclusion. It’s a celebration of an outcome. It’s a celebration of the future, for our tīpuna in the past, and our tamariki that are still coming. But, most importantly, I think it is a celebration for you, Maniapoto, and the hard work that you have done. I am very proud to be a part of it and to acknowledge ACT’s support in this third reading, and that you get to have the redress, the acknowledgment, and the apology, and you get the aroha of this House back to you because you so deserve it. Kia ora koutou.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Arena Williams—five minutes.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. E mihi ana ahau ki a koutou kua tae mai ki te Whare Pāremata me te marae o Pipitea i tēnei rā whakahirahira, i tēnei rā whakanuia. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[To the Speaker of the House, I acknowledge those who have come to Parliament House and to Pipitea Marae on this important day, this day of celebration. Greetings to you all.]

Kei te mihi ki te Nehenehenui [I acknowledge the people of the Nehenehenui] and all of the negotiators, including the chief Crown negotiator, David Tapsell. The work you have done to get us to this day has been a service to your iwi, to everyone here, and to all New Zealanders.

E kī ana te Minita, [The Minister states,] “It is right that the Crown atones for the pain and suffering it has caused your people.”, and today’s reading of this bill is the next step towards the historically important and overdue apology from the Crown at Te Tokanganui-a-Noho marae on 4 December. I look forward to that, and, as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Tāmati Coffey, said, we will stand alongside you, with tears in our eyes and our noses running, on that important day.

I also want to acknowledge the comment of Joseph Mooney that Ngāti Maniapoto’s history is etched into that of the King Country, and it is all around New Zealand. I grew up seeing, most days, the memorial at the junction of Mangere Road and Great South Road that commemorates the member of the House of Representatives Colonel Marmaduke George Nixon, who commanded the Colonial Defence Force Cavalry—which attacked your people at Rangiaowhia—in the Waikato Wars.

I acknowledge the comments around this House that Parliament recognises the shame for the Crown in the way that it acted in those years, particularly at Rangiaowhia, and the disrespect of the unequal treatment that followed with conscription and confiscation since then. But those views aren’t shared everywhere and by all New Zealanders, and that shame is not known. What I hope is that, from today’s reading in Parliament and from the work that you will be able to do from settlement and the work that continues with the Government, you will be able to tell that important history to everyone and, most importantly, to your mokopuna, who will know that they come from a great line of people and have a place in New Zealand and with you. And I want to acknowledge the work of the ever-impressive and obviously quite intimidating Tom Roa on that.

My thanks as well to your kaumātua and tīpuna, who, despite what they have suffered through the effects of colonisation, have always striven to uphold their tribal unity and mana whakahaere. They made sustained efforts in their pursuit of their claims for redress and compensation from the Crown. They shared that history, they kept that memory alive, and my thanks to all of you for the sense of hope that you bring, today, for your mokopuna and for ours. Ki a koutou, ngā mihi maioha, ngā mihi mahana.

[Warm and affectionate greetings to you all.]

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe, otirā ngā mema katoa o te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa.

E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā hapū maha o Ngāti Maniapoto, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Tēnā koutou i runga i te kaupapa whakahirahira, tēnā koutou i runga i tō karanga, tēnā koutou i runga i te rā whakanui. Nō reira ōku rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Madam Speaker, I greet you, indeed, to all the members of the House, I greet you all.

To the authorities, the orators, and the many subtribes of Ngāti Maniapoto, I greet you all. I acknowledge you on this auspicious occasion, thank you for inviting us, greetings on this commemorative day. Therefore, to the many noblemen, I greet you all.]

I’m simply pleased to take a call on this significant piece of legislation in the third reading of this bill, and I too want to put my conflict of interest on the table—

Teanau Tuiono: Oh no, here we go.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: —oh, hold on, hold on; no recordings—on behalf of my mother, who benefits from the kaumātua support of Ngāti Maniapoto trust. She would want me to say thank you very much because she is registered to Ngāti Maniapoto and, hopefully, is moving to Te Nehenehenui Trust because of the whakapapa that we have to Ngāti Maniapoto through my great-grandfather Īhakara Rāpana nō [from] Ōtorohanga. So it’s with great pride that I stand and acknowledge my whakapapa to those that are in the gallery and those who are listening at home. So I want to declare that conflict proudly—that I have whakapapa with the very people we are honouring here today.

Hon Willie Jackson: And Hukarere.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Of course, Hukarere—Hukarere. But I wanted to say that in response to Mr Jackson’s tono around getting out benefits to our people who don’t live at home, I just wanted to put on record that we are doing that, and if it wasn’t for what we are doing, then we wouldn’t see the proliferation of Waipareira Trust or his Manukau urban authority, who over several decades have received millions of dollars of compensation from the Crown to deliver services. So I just wanted to say, in honesty, that that’s what we’re celebrating here, and the recognition of the trials and tribulations of Ngāti Maniapoto, but also the extension of aroha that you give to all your descendants, no matter where they live. I wanted to acknowledge that and thank those that keep the home fires burning, because without that, we would have no mana. So mihi maioha mihi aroha ki a koutou.

In your settlement particularly—and I don’t want to go back over the history, but I particularly want to underscore the primary industry protocol that you have. Many iwi that we settle with in this House tend to go into the social spaces—the protocols with Government agencies—but, clearly, you have done a beeline to the primary industries in reflection of the importance of your whenua, the last bit of whenua that you have. But not only that, it’s the richness of your whenua and what your rohe has given to this nation.

I know that the other side of the House, the National side, acknowledges the significance of the primary industries to this country, but to see it in a Treaty settlement as a priority protocol with the Government going forward, I think it needs to be noted in this debate. I think it’s a significant turnabout. It’s signalling very clearly where this particular iwi is going to take its future. It is going to be on the whenua, with the whenua, and the opportunities that is going to lock in for not only their people but all people of this nation—I want to mihi and acknowledge that in the short contribution that I have on this bill.

It is a great day. I want to acknowledge all those who have made this possible: the negotiators on both sides; both our Treaty Ministers that started and finished the process; and, of course, to our tuahine Nanaia Mahuta, who has our absolute respect in this House, and to her husband, Gannin Ormsby, we send aroha to both of yous because we love you and we honour what you do on behalf of all of our people. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Kia ora. The next call is another split call. I call on Tim van de Molen—five minutes.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I rise to take a call on the Maniapoto Claims Settlement Bill in its third and final reading, I just want to acknowledge first of all that it is a beautiful part of the country. I have been privileged to spend a bit of time farming and hunting in that region, and I do want to acknowledge everyone from Maniapoto who has come here to be with us today for what is a pretty historic account from Maniapoto, but I also acknowledge a former member of this House, Mr John Robertson, the Mayor of Waitomo, who has joined us today as well. Can I just note on behalf of a colleague of mine, Harete Hipango, our spokesperson for Māori development, that she would have loved to take call in this debate as she regularly spends time travelling through the Maniapoto rohe, but she is unable to take a call in this third and final reading.

Here we are, at the end of a very long process. They say that good things take time, and I believe that having come through what has been quite a journey, hopefully, everyone can agree that this is the best outcome that was able to be reached. I say that in the context that there are always differing views. It is long process and a complex process, and we saw that through select committee process as well, where a number of submitters had varying views on groups that should or shouldn’t be included and, indeed, on different aspects of that bill throughout that process as well.

But it takes time, and it is challenging and it involves negotiation. Ultimately, though, a position has now been reached that I think we can all support. We have a good outcome. That includes, of course, cultural redress, financial redress, and commercial redress—things that are important. But for me, as I understand it, a sense of identity, I think, is absolutely critical, and the self-worth, the value, and the importance that comes from settlement claims being finalised is absolutely vital. When I see our country experiencing a time of increased division and increased uncertainty across a range of areas, I think this is a good step to help try and, in part, perhaps address some of those challenges that are being faced as well.

On that note, I would just like to reiterate that we do support this bill. We are delighted to see it now receiving its final reading and we look forward to the completion and the subsequent moving forward for Maniapoto. As their future looks bright, I am sure, and the opportunities will be significant, I think that is the most exciting aspect of any settlement bill. It puts a line in the sand and enables people to look with positivity to the future and to drive their own success from there. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. E rere haere ana ngā mihi ki a koutou o te Rohe Pōtae i tēnei wāhanga o te pire wakataunga. Nāku te whiwhi kia tū tēnei Whare kia tautoko Te Paati Māori ki a koutou i tēnei rā. Haere mai ki a au, ki a Te Ua Haumēne, haere mai ki a Rāwiri, ki a Te Kooti, kei te ara whanaunga, kei mamao rawa e.

[Greetings. Greetings abound to you of the King Country at this stage of the settlement bill. I am honoured to stand in this House so that Te Paati Māori can support you on this day. Welcome to me, to Te Ua Haumēne, to Rāwiri, to Te Kōoti, the kinship ties are recognised lest we become distant.]

It’s an honour to rise on behalf of Te Paati Māori to speak in support of the Maniapoto Claims Settlement Bill for the third and final reading. We would like to mihi to all of those who are watching today, either here in person or here in wairua. We acknowledge the kuia, kaumātua, negotiators, hapū leaders, w’ānau, rangatahi, and, specifically, those no longer with us since this journey started over 30 years ago.

I stand to celebrate our resilience. Here today stands the strength of a people whose tūpuna fought beside my own tūpuna in Taranaki to defeat imperial troops at Puketakauere, near Waitara. Here our w’anaunga, whose tupuna Rewi Maniapoto supported the resistance to our tūpuna land sales and muru raupatu, and, as an uri of Taranaki, Tītokowaru, and Parihaka, I know this process to reclaim our relationship with the Crown puts our own relationships at strain. So let today be one of those days you ease that mode and celebrate yourselves. Celebrate that you created traffic jams in rail systems never seen before—traffic jams in bus systems that brought Pōneke, I understand, to a halt—as everyone arrived here today, everyone who are either urban, ahikā, rangatahi ma.

I also declare my conflict as a wahine with a hoa rangatira that I love to the moon. I also declare my tautoko to our tuāhine Nanaia Mahuta for her mahi in this kaupapa and for her w’ānau.

I stand as Te Paati Māori, as the only party 100 percent in attendance, actually, but afforded the smallest amount of minutes to talk, which is five minutes, to be actual—which is why Willie Jackson could never be with us—so I’ll be very direct. I’ll be very direct. Here today, Aotearoa, stands the generosity of the koha of Ngāti Maniapoto to our nation, accepting this settlement to enhance our nation’s peace. We believe Te Tiriti is to be honoured, not settled, so it’s no surprise that we don’t believe settlements are full and final—don’t listen, ACT—and we look forward to supporting you coming back for the other 99 percent that Willie and Peeni Henare are still holding back.

Today, we celebrate you and that you honour us with Maungārongo. You reminded, as a nation and a Whare, that our poropiti use Maungārongo as an action and a way of being, as a living kaupapa with living mauri, and as a consistent reminder of our enduring relationships and responsibility to each other and to our mokopuna.

Kia mau, kia rongo is about being a calm collector. It requires patience, a patience like you’ve never seen before, such as that seen in Ngāti Maniapoto and tangata w’enua throughout the motu—a patience of those who tolerated the atrocities of imperialism, the imperialism that punished you for hiding King Tāwhiao after he’d passed. But you still show the utmost aroha today, continuously contributing to the greatest human attributes ever gifted: the gift of forgiveness and the gift of hope.

To us in this Whare, to the Government today and the Government-in-waiting, we have been charged with the koha of Maungārongo. We must now make sure the Crown constantly remembers the gift of Maungārongo: how we must hold on to the intent that is Maungārongo and what it means to be a true good partner in the terms of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and this new tiriti with Ngāti Maniapoto. We know the track record of the Crown and many of us are survivors of the breaches of that Crown, and we look at this honour and challenge for the institution of the Crown and at how it holds on to the commitment which is this new tiriti with Ngāti Maniapoto—five years to be proudly looked after in Pāremata. It will serve as a constant reminder for this Whare.

Minister Andrew Little said this morning that this was the beginning of a relationship, not the end. Te Paati Māori, as the Government-in-waiting, will be here to ensure this Whare holds true to that promise.

Nō reira, kei runga, kei raro, kei roto, kei waho, rire rire hau pai mārire.

[In closing, above, below, within, without, goodness and peace.]

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, Ngāti Maniapoto. Nau mai ki te Whare. I just want to stand in acknowledgment of all of you who are here today—all of those who are at the marae down the road, and all of those who are at home—and all of those who have passed before who have led all of us to today. I want to acknowledge you and acknowledge all of those negotiators and everybody who has contributed to this process across the House and across your generations. Your strength, your patience, and your grace to get all of us here today is something very special, and, as the Hon Willie Jackson has reminded us, it is something to celebrate. This is—you are—what legends are made of.

When I was in the classroom and we would draw upon your great stories and histories with my students in performing arts, there were some wonderful, wonderful lessons, and it will be wonderful to see what happens with the stories that you have created in getting us here today—legendary. You are inspiring and you bring us hope, not just to your whānau and your mokopuna, but to the entire nation. Your tragic and brutal history is finally, today, acknowledged. The Crown apologises, and we acknowledge the shame and the scars that you bear today from the loss of your language and from the loss of your land, your people, and your prosperity.

Like I say, to see you in good faith again and again, despite the behaviour of the Crown—and you entered negotiations and agreements for more than 150 years, whether it was about the main trunk line, as we’ve heard acknowledged today, or trying to do well for your people in education, or with the whenua, or with health. There was the enormous failure by the Crown to make sure that the benefits: economic, employment, or just for your wellbeing—they failed. It is the most humbling experience to be standing here and acknowledging your perseverance. Despite the Crown failing again and again to meet its obligations and its commitments, you have persevered so graciously.

I guess the other thing, on top of acknowledging the fighting for justice and redress, is that at the same time you simply got stuck in and did what needed to be done, and you are doing what needs to be done for your people to build a future. We’ve heard the word “hope”, but you’ve realised that. Despite COVID and despite 150 years of people actively trying to eliminate you as a people, you’ve got on to it and you’re building a future, not just with words but with actions.

It’s wonderful to drive up through Mokau—it catches a lot of sun up there—and to see the solar panels going up on the marae. The fact is that you are able to show leadership, build relationships—real relationships—with the lines company, and bring peer-to-peer energy-sharing and that push for decarbonisation, and be so progressive and future-focused and positive and ambitious, being able to ensure that for our rural communities and for our more vulnerable community members, you’re able to bring some equity to energy vulnerability. I know that sounds like a really small thing to some, but I think it’s a really wonderful example of how you just get on with things, and I just want to acknowledge that.

Again, Maniapoto Whānau Ora, with your beautiful new waka that I saw, which is going to be able to, again, bring some equity to health services for our more rural communities—it is really inspiring. You’re able to forge relationships and be innovative, despite everything that has been done to you.

Education: I come to this House as an educator and I acknowledge the very proactive use of education as a weapon. That breaks me to say that, as a person who knows the value of it, and who knows of the very proactive assimilation and attempts to destroy your reo, your identity, your tikanga, and your mātauranga Māori. Despite this, you’ve forged on, again, with perseverance, leadership, and hope.

I understand that Te Wharekura o Maniapoto has been acknowledged internationally for all that you do for indigenous education. You bring hope not just to our nation but to indigenous people around the world, and that hope is something that means that I’m really curious about how we can participate in building a new education system for all of our tamariki. It isn’t just this history, this really rich and important history that we need to bring to our classrooms and that will enrich the learning and the lives of all of our tamariki, but the opportunity we have to be led by you to make sure that mātauranga Māori and tikanga is embedded and revolutionises our education system, because we will all be richer and better off for it.

We’ve got a scary future ahead with climate change and all of the other things that are happening, and, time and time again, it is Te Ao Māori that is leading us to revolutionary and inspiring solutions. We’re just really grateful that you’ve hung in there and that you’re going to make sure that with your leadership and our partnership, we’re going to be able to build a future that is going to be a wonderful one for all of our tamariki.

We’ve heard about the 150-year celebrations happening in December. When we see the hui that have been going on as far away as the Gold Coast, I understand, it’s going to be one heck of a celebration and a party, and I think that it is a wonderful thing to be marking for the future of your iwi.

I just want to acknowledge, again, some wise words that have come to me in the past, which are that we must conclude today by ensuring and committing that this House will never again pass legislation that will not uphold the mana of Maniapoto. We need to make sure and be vigilant that today is the start of that journey, and it goes on. As we’ve heard from the House, this isn’t a settlement; this is about honouring Te Tiriti and is a recommitment to everything that we need to do with your iwi. So it is a very humbling experience to stand here and acknowledge all that has happened, and it is with hope that I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Kia ora tātou. Thank you very much for the great honour of being the National Party’s last speaker in the third reading of this incredibly long process that Ngāti Maniapoto have endured—30 years—and now here we are. There have been a lot of phenomenal perspectives shared in this morning’s kōrero, and a number of speakers have started by reflecting on their conflicts of interest and their shared whakapapa. So, in that tradition, I will do the same, and it is not true that I am Willie Jackson’s long-lost twin brother. If you imagine him with these glasses, you can see what I mean—there’s a resemblance.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: No, you don’t talk that much.

TODD MULLER: But I don’t talk that much.

But there is a shared connection that is personal and profound. My great-great-grandfather was in the 65th Regiment of Foot and walked to battle against your forebears, your ancestors, whose love and tradition and honour and mana you hold in your hearts as you reflect on this third reading today. Here I am, as his great-great-grandson in this House, as part of a National Party that comes from our own tradition of Sir Doug Graham, and, more recently, Chris Finlayson, who stand shoulder to shoulder on this issue with the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and Andrew Little and Willie Jackson and the whole House. I stand here with my own weight of history, reflecting on my family’s whakapapa and contribution to your collective pain.

So it means something for me to stand here and to be part of this special occasion of apology for the 150 years of suffering and hurt and loss immeasurable, because it’s not a quantification in a financial sense. It sits in someone’s soul—it sits in your souls. You’ve carried this, yet, despite that, you engaged always in good faith with the latest version of the Crown to try and find a way forward. The humility and grace that lives in those collective decisions of you all and of those who have been part of this journey for the last 30 years is a testament to you and, frankly, it is a breathtaking standard of commitment to what is best about this country, which should sit in front of all of us as legislators.

So, as a very small part of this 120-member Parliament, I personally commit, as the MP for the Bay of Plenty, yes, but also as National Party spokesperson for oceans, when we talk about this being the beginning of the next phase. Meka Whaitiri, in a very good speech, acknowledged the reference to the whenua. There is also reference to the moana, and I’m our oceans spokesperson. So for me to hold true to this is a conversation, should I ever get the opportunity to sit on that side where Willie is, as opposed to this side—it’s better, because you get paid more for what you say over there.

Hon Willie Jackson: It’s all about the money!

TODD MULLER: See? Now, I want to make sure that when I sit where Willie is and if I have the privilege of holding that portfolio of oceans, I sit with you to understand the opportunity that sits in front of us and you to improve the quality and sustainability of the moana, because that, actually, is partnership in my view, as we move forward from the history to look forward beyond 2022 and 2023.

So, as the great-great-grandson of someone who felt that he was doing his duty, it is my great honour to stand here and give my small voice as part of this Parliament’s acknowledgment today. Thank you, Ngāti Maniapoto, for your grace, and let us move forward together. Kia ora tātou katoa.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister for Māori Development): He hōnore, he korōria, he maungārongo ki te mata o te whenua, he whakaaro pai ki ngā tāngata katoa. Pai mārire. Kua rewa ake ngā karamihimihi o te Paremata nei ki ngā kokonga o tēnei Whare kia rongo mai a Ngāti Maniapoto kua tae ki te wā. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Honour, glory, and peace across the face of the earth, goodwill to all men. Goodness and peace. Acknowledgments from this Parliament have been elevated to the corners of this House so that Ngāti Maniapoto hear that the time has come. Therefore, I greet you all.]

It took me quite a bit of time to think about what I was going to say. I had constructed each of my contributions: on the first reading, talking about the pou of the settlement; on the second reading, talking about the relationships and how important it was to ensure that we made this settlement a living settlement; and on to this moment, because this moment, as I have acknowledged many times before, has taken a long and turbulent path. We have to recognise the legacy of Wahanui, the legacy of Taonui, the legacy of Manga, and everything that they brought with their conviction that Maniapoto would be in a position someday to be able to be the architects of their own destiny and to hold the mana of their determination within the palm of their hands.

I thought, “OK, if I was going to make a contribution that was going to be somewhat useful, what would that look like?”, and I thought back to the moment where I saw this ad in the paper that the Maniapoto Māori Trust Board were advertising for negotiators—who does that? But when I looked at it, I did a couple of things. Firstly, I said to my darling—I asked him. I said, “Look, I’m quite interested, maybe, if they’ll have me, in trying to do something useful for Maniapoto.”, and he jumped in boots and all. I said, “Well, you know that your job is. It’s going to be the driver and looking after our kids.” So I asked him, and he was supportive right from the get-go. I said, “It means that we need to talk to our whānau who are looking after our kids to make sure that they’re going to be OK if I do this mahi, because I don’t know how long it’s going to take, but I think I could do it.” I got the tick there.

Then I went to go and see my Uncle Dan. You know the Dan I mean—Dan Ormsby. He lives in Maniapoto, and he didn’t have too many nice things to say about the trust board at that time. So I thought, “Well, I’ll go and ask his advice and I’ll see what he says.” Well, after he got over himself around his views about the trust board, I said, “Yeah, but I think I could do something useful here. But, firstly, uncle, where is the rohe of Maniapoto anyway? What did Nanny Pop tell you?”, and he said, “Well, you know, the story goes ‘Mokau ki runga, Tāmaki ki raro—that’s Maniapoto.’ ” So I kind of thought about that and I said, “I need to grip up some of my support here.”

The other person I went to go and see was the late Koro Wetere, my predecessor—our predecessor, Mr Speaker—and, with great humility when I went to go and see him, I asked for his advice and he said, “Yes, girl. You can do it—you can do it for the people.” So with those, I think, acknowledgments of “Yep, it’s something to do.”, I then got myself into the position of sitting alongside Mook Hohneck and Peter Douglas.

Now, our negotiating strategy evolved, but I’ll characterise it like this: we didn’t trust each other right at the beginning. We looked each other up and down, and each one of us thought we were better than the other, I guess—well, I know they did; not me! But if I characterise our negotiating technique, as we got to know each other, Mook cleared the path. He was the sledgehammer—he cleared the path—Peter Douglas lit the fire, and then I had to come along with the water and put it out, and that’s just our negotiating technique with our own people, before we even got in front of the Crown.

But I respect what they brought to the conversation as we started on a journey, and before even that journey began, I went to the then leader of the Labour Party, which happened to be the Hon Andrew Little, who is now our Minister for Treaty settlements. I sat down and I said, “Look, I think I can do this.” I declared the conflict and all of that, and said, “This is how I can manage it as a parliamentarian so that there’s not going to be any trouble here, and if you allow me the time to be able to do this, I can serve the people whom I’m committed to serving within my electorate. I can do it this way.” He listened to me and he thought, and he said, “Yep. OK, you can do it, Nanaia.” So I owe you two debts of gratitude: one is for the fact that you enabled me to do it in Opposition, and the second is, as Minister, your commitment to ensure that we got to this point.

Then there was the Treaty settlements Minister of the day, Chris Finlayson—and I take note of the comments of Todd Muller, the previous speaker. He was absolutely committed to ensure that Maniapoto could reach a settlement in a way that characterised the very essence of what they wanted to achieve. He was the first Minister—or, actually, the second Minister, if you don’t count Koro Wetere and myself—to go to Kāwhia, and it was at Kāwhia that we delivered the special factors presentation and talked about the doubly compounding impact of raupatu in Waikato, raising the aukati for 20 years, and then Maniapoto looking after Waikato who were dispossessed, and also some of our Taranaki whānau who were dispossessed. It had a doubly compounding impact and it impressed upon Chris Finlayson that there was a double-duty obligation on behalf of the Crown to address these issues, and we outlined a number of other things.

But the reason why going to Kāwhia was so important is that for Maniapoto, their sense of self-determination didn’t begin and end with the Crown. Maniapoto owned ships and were trading out of Kāwhia with Waikato, and were producing wheat and all of that. So he got a flavour of the fact that Maniapoto were a self-determining iwi.

We were able also to pull together as we worked along this pathway the strength of what the Maniapoto Trust Board had already done, and they’ve had some ups and downs—mandates have been challenged and all of that. I want to acknowledge Uncle Tiwha Bell—who is here—Keith Ikin as deputy, and also Janise Eketone, who at the time was the chief executive, and her team of girls. I think about Charmaine—you’re still there—and Marissa, Tremayne, and all the many girls that were there—or women, ladies; aroha mai—leaders who helped at that time, and I thank you for that.

Then, I had wisdom around me, and I’m so fortunate. I think about John Kaati, Pat Stafford, the late Bob Koroheke, Rovina Maniapoto, Miria Tauariki, and Muiora Barry. We were the team that travelled around and listened to the iwi and that said “Well, this is where we’re at.” and then “What are you thinking?”, and it was very much a two-way conversation. But the thing I learnt about Maniapoto is that they didn’t start with a disempowered mind-set in terms of their aspiration.

If I had to characterise the difference between Maniapoto and Waikato, Maniapoto had a sense of self-determination that was very much invested in their sense of place. Yes, 90 percent of our people live out of Maniapoto, but 100 percent of the aspiration for the iwi is in Maniapoto: how do we have a settlement that enables the iwi and empowers the iwi so that we can attract our people home to contribute and strengthen the aspirations of the iwi—and that’s what sits around the House today. Every iwi member that has come down to Parliament and is in the House, and also at Pipitea, listening to this settlement wants to know that this is an opportunity for them, their children, and their children to follow, and I salute you all because you bring your tūpuna here to witness the statements of the Crown, of the Government, and of this Parliament so that in five years’ time, when we do the health check on the settlement, everyone will know whether or not it has delivered what we anticipated it would deliver. I have high hopes—I have high hopes.

Sitting across the table was David Tapsell. I don’t know what he thought about us as negotiators, really. He had a really steely look, you know, that commercial lawyer look—the kind of look where you think, “I don’t know what we’re going to get here today.”—but I did appreciate his very up-front, straightforward way of working.

I also appreciated the technical group that enabled me to think differently, and, in no particular order—and it’s very difficult when you start naming names—I do want to acknowledge Doug Ruki. Every time I fashioned a part of the settlement that held the kiko of the aspirations of the people, I’d say to Doug, “How am I going to characterise this?” So many of the whakaaro etched out in the deed of settlement and some which are in the legislation—Doug, you had a big hand in that. When I listen to your compositions that our kids are singing, I think to myself that we are so fortunate to have our own reo experts, and I thank Shane Te Ruki too for your awhi in this space, and Tom Roa and Paul Meredith for what you did with Te Ohaki Tapu. You educated our people on the way through so that none of this would be a surprise for our people. This is who they are—this is who we are—and you educated our people in a way that we can all stand proud about what those legacy negotiators left to us, and it is a treasure trove of opportunity that we can teach our kids.

Heather Baggett, Tania Simpson, Liz Munroe, Leonie Simpson, and Tamati Kruger were at the end of the phone every time I got to a point in the negotiations where I asked, “Hey, how did you deal with this?”, and they generously gave their experience to me in ways that I could just figure some of these things out. Koro Wetere I have already highlighted. From a comms perspective, both Nevada Halbert and Katherine Barry—you guys helped us communicate to the people, and I now see that the board, Te Nehenehenui, has gone over where we humbly started in terms of trying to communicate well with our whānau. All of this has been done so that we can, yes, recognise the struggles of the past and the pain of the past but—more importantly—lift that and put it in front of ourselves and say that this is why we have to go forward, this is why we have to do more, and this is why we have to invest in ourselves.

There’s one thing not in the settlement, and it’s a commitment to te reo Māori. You will all ask why it wasn’t in the settlement, and I need to say it: the reason why it’s not in the settlement is because we go back the kawenata. The kawenata said that the strength of Maniapoto is in our Māoritanga and only we can give that to ourselves, not the Crown. So I made it really clear that we’re not going for a reo Māori contribution in this settlement. It’s going to be up to Te Nehenehenui to actually make their own commitment to reo, which will see our people flourish wherever they are in the world—wherever they are in the world.

Lastly—my final mihi—the history of Waikato Maniapoto is inextricably linked. The stories that we heard this morning at Pipitea are our stories, but our ability to give life to that relationship requires us to continue to live those stories in ways that we can continue to connect as Waikato Maniapoto, as people who support uphold and support the values and aspirations of that movement that started at Te Puna o te Roimata. Again, that’s up to us—nobody else. It’s up to us—nobody else. Kia mutu te riri me tiri te rākau pai.

[To end the conflict we must extend the olive branch.]

That was the final part of the special factors presentation that I gave to Chris Finlayson to set in place that the aspiration of the iwi—that will never falter.

If I have a conflict that must be declared today, it is that I am proudly Waikato Maniapoto, and I am proudly standing on the legacy of a history that they created for us so that we can be here at this moment—at this moment—and say that we are products of hope, vision, and aspiration. And we will not falter because that legacy is for our kids, their kids, and those kid that we don’t even know yet, and they will be proudly Maniapoto. They will be proudly saying what they can contribute to the wellbeing of their people—hopefully.

Nō reira, e mihi ana ki a tātou katoa i roto i te ngākaunui me te manawanui o ngā mātua tūpuna.

[Accordingly, within the commitment and determination of our forebears, I acknowledge all here.]

Mr Speaker, because you are unable to speak today, I noted on your Facebook page that there two salient comments that you’d made, because you’ve been a negotiator as well. The first one was that this is not about compensation; this is redress and it’s important that the people are clear as they go forward that we have to keep making this an opportunity, and that’s what I took from what you said. The other one was about the benefits—that this must benefit our rangitahi. Thank you for your words, thank you for your leadership, thank you for being the member for Te Tai Hauāuru to help, in your way, us get to this point. It is much appreciated.

Nō reira, tēnā tātou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

SPEAKER: I mua i te wakaaetanga o te mōtini nei e tika ana kia tū ake au kia tukua atu taku mihi atu ki a koutou o Maniapoto, ka whakapiringa ki ngā mihi o te Whare nei ki a koutou. Nō reira, tēnā rā koutou, tēnā tātou.

[Before assenting to this motion it is only right that I stand to acknowledge you, Maniapoto, and add my greetings to those of this House has extended to you. Therefore, greetings to all.]

Bill read a third time.

SPEAKER: Nō reira koutou, Maniapoto, kei a koutou te wā kia whakakapi tēnei āhuatanga.

[Accordingly, Maniapoto, the time is now yours to bring this aspect to a close.]

Waiata

Haka

Bills

Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23, Platform Economy, and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2)

First Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I present a legislative statement on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23, Platform Economy, and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2).

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

Hon DAVID PARKER: I move, That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23, Platform Economy, and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by the committee by 2 March 2023.

The borders have opened up. Growth is up. Inflation has peaked and is heading down. Tourism is bouncing back. Even before that, GDP was back and higher than it was pre-COVID days and the economy is returning to normal. Unemployment is at 3.3 percent and we have had a fantastic health and economic outcome as we come out of the COVID pandemic. Mask mandates are gone, vaccination mandates are on the way out except in the health sector, and life is starting to return to normal. As it does, we need to ensure that our tax rules are appropriate and operating as intended. The Government wants to ensure that the tax system minimises compliance costs that it places on taxpayers. The tax system also needs to keep up to date with modern business practices and changes and new developments abroad. In addition, this bill aims to keep New Zealand’s tax rules in line with global developments led at the OECD.

There are many aspects to this bill that I can’t go into in detail, but I will provide members with a quick overview. The term “platform economy” in the name of the bill refers to the relatively new part of the economy which uses apps to hail a car to take you to your destination, to have food delivered to your door, or to find a short-term holiday home. The platforms serve as a facilitator between New Zealanders who are purchasers, and the people who are providing them with goods or services. It’s a fast-growing part of the economy and it’s got some great features and it’s encouraged many people to participate in economic life. For many who do, they’re not fully aware of the tax implications.

Of course, this isn’t unique to New Zealand, and the OECD has been working on the issue and considered a range of options that could be considered for implementation to ensure tax systems remain fit for purpose—fair to all participants, be it taxi drivers competing against Uber drivers or Uber drivers competing against taxi drivers. It will be at motels and hotels, in a traditional form, or Airbnb accommodation. This bill, therefore, contains proposals to implement an information reporting and exchange framework developed by the OECD on digital platforms.

As these platforms typically operate across borders and are based in other countries, this information measure will provide tax authorities with information about income earned by sellers on the platforms that’s crucial to the functioning of the tax system. It proposes that digital platforms will be required to collect and return GST on short-stay and visitor accommodation, ride sharing, and food and beverage delivery services. This supports New Zealand’s broad-based GST system and ensures that services delivered through these platforms have the same treatment for GST as services delivered through other business models, as I’ve discussed. It’s necessary to ensure that the GST system continues to function efficiently, minimises compliance costs for businesses, especially small businesses. So the bill also provides a legislative framework for determining how GST is applied to goods and services funded by charges, fees, and levies paid under the legislation.

The bill, as originally introduced, also included measures to regularise the claiming of GST inputs by providers of financial services. This was misrepresented by the Opposition as being a GST on contributions to KiwiSaver or KiwiSaver funds or withdrawals from KiwiSaver funds; it never was. It was also misrepresented as GST being introduced on fund managers’ fees. It was never that either. What it was was regularising the GST input credits that are claimed by some fund managers but not others. It didn’t land well and we thought that the risk of undermining KiwiSaver should not be taken, and so we hastily withdrew that provision of the bill. I would note that the tax changes to KiwiSaver in the last decade have come from the National Party, who removed the tax-free status of employer contributions and added tax, removed the $1,000 kick-start payment, and removed the annual subsidy for fees. We didn’t do anything on that; we started and believe in KiwiSaver. And so whilst we believed that rule change to be fair when we introduced it, we weren’t going to put at risk the KiwiSaver system. It wasn’t that big an issue.

In respect of apportionment rules for GST, when business assets are used for both business and private purposes, we wanted to clarify that the part of the usage devoted to business purposes can be claimed back but the rest shouldn’t. The private benefit shouldn’t result in a GST claim, so these apportionment rules limit the GST claimable to the business use of the assets. The current apportionment rules can be complex for businesses, particularly smaller ones, to comply with, and we’re improving that to make it less onerous and less complex to do the right thing as part of our general commitment to reducing complexity, the tax system where appropriate.

The bill also proposes to modernise and enable greater flexibility in the rules that apply to the tax treatment of cross-border workers, and clarifies how pay-as-you-earn withholding tax, fringe benefit tax, employer superannuation contribution tax, and non-resident contractors tax rules apply to such workers.

Continuing on the international theme. Some New Zealand companies are concerned that they may have inadvertently become a tax resident in Australia due to recent changes in the Australian interpretation of its corporate tax residence rules. The bill proposes amendments to provide more certainty to New Zealand companies by ensuring they retain access to loss, grouping, consolidation, and imputation credit account rules. It’s also important to resolve integrity issues identified with the application of domestic dividend exemption and corporate migration rules to dual resident companies. The proposed amendments to these bills aim to strike a balance between ensuring the integrity of the rules and limiting the risk of overreach.

Closer to home, the bill at last exempts public transport fares from the fringe benefit tax (FBT). These can be subsidised by an employer, mainly for the purpose of their employees travelling between their home and work. Currently, we’ve got an imbalance in the system where employers don’t have to charge FBT on car parks provided to employees, but do in respect of subsidies for transport fares. That’s obviously an undesirable inconsistency. The last Government under National tried to neutralise that by charging FBT on car parks, but they got a backlash a bit similar to the one that we got in respect of the fund management fees issue I just referred to, and retreated from that proposal. Since then, we’ve had this imbalance between car parks and public transport, and we think the way through in this climate-constrained world is not to charge FBT on public transport.

The bill also proposes to extend the exemption of the interest limitation rules on build-to-rent assets. Members will also recall that the original interest limitation measures enacted provided for an exemption for new builds for 20 years. The policy objective here of changes to interest limitation rules was to discourage investors leveraging a portfolio of assets to outbid a first-home buyer or someone who just wants a house to live in, which was the increasing trend that we’ve seen in New Zealand as the concentration of housing assets has continued over the years. That change is actually working well, and, since we did that, we have seen the number of first-home buyers in the market increase relative to people buying buildings to rent. We haven’t seen the rapid increase in rents that was forewarned by the National Party. That hasn’t happened and, indeed, rents are now increasing in Auckland at a lower rate than inflation because we’re getting ahead on supply because of our massive house-build programme. So we believe we’ve got this right and it’s never been our intention to disincentivise investor demand for new rentals—for new housing to be put into rentals. And, therefore, we’re proposing to extend the build-to-rent exemption in perpetuity.

Finally, the bill also contains that crucial requirement of the tax system and that it sets the annual tax rates for the 2022-23 year. Those rates have not changed from the prior tax year.

So that’s a quick overview of the bill. It gives me great pleasure to amend—commend this bill to the House.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022–23, Platform Economy, and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2), because, as we’re all aware, this is the restart. This is the new generation. This is mark 2 of this piece of legislation. Much fanfare was introduced, not that long ago, by the Hon Mr Parker, and, of course, what a shocker that was. Less than 24 hours, Mr Parker, and that well-thought-out bill that was introduced was backtracked; absolutely removed from the House, and then reintroduced. Anyway—

Matt Doocey: Caught with a hand in the cookie jar.

ANDREW BAYLY: —yes, Mr Doocey—we will be opposing this bill on a number of counts.

The first one is it enshrines the current tax rates, and we are absolutely opposed to that. New Zealanders are in the middle of a cost of living crisis, driven by a high inflation rate. That means that people automatically go into a higher tax bracket and end up paying more tax—even you, Mr Speaker—and that means that every New Zealander is worse off and poorer. And that’s why we think that there should be an adjustment to our tax rates to make sure that hard-working New Zealanders keep the same amount of money on effective terms as they would if there hadn’t been such a high rate of inflation. That is why we do not agree with enshrining the current tax rates, and that is why National has come up with a plan to make sure there’s an adjustment for what is termed “fiscal drag” which, effectively, means that people are paying more tax as a result of inflation. That is the first grounds for opposing this bill.

The second one, which I think is much more significant, is what this bill entails. And the issue with this is—and I’ve heard Mr Parker speak just before, talking about, in glowing terms, how GDP is increased, our taxes are up; yes, they are up—tax that the Government is now taking in is about $41 billion more than they were taking in when they came to office a mere five years ago, and that is because of tax increases. And, of course, what he forgot to add is that during the last little period, we borrowed an extra $60-odd billion, which has, basically, doubled our debt under COVID.

This bill is about further labouring and applying pressure on New Zealanders to pay more tax. That is wrong. I was at the Financial Services Council meeting last night—big soiree in Auckland—and talking to financial service providers. And everyone was saying to me, “Why is the Government putting up taxes; why is it imposing more taxes at a time when New Zealanders are struggling to make ends meet?”

This bill is one of those examples; a continuation of the philosophical approach that Mr Parker wants to take, which is, basically, wanting to claw at every opportunity to increase the tax burden that every New Zealander, company, individual, and entity in New Zealand has to pay. And that is why we are opposed to this. The changes to the digital platform economy, that Mr Parker spoke so glowingly about, again will impose additional costs on New Zealanders. And one thing that Mr Parker forgot to mention in these changes that have been introduced into this bill is that New Zealand now becomes at the bleeding edge of introducing the OECD reforms. So, in terms of companies that already have existing reporting requirements, that’s America and France; in terms of those who are looking at introducing new proposals, that’s New Zealand, Australia, and Britain. And so we are absolutely in a minority situation; even the EU hasn’t gotten to a stage of implementing the OECD recommendations.

Yet, Mr Parker thinks it’s appropriate that New Zealand should be jumping ahead of everyone else and implementing these proposals that will increase the tax burden on New Zealanders before other countries—and many of whom have taken a leading role in developing these proposals—and New Zealand’s taking a small part in it. We are jumping the gun on it.

What it means is that if you provide a listed service—and they include accommodation, driving, ride sharing, or food or beverage delivery—then the net end cost to you, if you go and order those services, if you go and book a bach for the summer holidays in January, the cost of that bach has now gone up by a net 6.5 percent. That is a direct result of this piece of legislation, and that means that every New Zealander is going to be paying more tax for stuff like going on holiday.

And the interesting thing is: this thing has not been so well developed that there’s not even a reference to a minimum level of compliance. So it obliquely refers to the OECD de minimus rules of 30 transactions or 2,000 euros. Not even in this bill have they set out the details of how this piece of legislation is going to work. It is premature, and we should be waiting to see what happens around the world, because the direct result of this is that New Zealanders are going to be paying more for booking a bach if they want to go on a holiday or want to get some food delivered at night. That’s the first thing about this.

The second thing is that Mr Parker said that this bill is about reducing compliance. Well, the second most pernicious part about this bill is it introduces a huge information requirement on platforms—New Zealand domestic digital platforms like TradeMe—to report on a quarterly basis all your transactional details and also about you personally. So Dr Deborah Russell might trade some goods on TradeMe, perfectly legitimately, and this legislation will now mean that she will have to recall where she lives in West Auckland, her IRD number, details about her personal affairs, and that will be all put in—and if it relates to property, it will require, around the certificate of title, detailed personal information about that, and that will be a requirement of TradeMe to supply that information to the IRD on a quarterly basis. That is a huge information dump that this bill now requires. That is hardly reducing compliance costs. This is a way to actually hoover up information and give it to the IRD. Now, perversely, if Dr Russell decided not to trade on TradeMe but she decided to trade on eBay, then her personal details would not need to be disclosed to the IRD. So guess where the criminal element are going to go! If you are trading products that you’ve stolen, what are you going to do? You’re going to end up trading it on eBay. This is how badly thought through this piece of legislation is.

The third thing is the now absolute requirement that all Government statutory levies are subject to GST. Now, we understand in the regulatory impact statement that there are about 220 statutory levies. The Minister cannot tell how many of those are not subject to GST. There are some that are not subject to GST, but it now means that every Government levy is subject to GST. Again, that means that every company, and an individual that wants to access that, is now incurring a high cost, even if they are not in a situation where they can claim back that GST. That is the third element of this bill that imposes further additional costs on ordinary New Zealanders and much higher compliance obligations on many of our digital platforms. This is a poorly thought through bill and one that we will reject and fight in select committee and through this process.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Let me tell you a story, a story about fringe benefit tax (FBT) on public car parks. A long, long time ago—well, maybe not that long ago—back in 2012, under a Government led by that party—National—there was a discussion paper introduced, and among the issues it canvassed was putting FBT on employer-provided car parks. I think perhaps none of the members over the other side of the House remember that because they weren’t here, but I remember it. There was a huge outcry about it. All the privileged people who had car parks and could drive into town and park in their employer-provided carpark were outraged that they would no longer have access to this, and there followed months and months and months of discussion, of outrage, of cries for change.

Eventually—eventually—after all the discussion, after all the debate, even though it was a tax change that was justified, even though it was a technically correct tax change, even though it would have provided greater fairness in the Income Tax Act, they folded—they folded—and they didn’t go ahead with it. So it took from April 2012, when the discussion paper was first introduced, until March 2013, before they finally folded on it—18 March 2013, to be precise—and what it did was it left an unfairness in place.

In this bill, we are fixing that unfairness. Because we know that there was no public assent to the FBT on car parks, we have decided instead that the way to achieve at least some degree of fairness is to exempt public transport from FBT. So, previously, if you drove—and still now, if you drive your private car—on the roads provided by taxpayers and park it in your employer’s car park, which is provided to you, there’s no FBT on that, but if your employer provided you with a train pass so that you could get to and from work, or a bus pass or ferry pass, then there was FBT on that. So there was a real disincentive for employers to subsidise public transport for their employees, but there was a positive incentive to provide a car park on premises. It’s madness. It is madness because not only was there unfairness in that, it did not do anything to alleviate our emissions burden that we need to alleviate in this country.

In this bill, from when this bill goes through, if an employer provides a bus pass, a tram pass, a ferry pass, a cable car pass, or a train pass to their employee so that employee can get to and from work, then there will be no FBT on that. That is an excellent reason to support this bill. It remedies an unfairness that has existed for a long time.

There’s two points to that story: one is because it introduces the issue of fairness; the other one is because last time around—last time around—the FBT proposal was defeated by politics, as, indeed, was the proposed change we had in an earlier version of this bill around introducing GST on some managed-fund providers. It is a technically correct solution, tax-wise.

Simon Watts: Oh, you know best!

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Indeed, I do. It is a technically correct solution. However, the politics defeated, and so be it. We’ll look at the issue another way; we’ll see what else we can do to introduce fairness in the system.

Simeon Brown: What else do you know best about?

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: But, in fact—I know it’s best to have a Labour Government—it was withdrawn, and, quite correctly, the Minister withdrew it. So that is no longer in the bill. But there is this fantastic proposal around fairness and FBT. That fairness is also what underlies the changes to the platform tax proposals. It’s about ensuring that providers who operate through platforms are subject to the same tax burdens and benefits as other providers. It’s a straightforward fairness proposal.

I want to address just one further issue. The previous speaker for the Opposition, Andrew Bayly, talked about tax cuts, and he talked about the need for people to have more money in their back pocket. The tax cuts proposed by the Opposition would indeed put more money in some people’s back pockets. It would put more money in MPs’ back pockets. It would put more money in CEOs’ back pockets. It would put more money in lawyers’ and accountants’ back pockets. Now, I’m fine with people having more money, but these are not the people who need it most at the moment. The people who most need money at the moment are the people at the low end of the income-tax scale. The proposal from the Opposition would do nothing to address that, or, if they did, they would address it at $2 a week. That doesn’t make any difference.

I issue, finally, a challenge to the Opposition. It’s a challenge I have issued at a number of times in this House in the last few weeks, and never once have they answered it. “Tax cuts”, they say. But they will not tell us which services they will cut. How will the Opposition fund their tax cuts? Will they cut health? Will they cut education? Will they cut welfare? They do not answer this question, and I say to the people who are listening, every time you hear the Opposition, and Opposition member-proposed tax cuts, ask them to front up and say what services they will cut. If they do not say what services they will cut, it is a false promise and they are leading people astray. They must tell us how they will fund their proposed tax cuts.

This is an excellent bill. It is a bill about fairness. It is a bill that addresses the needs of New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to talk on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23, Platform Economy, and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2). It is “(No 2)” because, as we know, not everything that comes out of this Government in terms of the first pass actually has any degree of consideration or review in terms of the detail. What we know from this Government is that the first aspect of this bill—why this bill is called “(No 2)”—included an absolutely shambolic idea about increasing the taxation on KiwiSaver provisions for fund managers’ fees and all of the like, and that implication in terms of increasing of that tax was going to, in effect, bring in for the Government $225 million in a year.

What is surprising is that you’d think, when they’re sitting around that table, that they’d be going, “OK, let’s just keep an eye on, you know, maybe the things that will get our attention.” But for some reason that is unknown to anyone, I think, that piece of legislation, that element of this bill—why this bill is “(No 2)”, when we were talking about bill No. 1—was going to bring that degree of taxation. The only ones that didn’t seem to know that that was going to land like a cup of cold sick was the Labour Cabinet. Every single Kiwi picked up within 24 hours that that was an absolutely dumb idea. But the ones that missed it were that side of the House, and that raises some bigger concerns, I think, in terms of the Government, because how could you miss something so big—how could you miss something so big? How could you miss the fact that this change to the legislation is going to bring in, particularly, $109 billion?

Hon Mark Mitchell: How much?

SIMON WATTS: $109 billion by 2070—you cannot miss that. But, the reality is, the Minister in charge of this bill, the Hon Mr Parker, missed that element, as did his colleagues in the Cabinet of the Labour Government. That goes to the heart of why Kiwis across this country believe this country is heading in the wrong direction. They do not trust that side of the House in order to be able to fiscally manage the challenges that we have in this country, of which there are a huge number. They do not trust the capability or competence of those members on that side of the House to do what is required for this country.

National strongly opposes the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23, Platform Economy, and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2) that’s on the Table today. The prior speaker Andrew Bayly has articulated some of the reasons why, but I want to go into a few other elements because, at its heart, this bill is missing an opportunity. It is not listening to the feedback of hard-working Kiwis across this country who are struggling day after day, week after week, because of the poor decisions that that Government are making. This bill is an opportunity, or could have been an opportunity, in order to remediate and to start doing something positive about that. But they have failed, and that is a great shame in terms of the opportunities that this could have come and addressed.

Part of this bill introduces the concept around the annual setting of income taxes, and National have been very strongly opposed around these tax rates. The reason why is that we have got significant degrees of inflation in this country: 7.3 percent, with wage inflation going at 3.4 percent. Take one after the other. We’re going backwards at 3.9 percent every single day, every week, every month, every year. The opportunity that this Government had in regards to this bill was actually making some adjustments to the way in which that tax bracket, or that fiscal tax bracket—changing that to take into account the impacts of inflation. That is such a simple thing to do. Do you know what? By simply doing that, you rapidly put that benefit into the paycheque of that hard-working person driving a concrete truck at Atlas Concrete in my electorate, working on the front line in terms of hospitality, our front-line police, our nurses—they would see the benefit of that pretty much in their next pay, straight away. The compliance cost is very little, but they’d get that benefit. But instead, this Government believes the solution to the cost of living crisis, which is now becoming a social crisis, is doing a cost of living payment and not actually adjusting within this bill the tax rates, which it should be. That is a great shame, and that is why I believe Kiwis can see this Government are not in touch with the key issues that Kiwis are facing at the moment.

The other aspect I want to get into is in regards to—and Andrew Bayly articulated it well—the information gathering and taxing the digital economy. Well, when I see statements around information gathering coming from that side of the House, from Government, you start to go, “Oh, well, we know what they are up to, don’t we?”, because every time they start going on a fishing expedition in order to gather information, we know what they are up to, because they cannot be trusted on taxation. They are up to no good, as usual. They are looking for ways in which they can fund their addiction to spending—and, gee, what an addiction it is. The problem with that addiction is it has consequences, and will have intergenerational consequences on every single Kiwi because of decisions they make.

So let’s get into the information-gathering aspect of this bill, because it is quite apparent, to me, that there are a number of unintended consequences which only come, quite simply, of the reality that this has been poorly thought-out, poorly planned, poorly executed, and poorly led by an ineffective Minister. But the elements within it are quite simple. How much do you think this will cost to implement this element of the legislation, and do you think the cost to implement will exceed the revenue gained? Well, you don’t have to do fifth form accounting—as it was in my day, or a little bit earlier—you sort of work out, well, maybe the benefits are going to exceed the cost.

I don’t want to get too simplistic, but I think most people would get the fact that surely the benefit will exceed the cost. But no, no, no; have a look at page 14 and page 15. In order to implement this wonderful ideological change—which no one else in the world, in terms of benchmarking, is at yet—it will cost $19.3 million. So what will the tax gain be from that? Well, surely it will be more than $19.3 million. The Hon Michael Woodhouse, what do you reckon? Do you reckon it will be a bit more?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: It’ll be a hell of a lot more.

SIMON WATTS: No. It’s actually $8 million less than the cost that it’ll take to implement it—$11 million. So quite at its fundamental level, it’s peanuts in the scheme of the total big picture, but the compliance costs that these guys just seem to ram through in terms of trying to do some ideological change—it absolutely has no consequence on hard-working Kiwis who need to see the benefit of smart Government decision-making today; not in the future. They’ve missed another opportunity, and they’ve missed it in regards to this. They have put, in effect, that cost of implementation—it has to be funded by someone as well, and guess who funds it! The taxpayer funds it. So the additional cost of the compliance in regards to that ideological element of this bill will fall on hard-working Kiwis, and, as a result, they have missed another opportunity to turn this country around. This country needs to be rebuilt, and this bill provided the basis, or could have provided the basis, to start us on this journey. But that opportunity has been wasted, that opportunity has been missed, that opportunity has been foregone, and that is a grave shame and a disappointment.

I want to, lastly, get back to the element in regards to what is going on that such poor legislation can get to this point where we are today. What are the failures within the system within the Government of the moment that are allowing such sloppy legislation to get through? Well, it is a failure to, in effect, adequately plan and a failure to actually have a plan in terms of where we’re going in the future. If these guys knew where we wanted to be in 12, 18, two, or three years from now, this would be a mechanical process, but it’s not. It’s reactive, it’s thinking off the cuff, and, as a result, we’re seeing legislation like this, which is absolute failure and will turn this country in the wrong direction. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I have been listening very carefully to the speeches on the other side of the House and waiting for some interesting information. So far, it seems to be a regurgitation of a very outdated ideology.

This is an Act that comes to the Finance and Expenditure Committee every year, and I will be on that committee this year and I will be looking and welcoming the detail of it. But the first thing that I notice about the Act is that the tax rates don’t change; they’re exactly what they were. What was promised to be held was the status quo, and that’s what’s happening.

What the Opposition seems to be doing is putting up a proposal that they say they would go through with, which would, in fact, give the members of this House and people on high incomes quite large tax cuts. It would, in fact, give very, very little to most New Zealanders. It would give far less than the things that this Government has given that same income bracket in different ways: targeted responses to actually a pretty hard time out there.

So it’s no joking a matter that, in fact, the alternative proposal is one that involves people on $200,000 etc. getting thousands—$20,000 or thereabouts—in their pocket, while the New Zealanders who are on under $70,000 get very, very little. It does actually starkly contrast one party with the other.

What this bill also does is it gathers information and that seems to get the ire of the National Party as well. It gathers information about the gig economy. What would you have us do? Ignore, close our eyes and our ears to the fact that we have an evolving economy? We have an economy where a whole lot of people now trade services and goods on platforms that they didn’t used to use. Instead, the National Party seems to want us to not know what’s going on in that economy. Well, I put it to you that that would be a completely incompetent way to run a Government.

We absolutely need to know. What we are doing is we are actually joining the OECD countries in an effort to make sure that we modernise our tax system so it is fair; so people cannot subvert their incomes. So we are part of a group.

I think I was most surprised to hear there was a criticism that we were at what was called the “bleeding edge” of that by Mr Bayly. We are actually, I think, number four going into that regime. We are not the first, but I am actually proud of us being ahead of the game and doing these things in a timely manner. That is our job. That is what Governments do. The first thing that a Government has to do is make sure that it is taxing effectively and fairly. And that is what this does.

So I am very interested and keen on seeing the rules of the OECD countries applied here. It means we will gather the right information, we will know who’s paying tax, and we will manage the tax system accordingly. And that means that hard-working New Zealanders who work every day and pay their tax are actually only paying their fair share and not a great burden of it, because that is what a system that goes wrong does. When we have those systems, they are totally undermined and they undermine the trust of New Zealanders.

Whereas, I think, most New Zealanders know that, in New Zealand, the system is pretty fair. Top earners actually pay a bit more because they can afford to, and lower-income earners pay a bit less for the same reason—because they can’t afford to. That’s the New Zealanders I want to see this Act target, and it does.

We are also looking at GST in the gig economy and making that even. And I think that’s only fair. Let’s just take an example of the Uber drivers. The Uber drivers are all shattered little groups. So now, the platform that is producing that new kind of business will pay the GST. And that’s fair on our taxi drivers who’ve been doing so all along. It’s actually really, really important that we get that economy in proportion to other parts of our economy, and we don’t encourage one over the other. That’s an even playing field and it’s a damn good idea.

The other thing I want to talk about is build-to-rent, because, again, it shows a situation where we have a strong sense of common sense, because build-to-rents will be exempt from the interest deductibility—changes made last year so that build-to-rents will be encouraged, and that will encourage investment in the right places in this economy. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased to stand up and support this bill, the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23, Platform Economy, and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2), and I’ll start my contribution by talking about the portion of this bill that directly relates to my member’s bill which is currently in the ballot, the Income Tax (Clean Transport FBT Exclusions) Amendment Bill, which was about evening the playing field when it comes to employer incentives for travel to and from work.

Long before I came to this House as a member of Parliament, I worked as a transportation planner, and my very first job was at engineering consulting services firm SKM, now Jacobs. One of my jobs when I was still doing my Master’s was project manager for the internal environmental management systems plan, which included the travel plan. For many people watching this at home, if they are employed by a large organisation like a district health board or a hospital, a university, a private company like Spark, they will have travel plans for their staff. The point of that travel plan is to provide incentives, support, and encouragement for people to travel to work in more sustainable ways. This can help the organisation, but it also helps the community around the city, because it helps reduce peak-hour congestion in the morning, but it also helps us with respect to our environment and our climate.

One of the biggest barriers to employers providing incentives for sustainable transport, like public transport, was the fringe benefit tax (FBT)—the fact that they’d have to pay fringe benefit tax on public transport passes. So what this bill will do is remove that. So all it’s really doing is a relatively small thing, but a very smart thing; it is removing the barriers for employers in providing public transport passes. The more people who take public transport, the better off we all are. Unfortunately, there are many ways in which single-occupant car use, especially at peak time, is unintentionally subsidised by the current set-up, and that’s one of the biggest drivers of congestion.

As Dr Deborah Russell alluded to in her contribution, back in 2012, there was a proposal by the Minister of Revenue Peter Dunne and the National-led Government to finally address this big subsidy, which was the tax-exempt status of employer-provided car parks, which is unfair for many reasons, but especially counter-productive because it provides a subsidy to people commuting by car at peak time, which directly undermines the goals of many cities to reduce congestion in the morning. Unfortunately—I remember very clearly that I was on the Finance and Expenditure Committee for that bill—the IRD officials at the time weren’t even looking at the transport benefits even though the New Zealand Transport Agency had published a research report talking about how changing fringe benefit tax settings could help achieve better outcomes for our transport system. IRD was looking at it purely from a revenue point of view.

And what was really notable, and this is also related to another part of this bill, is that when we were at the select committee—so the bill had already been introduced, had been through its first reading, the National Party had supported this at its first reading—the big end of town got together with the Employers & Manufacturers Association (Northern) and launched this big campaign against the “car park tax”. Unfortunately—I know there were some of my colleagues in the Labour Party who agreed this was a sensible thing and were going to support it—the Labour spokesperson for revenue at the time was David Cunliffe, and he saw a populist opportunity to jump in there and attack the Government over the car park tax, which was unfortunate, I thought.

It just shows how vested interests who want to maintain the status quo, who are only thinking about their sort of narrow, selfish interests, can be very organised and mount a successful campaign against making the tax system fairer and making sure it works for our communities and our environment. This is one of the things that the Green Party will continue to call out, and we hope to change, because ordinary New Zealanders would have been better off by this change to bring employer-provided car parks into the FBT regime 10 years ago. We would have had huge benefits over those 10 years. And, of course, the value of an employer-provided car park is about the same as an annual public transport pass in most cities. So we missed out on benefits for 10 years because of, quite frankly, a misleading campaign which claimed some massive cost. It actually massively overestimated the number of car parks in Auckland city centre, but it was very effective.

And we saw a very similar, rapid campaign mounted against the original version of this bill, as it was introduced, to try to tidy up GST with relation to financial services related to KiwiSaver. I think, if anyone watching at home wants to read a really enlightening article about that, there is an article by Tom Pullar-Strecker from Stuff which talks about how, really, the numbers used in that very brief and effective campaign against that change were really overestimating the cost to KiwiSaver. Really, this is just about some financial services being treated equally, with respect to GST, as other providers of services in New Zealand. Interestingly, if you’re going to count the compound impact on KiwiSaver, you also have to count the compound benefit for the Government of having that additional revenue, and having it compound and offset borrowing costs of that time. Actually, all of New Zealand would have been better off, and is better off, from a fairer approach to raising revenue.

Here I have to speak to the Opposition National MPs’ very classic speeches on this bill, where they, along with the vested interests who benefit from the status quo, attempt a framing of the debate that is quite misleading, that demonises any change to our tax system, when, in fact, there are huge benefits to all New Zealanders of a fairer tax system. We do raise revenue to purchase things together, because it’s more efficient and it’s better for all of us if we purchase these things together, like healthcare, public health; like education, our schools; like our infrastructure. Those are things that we’re all better off by purchasing together than leaving it up to individuals. The National Party and, of course, the ACT Party engage in a kind of framing that comes from the 1980s that demonises tax, and it’s really misleading. It’s a kind of divide-and-conquer approach, because what they say to ordinary, middle-class New Zealanders who aren’t earning high incomes is “The Government is going to tax you.”, when, in truth, the proposals the National Party puts forward are all about helping those who already have money and property get even richer at the expense of everyone else, basically. That’s the truth of it.

You can see that really clearly. If we look at the Australian tax code—

Matt Doocey: How’s equality under your Government?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I mean, I do think it’s fair to say that those New Zealanders who are on lower incomes, who work multiple jobs, are overtaxed relative to the very wealthy people who earn higher incomes, and particularly those who earn their incomes from property and assets, who just sit back and let their property inflate in value and benefit from that.

If we look at something like our neighbours in Australia and their tax code, they don’t have any tax up to A$18,000 a year, and then their marginal tax rate is higher. So, if you earn A$120,000, you pay 37c on the dollar for every dollar over that, and if you earn over A$180,000, you pay 45c on the dollar for every dollar over A$180,000. And Australia has a capital gains tax. I mean, it’s not as ambitious as it could be, but they do have a capital gains tax. So, when we look at countries we aspire to be more like, they have more progressive tax systems, the wealthier pay more, the property owners don’t get away with it scot-free. They actually make contributions on their capital gains and, by doing so, the country can invest in those core public services that make sure that everybody actually has an equal go. I mean, we’re nowhere near that, of course, but we can aspire to be more like that.

So the Green Party will be supporting this bill. We’re happy to see the removal of fringe benefit tax on employer-provided public transport passes. We would like to see other changes to fringe benefit tax to incentivise other types of sustainable commutes, like e-bikes, bikes, maybe even a reduction for electric vehicles or zero-emissions vehicles, and we would like to see the loophole really closed and enforcement finally come in on the exemption around double-cab utes, which is clearly being exploited and leading to a real proliferation of large, double-cab utes, when they aren’t really needed for work purposes, simply as a means of tax avoidance, which has unintended negative consequences for our transport system.

Ingrid Leary: Mr Speaker.

Damien Smith: Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Damien Smith.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Smith, you could do with some more spring in getting to your feet because—

DAMIEN SMITH: I was respecting the member across the way.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, of course, if the other member had taken the call, yours could’ve been lost. So I just would—

DAMIEN SMITH: No.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Smith, I could just suggest to you, keep an eye. So you have the call.

Matt Doocey: He’s a respectful man.

DAMIEN SMITH: No room for respect in Parliament. The Labour and Green parties continue their mind-set and tradition of believing that taxing us into prosperity is going to work.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: It does. Look at Denmark.

DAMIEN SMITH: And they’re going to use countries and comparisons that are not even relevant. The spending in this, the taxation bill, is showing that the Government is short on cash, and tax ultimately is politics. Tax is politics because this is bill No. 2. When the public backlashed against the GST treatment of KiwiSaver, even though it was complicatedly explained and was misinterpreted and people did get the wrong end of the stick, it ultimately did say something, though, that there’s something wrong at the IRD where they can just slip something into the Government’s Minister and it’s included—the same thing on the bleeding-edge stuff around this platform economy, which is that they just want gold stars from the Ministers, and the Ministers aren’t really checking the detail. That was a highly embarrassing setback for the Government in terms of having to take that last bill off the Table and replace it with this one.

Doing my numbers, there might be enough money here with GSTs on GSTs to claw back the cost of living payment, and that’s probably been one of the objectives. You know, there was a time in life when Benjamin Franklin said, in 1789, that there’s only two things certain in life, death and taxes, but now you can be dead and get a payment. So I think the Labour Government has redefined Benjamin Franklin’s statement. Mr Smith will say that there’s three things certain in life: death and taxes, and, in New Zealand, you can get a bonus back if you want to, if you want to stick your hand up and pull it out.

This bill, I have to say, though, would’ve been the perfect set-up for a capital gains tax to be introduced by the Labour Party. But, unfortunately, as Jacinda Ardern said, it won’t happen while she’s still here. But it’s no doubt that the ambition of the Green Party is to bring in a capital gains tax. Also, they have this misconception that our tax policy at the ACT Party is just about rich people. It’s not. Anybody under $70,000 will get a flat rate 17.5 percent tax rebate, and anybody above that will get 28 percent, and we will kill the 39 percent envy tax rate because it doesn’t actually contribute much revenue at all. It’s just an ideology that they have produced.

So also the brightline test and interest rate deductibility will be scrapped. On cross-border workers, we thought that the non-resident contractors’ tax should’ve been abolished completely. So there’s a halfway house there.

The bill clarifies that any changes that are payable because of law changes or regulations will go to the Government coffers. The one thing that does seem to have slipped away is that—maybe Mr Robertson wants this to happen—we’re all due refunds of GST on earnings through ACC, but nobody’s really talking about that. It’s something I hope in the next stage of this process that is addressed by the committee in question.

So, you know, the IRD gold star sticker system we think needs to be addressed. There’s stuff coming from there that even other countries around the world aren’t doing, which, you know, makes us embarrassingly early in terms of just putting cost and burden on our systems and not on anybody else’s.

The build-to-rent GST benefits to developers—that is very questionable, and the councils should’ve been involved with that. Dual resident companies and dual residency—there still is a lot of issues to work out with the Australians in this bill, and that’ll be the next stage.

So, in the digital economy aspects, even though we’re at the cutting edge of this, the next paper that will come through will be Pillar One and Pillar Two OECD rules. So it looks like everything the OECD wants, we’re not going to just accept as a given here in New Zealand. Well, that is strange because last night I got my bill rejected working with the OECD. You know, I’m not feeling bad about it, but it looks like that’s the pan-organisation plus the World Bank which will affect our taxation philosophy.

So the sooner we have a look at how the Government spent its money on COVID and advertising and initiatives around the green space and get a royal inquiry into COVID, which I know my colleague Miss Swarbrick is very keen on, we will begin to understand the stress that the tax base is under. Even though people have a perception that GDP is rising, if you strip out the costs of agricultural price increases in the last quarter, all the underlying factors are deteriorating. So it’s not as rosy as people make out, and we have to accept that we’ve got a lot of work to do with the economy.

So, at ACT’s side of the fence, we believe in giving the money to New Zealanders to spend themselves and not by this Government. Inflation has assisted this Government in terms of its tax take. It’s actually incredulous that some of that hasn’t been passed back to the citizens of this country. On the last point, we believe that the tax bill at 39 percent as the top rate just showed that there was no thought or thinking going on here. The cost of living payment at the eleventh hour, the withdrawal of this bill around GST and KiwiSaver, and the presentation of bill No. 2 shows that, you know, things are just getting made up on the hoof, and this should’ve been settled down into something really, really steady and strong. So if the Government is short on cash, we can expect to see more taxes. If the Greens want their agenda fulfilled, we will have the spectre of a capital gains tax going into the next election, and that may prove unpalatable for the people of New Zealand.

So the bill cleans up several aspects of the GST code, which I’m sure the accountants will be happy about. But, on the macro picture, we believe that it hasn’t addressed the dynamics of a post-COVID scenario. Within the COVID scenario, it has led and shown that the inefficiencies around Government spending have caused us problems in balancing the books, and there isn’t much more left to take in the tax take.

So we oppose this bill, and we will look to the committee for refinements, certainly around ACC levels, and we will watch that closely. The cross-border regulations are another aspect that need to be looked at immediately, and we hope there’s some work done in that area. ACT opposes the bill.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m a little bit baffled by the last speaker’s reference to dual residency and saying that this is something that needs to be looked at, because, actually, this dual-residency question is one of the significant changes that this bill introduces which bring significant benefit to business. It hasn’t actually been discussed much in the House. So I will turn my attention to it in my contribution this morning.

It comes as a result of uncertainty on corporate residency tax. So that’s when the majority of directors could be, say, from Australia, a New Zealand company that has all its operations in New Zealand could actually be considered a dual tax resident, and then that has some flow-on effects currently which would disadvantage it. That comes about from recent changes in the Australian Taxation Office which has led to the ambiguity. So, to follow Michael Woodhouse’s analogy on rugby, it’s a little bit like the Aussies claiming our New Zealand All Blacks, simply, say, the coach was an Australian, and all the All Blacks and the games happened in New Zealand—that is currently what could happen with this ambiguity in the tax changes.

So, under the New Zealand current rules, there are several benefits that can be claimed in these tax regimes. One of them is around forming consolidated goods. Until now, that has been for New Zealand - only companies. What that, basically, means is that wholly owned groups of companies can be considered, for tax purposes, as one group, so their assets, transfers, dividends, interest, management, fees, and so on, can be considered together.

Secondly, there’s the sharing of tax loses. So that’s sharing losses between loss- and profit-making companies where there’s at least 66 percent shared ownership.

And thirdly, the utilisation of imputation credits. So that’s about a fair and transparent spread of tax burden and benefit between shareholders and a company. So imputation credits, basically, mean tax credits can go to shareholders, and if the imputation credit account is in debit, a company could be required to pay more tax.

Now, these benefits don’t normally apply to non - New Zealand resident companies. So what this bill is seeking to do is to ensure that New Zealand resident companies can continue to have those benefits, even where they’re considered dual resident by Australia. So the question then becomes: when is a New Zealand company a New Zealand resident? Basically, if it’s incorporated in New Zealand, if its head office is in New Zealand, or if the centre of management or the directors control the company in New Zealand.

None of that was ambiguous until 2017 when there was a case called Bywater, where the Australian tax company revised its views on residency and made it possible for New Zealand companies to be considered dual residents if the majority of their directors were based in Australia. So that would be even if there was no trading or no investment overseas. Now, that hasn’t been determined yet. At the moment, it’s still the status quo, but that case law has opened up the possibility for New Zealand companies to be disadvantaged, should that happen.

The other point I’d just like to pick up is around compliance and the Opposition saying that there are heavy compliance costs. Actually, what this bill seeks to do around GST is to reduce compliance costs, particularly, again, for overseas situations around PAYE, around employing overseas contractors. It has been a headache for business, particularly if they were expecting an exemption and the exemption isn’t granted. What the bill seeks to do is, basically, simplify the process—so, for example, with PAYE, allow it to be paid annually by New Zealand companies, rather than monthly.

So, in summary, these international compliance benefits are nimble, thoughtful, and good for business. They protect New Zealand business from a dual-tax burden, and that’s a great thing. And it’s just something for us to bear in mind as we consider what some of the significant benefits are of this bill that haven’t actually really been raised until today.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on the Hon Michael Woodhouse for five minutes.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. In what I think was one of the great malapropisms of the 53rd Parliament, the Minister of Revenue, at the end of his first reading speech, said the following words: “It gives me great pleasure to amend the bill to the House.” Actually, he stopped himself and ended up saying he commended it to the House, but I reckon he was right the first time. He sure amended the bill to the House, because this is the bill that has the biggest U-turn from a Minister, who folded like a red hot Mars bar within 24 hours of tabling the bill in the House. So, boy, it’s been amended, all right.

Here’s the other scandalous part of this bill: it contains the biggest hidden hand grenade in Parliamentary history, a $100 billion tax grab that nobody was talking about. When they talk about transparency and the efficiency of the tax system, I think every single member of the public and of this House should remember that this is the Government that hasn’t seen a single thing it doesn’t want to tax. And if there was that hidden hand grenade—that big and that obvious to spot, once the economic and tax commentators saw the eyes of the bill—what else is in this bill? Because as Deborah Russell lectured us—a history lesson on the car parks and fringe benefit tax in 2012—what she did say, eventually, was that that policy never made it to a bill. The reason it didn’t was because the previous Government honoured the generic tax policy process. It set up the small business Tax Working Group and it used the expertise that exist in New Zealand to help it fashion good tax policy that’s consistent with our broad based, low rate, and administratively efficient taxation system.

All of that, it appears to me, has been thrown out the window, because, for the stuff that we do know in this bill, there are some really ridiculous and inefficient taxes. The most obvious one of that is now euphemistically known as the “Uber tax”, where drivers—they may be university students, they may be part-time parents, they may be people supplementing their income and earning less than $60,000, the threshold for registration for GST—are now going to have to jump through a hundred hoops and get their calculators out for this extraordinary netting of the 15 percent GST that’s going to be imposed on the fares; keeping some and giving some back. If that’s administratively efficient, I’ll eat my hat.

Now, if these are the things we know about this bill, and given what we heard from the Government when they first introduced it, what other hidden hand grenades are in it? I look forward to the Finance and Expenditure Committee really getting deep in the weeds on this because, at the best of times, these remedial matter taxation bills are pretty pointy-headed, and it does require the attention of the Finance and Expenditure Committee—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Great committee.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I have no idea what that member is saying behind the mask.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Great committee.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Great committee. Well, it’s been better. I’ll sound like the grumpy drunk at the end of the bar, but it was better in my day—it was better in my day—when I was the Minister of Revenue. We wouldn’t have introduced a bill with a hundred-billion-dollar hidden hand grenade. And, boy, the Finance and Expenditure Committee would have gone through this with a fine-toothed comb. I encourage the member Chlöe Swarbrick to get deep in the weeds on what’s in here—

Jamie Strange: Don’t mention weeds.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —because if it’s about fairness—that’s right, that’s another referendum we’ll be having. If it’s about fairness, and if it’s about administrative efficiency, she should put that lens on and make sure she listens very carefully to the tax experts, who will be engaged by the committee and brought in as submitters, because if there are hundred-billion-dollar mistakes that we can see, and ridiculous policies like the Uber GST policy, there are bound to be several others.

We oppose this bill. We oppose this bill because it’s philosophically the wrong thing to do and will set this economy back. But, actually, we oppose it because it’s an inefficient, poor process, and it should be better. Good luck to the Finance and Expenditure Committee; good luck finding the hidden hand grenades.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on this bill. Look, there’s some excellent—excellent—stuff in here. I’d like to start with the fringe benefit tax exemption for public transport and just sort of tease that out a little bit.

The biggest challenge we face as a country is climate change. It’s the biggest challenge we face as a planet. The focus has been on COVID over the past few years, in a way that sort of masked what the key challenge is for the planet, and that is climate change. In New Zealand, our transport emissions make up 20 percent of our emissions—a significant amount—and I’d like to acknowledge the work that this Government is doing in terms of reducing our transport emissions. This piece of legislation is another example of that. So the bill proposes to exempt public transport from fringe benefit tax where bus, train, ferry, tram, or cable car services are subsidised by an employer, mainly for the purpose of their employee travelling between their home and place of work.

Now, just to put a local context on this, there are a number of businesses in Hamilton who are actively already doing this and others who are having conversations around it with the likes of the Waikato Regional Council and myself, around what they can do. We’re also seeing Government agencies start to move into this area, which is really, really good to see. Now, today is World Car Free Day, and I’m sure there are members in the House and constituents of members in this House who would be asking the question, “Well, what sort of public transport could I take? What sort of public transport could my employer potentially support me with and, obviously, be incentivised to do so because of the exemption of the fringe benefit tax?” Well, there are a number of examples, and more examples springing up all the time.

One would be the Te Huia passenger rail service between Hamilton and Auckland—excellent, excellent service. In fact, I feel like we are the envy of many other regions across New Zealand because the investment of this Government and the support of local councils in terms of getting this through. Now, in August, 5,698 passengers took the Te Huia rail service.

Hon Member: How many?

JAMIE STRANGE: Yeah, 5,698. Now, that’s over 5,000 cars off the road, so it supports with congestion as people travel.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is he talking about Te Huia?

JAMIE STRANGE: I am talking about Te Huia—the Te Huia passenger rail service. I’m sure the member’s constituents down in Dunedin would be envious of this Te Huia passenger rail service, because as I travel around the country, people are talking about regional connections—how we can improve regional connections.

For those who have not taken the Te Huia passenger rail service, considering I’ve been encouraged by the other side to talk about it a little bit more, the comfort of the travel is absolutely remarkable. You can sit down at a comfortable seat. You’ve got a table, you’ve got charging points, you’ve got Wi-Fi. You can open your laptop. You can work all the way between Hamilton to Auckland or Auckland to Hamilton. There’s a cafe on board. There’s a bathroom on board. I’ve taken my family with me a number of times. And the best thing is Hamilton to Auckland, $9—$9 from Hamilton to Auckland; $18 return, obviously. And there’s even cheaper fares for those who take their family. So, recently, we took our family from Hamilton and went up to the Strand, and then we nipped across to Devonport—a lovely part of the country—spent some time there, and then we hopped back on the train and came back home. It was a really lovely day; really family experience.

Hon Todd McClay: How much did it cost the taxpayer, when you did that?

JAMIE STRANGE: Well, it was about $20, maybe 30 bucks for the whole family—for the whole family to go to Simon Watts’ electorate.

Look, there’s more I could say about this area, like the FlixBus and other exciting things that are happening, many of it being led by the Waikato Regional Council, councillors like Angela Strange, just picking one just randomly. Excellent piece of work going on in that space. A good piece of legislation, I commend it to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I commend the previous speaker, Jamie Strange, and the Te Huia bus service—about which there was some raruraru from the other side of the House coming on. But I’m definitely envious, as the member of Parliament for New Plymouth. Trains are constantly talked about in my electorate. We seem to be constantly having meetings of people about how, actually, could we continue to decarbonise; how could we continue to get trucks off the road; how could we actually get passenger services back? Te Huia is a good example of something that’s “slow and steady wins the race”, I say—that’s my mantra in my life.

But, anyway, we’re focused on this bill here around taxation this afternoon, and I just wanted to focus really briefly on that appropriate tax treatment when it comes to making it fairer. As someone who ran an accommodation business for about four years, it was always frustrating as we used the traditional means—advertising through websites online, through the local information centre—and the regulations and things we had to follow as an accommodation business. Whereas we had Airbnb come along, we had Bookabach come along, who in many ways—when it comes to Airbnb, obviously, it wasn’t a fair and reasonable service in terms of the regulations. We have the councils, but, of course, then there were the GST and the tax challenges.

So this piece of legislation talks about creating that appropriate tax treatment when it comes to ride sharing, when it comes to food and beverage deliveries, when it comes to visits and accommodation and services provided through apps. Obviously the world is changing, and changing rapidly; we need to ensure that we are changing with it.

So that’s my simple contribution this afternoon, because we just want to get on the select committee and do the work.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): There’s not a single problem in this country that the Labour Party and the Labour Government does not think they can fix with tax. It is always a new tax. It’s often hidden. You don’t often see it. They talk up how low the tax burden is upon New Zealanders, but, actually, that’s a party that believes that people should pay more of their own money that they work hard to earn to the Government, and the Government is better to redistribute it, to give it back to them, and when this Labour Government gives it back to them, they want them to be grateful for it.

Well, National has a very different view. We trust New Zealanders with their own money. We back New Zealanders who work hard to get ahead, and we think they are best placed to decide how to spend their own money. A Government should only take the amount it needs; it shouldn’t take more than that. That’s something that is a foreign concept to almost every single MP in Government at the moment, except for the Assistant Speaker Jenny Salesa, who is the wisest woman I’ve met on that side.

Does anybody in this House, apart from the Opposition and almost every single New Zealander who gets on Facebook to rail against the spin that comes from this Government, remember that, on 2 May, the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, from New Zealand—one of the infrequent times she’s actually in New Zealand caring about what’s happening here to Kiwis, not overseas, jumping on aeroplanes to fly around the world with the Prime Minister of Canada—said there would be no new taxes?

Ginny Andersen: Stick to the bill.

Hon TODD McCLAY: I will stick to it. Jacinda Ardern, on 2 May, said there will be no new taxes. Then, very, very quickly, the revenue Minister had to withdraw a bill faster than he had put it through Cabinet to say, “Actually, there’s a slight error there, because we have listened to New Zealanders. It’s not a new tax; it was a loophole. But we’re now OK with that loophole because the public noticed.” Of course, that was the raid that the Labour Government, Jacinda Ardern, made on people’s KiwiSaver, and as soon as the public noticed, it didn’t slide under the radar; they took it out of the bill.

But they’ve brought this piece of legislation back, and if you have a look at it, at the very beginning, it amends the Goods and Services Tax Act. It’s not making the goods and services tax—GST—easier, but getting more tax from hard-working Kiwis. It amends the Income Tax Act. Is it lowering taxes on hard-working Kiwis? Is it saying they should keep more of what they earn? Is the amendment to the Income Tax Act saying, “Actually, because of inflation and wage inflation, you are now paying more tax than you were when Labour came to Government.”? No, it’s not. It’s keeping the rates where they are, so hard-working Kiwis pay more. It’s amending the Tax Administration Act, not to make it easier for people to pay their tax, not to reduce burden or bureaucracy—actually, they will say, “We’ve found some more loopholes.”, which is code for the Labour Party to say, “We are raiding your back pocket. We’re coming after more of your tax, New Zealanders, but we are dressing it up so you won’t notice.”

Then, the Income Tax Act 2004 is being amended again. My gosh, what is the Minister trying to sneak past New Zealanders now as a result of that? Well, we’ve heard that the Finance and Expenditure Committee will look into that, but it won’t, because, actually, the public has a right to have no confidence in the chairmanship of that committee. Or if we look at what they’ve done previously, railroaded things through as quickly as they can, not interested in listening to the experts or the public, actually just doing what the Government has said, “Pass this law as fast as you can, because we have spent too much. We’ve borrowed too much, and we need more money.”

Again, on 2 May, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern—one of the rare glimpses we’ve seen of her in New Zealand recently—was saying there would be no new taxes. Well, there was a ute tax. Every single person buying a petrol vehicle, a diesel vehicle in New Zealand, farmers driving utes—there is a ute tax. There was the Auckland regional fuel tax. It’s not actually helping Aucklanders at all. It’s making their petrol and diesel more expensive. It’s not giving them roads. It’s not giving them rail, because this is a Government that can’t actually deliver. It’s just taking more money out of their pockets with the promise of one day—one day—this Government will fix them.

There was the tenant tax. Do you remember that, that loophole: the tenant tax? What that said was that if you are a landlord in New Zealand, if you are renting out your property, you must pay tax on that. Well, we get that. Of course, every single landlord taking in rent has to pay tax. They fall within the tax system. But the Government said, “Ah, we’ve found a loophole. You see, although they are running a business and they are having to pay tax in that respect, what they are not allowed to do anymore is claim back the interest on their mortgage.” You know, that’s the thing about business and that’s the thing about GST: you only pass on the difference between what you’re paid out and what you’ve earned. But not with this Government. They said it was a loophole and now landlords can no longer deduct interest from the income that they earn from the rent.

What does that mean? Number one, rents have had to go up, but, number two, it’s not quite as straightforward as that, because the Government has said, “We’ve found a loophole and we’re closing it down because we want more tax. But if you rent to the Government, don’t worry about that loophole. If you rent to the Government and we put people in your house, then you can still make the tax deduction.” Do you know what that’s saying? It means that this Government can’t deliver on its promises, it can’t fulfil them, and it hasn’t fixed the housing problem. It has no idea how they’re going to tax people more, because they need more money to waste on things and, at the same time, give themselves incentives to get ahead.

I come back to the KiwiSaver tax. Well, at the forefront of this piece of legislation that was rushed through Cabinet and then withdrawn from this House even more quickly was the GST raid on people’s KiwiSaver. But there is more, and the last speaker in the debate, Glen Bennett, was saying that when he was running a small accommodation business, he found it extremely unfair that he had all these council rules placed upon him but others on platforms did not.

Well, it’s as straightforward as this. The GST system is a very easy one to understand. If you earn or expect to earn more than $60,000 a year, you must register for GST. You must collect it, you must pass it on to the Government, but you get to keep any GST that you’ve paid. It’s worked for a long time. It’s one of the best systems in the world. It has one rate; that’s it. If you are a foreign company and you provide goods or services to New Zealand—more than $120,000 a year, I think it is—you too must register for GST, which is something that the previous National Government passed for fairness and transparency. But if you are a New Zealand company, a New Zealand tax resident, you must only register for GST if you expect to earn $60,000 and above. You may register below it, but you don’t have to.

What this piece of legislation says to every single New Zealander, irrespective of how much you earn when you provide a service, if you are doing it on a platform, 15 percent GST will be collected from what you earn or on top of what you charge, which means hard-working Kiwis pay more to the Government, and those that are providing a service in New Zealand—perhaps they want to earn $5,000 or $10,000 a year so they can afford to pay the excessive cost increases they have seen as a result of a Labour Government, and then we are coming to raid your back pocket again: “We want 15 percent off you, but we’re not going to let you be part of the GST system and therefore write off your costs against GST; we’re just going to have a really strange system to give you a little bit back.”

Well, everybody wants fairness when it comes to tax. Nobody wants to pay tax, but New Zealanders are good at it, because it’s fair, is transparent, and it’s open. But what they don’t like is a Government that rides their back pocket, takes too much tax—because they believe they are better at spending Kiwis’ money than those New Zealanders who work hard themselves—and sneaks bills through Parliament without full disclosure of what they mean. Kiwis will be worse off as a result of this.

Yes, the Government will have more money, but they’re not going to spend that more carefully. They’re not going to come with good projects to help people. They’re going to continue to waste it. I don’t know—what about another $50 million on a bridge for cyclists over the Waitematā Harbour that will never be built, that they’re still paying contractors to design, because of the contracts that they signed? That’s a great use of money, isn’t it? Well, it’s not helping anybody in the Rotorua electorate. It’s not helping anybody in a single electorate in Auckland. This legislation will not help New Zealanders who work hard, who pay more than their fair share of tax, who are overburdened, who are facing huge cost increases. This is a Government that just wants more money out of their back pocket. National doesn’t support this. We think Kiwis are already taxed too much.

Here’s a suggestion for the Government: spend more carefully. Every single household in New Zealand is having to be cautious and careful about what they spend. Why shouldn’t the Government do more of that? You don’t have businesses saying, “I know what we’ll do. We’ll just go out and magic up a bit more money and say it’s a loophole. Thank you. I’ll pay the bill.” No, they can’t do that, but this Government believes that they can.

There’s not a single problem in New Zealand that the Labour Party and the Labour Government does not believe tax won’t solve. They are wrong. Kiwis work very, very hard. They earn their own money. They are best placed to decide how to spend it. This Government should keep their hands off it. But here’s my guarantee: they’ll rush this through the committee. They’ll rush it through the House. They’ll say thank you very much, and then they will give it back to New Zealanders and expect them to be grateful. National will be voting against this piece of legislation.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): What an entitled ramble of twaddle that was. The world according to Todd McClay would be a sad little island of individualism, and I would not want to be on it. But I am not going to be turned down, because the borders are open and New Zealand is open for business once more. It’s a time for good news. We need to prepare for the return to normal economic activity, and that means ensuring that tax rules are appropriate and operating as intended.

It’s interesting that the member who has just resumed his seat, Todd McClay, was speaking about how this bill was going to stop Kiwis from keeping more of their hard-earned money, when, in fact, a big part of this bill is fairing up the level playing field. Platform businesses that use things like Uber or overseas companies that are not paying GST in New Zealand is not doing it fair. So I would argue that those individuals are not Kiwis; they are overseas entities that need to pay their fair share of tax and GST in New Zealand.

The platform economy in the bill refers to a new part of our economy. Using apps, you can hail a car or get some Airbnb or get some food, and it’s only right and fair that they need to pay the GST that they should be paying, operating in a New Zealand economy. As these platforms typically operate across borders and are based in other countries, this information reporting and exchange measure will provide tax authorities with the information about the income earned by sellers on these platforms. It is critical to a smooth functioning of the tax system to know what’s actually going on in it. But there’s more in this bill. It does a whole lot more. It looks at, also, some really good benefits in terms of fringe benefits on public transport, to make sure that we are making that trip from home to work—that there should be some good incentives for people to get out of their cars and use the excellent services that are local transport available right across New Zealand’s main urban centres.

Also, it’s fair to mention that homes built specifically as rentals can play a major part in providing for New Zealand’s rental market. And, while there are not enough affordable homes to buy, there are also not enough affordable homes to rent. The objective of the interest limitation rules contained within this bill is distinctive to investor demand for existing properties, and instead investment in new housing. Investment in rental housing is just as important as investment in houses for first-home buyers, and it’s only right and proper that we should make adjustments to make the tax system fairer in that space.

I’d like to also point out that the Government wants to ensure that the tax system minimises the compliance cost on taxpayers. The tax system also needs to keep up with modern business practice and changes to developments abroad, and it’s really sad to see that the National Party is not interested in moving with the times. They don’t want to take account of how the digital economy has evolved; they would much rather stay in the Dark Ages and give themselves all a tax cut so they’ve got some more money to spend on themselves. And that’s largely what the whole modus operandi of the National Party is. I think that’s rather sad.

So what else does this great bill do? This bill also looks at some other areas that we need to tidy up to make the tax system fairer. It proposes to modernise and enable greater flexibility in the rules applying to the tax treatment of cross-border workers. It aims to clarify how pay as you earn, withholding tax, fringe benefit tax, also employer superannuation contribution tax, and non-resident contractor tax rules apply in relation to such workers. All these measures are needed to make sure that the playing field is even and it’s working well.

I’m proud to be part of a Government that is making our tax system keep up with modern business practices and change to new developments that we need to keep abreast of all that the digital economy is doing right now. I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23, Platform Economy, and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23, Platform Economy, and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2) be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Instruction to Finance and Expenditure Committee

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of State for Trade and Export Growth) on behalf of the Minister of Revenue: I move, That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23, Platform Economy, and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2) be reported to the House by 2 March 2023.

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

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

Bills

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

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the House is in committee on the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I remind members that it would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions, if they have them, of the member in charge during their call. Members, we come first to the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 17, and Schedules 1 and 2, “Amendments to the principal Act”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought everyone would be fighting for a call on this; it’s such an exciting day. I was taken by surprise. But I do hope there will be some good discussion in the Chamber today on this bill.

I’ve got several points and I’ve got quite a few Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in on this bill, and I think there’s space for some really good discussion and interrogation of some of the detail. But, up front, I want to be very clear that the Greens are supporting this bill and absolutely, 100 percent, see this bill as progress towards gender equality and support for whānau to be able to thrive in our society, and to redress some very longstanding, mostly unspoken and, possibly officially unnoticed sexism within the infrastructure of ACC. So it is a good day. However, there are some good points to interrogate in this.

The first point I want to speak to is the SOP in my name, SOP 247, which would make the bill apply retrospectively so that people with birth injuries before the commencement date will still be able to get cover. The reason I wanted to start with that as a contribution was an acknowledgment of the 807 written submissions to the committee, of the over 900 people that wrote to the Green Party to share their experiences of birth injuries, which we then passed on to the Minister, Carmel Sepuloni. Many of these stories—as the media story which, I think, prompted this law change in some part—are just so, so grim and deeply personal, where people expose themselves, not literally but in conversation and in detail, for the benefit of others. And it does not sit with me, or the Green Party, that they go to that effort—many of these women and their families are still carrying these injuries—and that they will get nothing in return for raising the call. It will only be the women in the future, past the commencement of this bill.

We heard from parents unable to sit up because of abdominal separation after the birth, and from parents with post-traumatic stress disorder who have been unable to get support—even the one that really struck with me, a woman in her 70s who, 40 years on from giving birth, is still in pain because she’s never been able to receive adequate treatment or support. I see members shaking their heads, and it was deeply moving. And I know the Minister has responded in a very personal and human way to these stories, and I do want to bring them into this Chamber because it is really important we ground ourselves in what this is actually about.

One woman at the select committee told us about how, while giving birth, she received a third degree tear, and this means she tore vertically from her vagina into her outer rectum muscle. Her baby, at the time of her submission, was 18 months old, and she was still not healed. She has incontinence issues; a 38-year-old woman who can no longer play sports and has an extremely active child, who she has trouble picking up. I just don’t think anybody can hear those stories and not feel like we have to do something about this, that this is not OK. I recognise that this bill is about making it OK for women and their whānau in the future, but these women are still carrying these injuries untreated right now. And I know the argument that legislation should not be retrospective, but that’s actually for when there are penalties. We heard a very eloquent submission from Eliza Prestige Oldfield, talking about how the retrospectivity in legislation guidelines says that if there’s a benefit is the first reason; that, in those legislation design guidelines, they have a list of valid reasons for retrospectivity. And at the top of that list is if there is a benefit being accrued from the retrospectivity. I don’t think anybody could argue that ensuring treatment cover and support for these whānau would be a benefit.

So if it’s not actually about the retrospectivity, then the only other reason, really, is cost and cost saving. I want to point to the Human Rights Commission’s submission that reminds us all of our human rights obligations internationally. I quote from their submission, “State obligations to human rights are subject to progressive realization, which requires that States use “maximum available resources” to fulfil women’s health rights immediately or to use all resources at its disposal to do so as a matter of priority.

When we see the balance sheet of ACC, I am strongly of the view that we cannot make an argument that the money is not there to do this. I am strongly of the view that, actually, when we know women’s health and wellbeing, and the wellbeing of their families, and when we also know the impact of those first years of life across an entire person’s life, actually, not making and putting the money towards this time and these families, the consequence is so much greater than the cost. There are many more contributions I’d like to make, but just on this point I would love to hear the Minister’s response to this.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for ACC): Firstly, I just want to acknowledge all of the political parties in the House for their support up until now for this particular bill—and I’m hoping that that continues. Acknowledging the member’s comments and the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that she has put forward, we have discussed this particular point, and certainly, as Minister, I try and go as far as what I possibly can. I absolutely am on the same page with that member with empathising and with that strength of feeling for all the women that have had to endure this type of injury. That is what has led us here to be in a place where we have this legislation in the first place, so that women, moving forward, are able to access support from ACC when they suffer from those types of injuries.

The retrospective point that the member has raised in her SOP is something that I did ask about quite early on. The reality is that retrospectively applying this would be problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, no funding was received or costed or granted to provide retrospective cover, and it would really jeopardise the fiscal credibility of ACC if we were to say, “Even though this wasn’t costed, we’ll just use money over here to pay for this. We don’t know how much it will be, but we will just do it anyway.” It’s really important that New Zealanders have trust and confidence in ACC and that it retains the, I guess, fiscal financial credibility that it has built up over the 50 years that it has been in place. I certainly don’t want to be the Minister that jeopardises that.

It also was raised with me about what instances that retrospectivity for legislation is used and where it isn’t. Generally, it’s used to apply where there was an error made and so, therefore, something needs to be fixed, and so the right and fair thing to do is to retrospectively apply a decision through legislation. But this is not one of those cases, because the policy was clear that there was no cover provided for women who have had to endure this injury, and so this is a completely new policy.

Again, I absolutely share in the strength of feeling that the member has expressed for all women who have had to endure this and, in many instances, have had to suffer the impacts of the injury not just for a short term but over many, many years. It is, however, the reality that they have led to this change, they have informed us making this decision, but the reality is it is forward-looking, it is prospective, it is women moving forward that will be covered from this bill, and it, in my mind as Minister, cannot be retrospective.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll try and get a few questions in before the lunch break. They’re a bit pointy-headed and financial so I might be leaving some of my former officials with some work to do. But can I first begin by reassuring the Minister that the National Party will be continuing to support this bill through its passage, and, like Jan Logie, I agree very much that this is a significant advance in providing the right care for traumatic birth injuries, and I applaud Jan Logie for her passionate support of equal rights for women. I agree with some of the rest of the things she said but by no means all.

On the question of retrospectivity, I think the Minister has quite clearly articulated the reasons why that’s not an appropriate amendment that we should be making. It is always the case when a new policy comes in that somebody in the past might have benefited from it and won’t, and I would just rebuke Ms Logie a little bit on the financial strength of ACC—the idea that because they have such a significant holding of reserves they can pay for anything without any impact on levies is, particularly retrospectively, just not consistent with reality, frankly.

We struggle to maintain a fund that matches its outstanding claims liability—that is, enough money in the bank to pay for all of the future costs of claims that are already on the books, much less going backwards and adding what would be several tens of thousands of claims. And it is in that spirit that I would like to know a little bit more about the costs of the changes that were made at select committee and endorsed in the second reading. We got a regulatory impact statement that provided, I thought at the time, somewhat heroic assumptions as to cost—I think it was about $25 million per year—and that that’s what would be being considered to add on to levies.

The changes that the select committee made and that this House agreed to pretty substantially expanded the range of injuries that were going to be covered. But as far as I can recollect, we didn’t get an accurate estimate of what that means for cost and levies and I’d like that to be explored. I had a bit of a duh moment when I was reviewing my papers for this committee of the whole House in the sense that I think there’s also some questions around funds, because current injuries that occur in childbirth that are accepted by ACC are currently considered to be treatment injuries. Now, it seems to me from the regulatory impact statement that the plan is for all traumatic birth injuries covered by ACC to then, when this bill is passed, be considered to go into either the earners account—if the mother is on maternity leave or is in work—or the non-earners account if they are not, which begs a couple of questions. One is: what happens to those claims that would have been eligible for a claim under the treatment injury provisions prior to the passage of this legislation? Are we actually going to then lift all of the—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! My apologies to the member but I must report progress at this time.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 12.56 p.m. (Thursday)