Thursday, 29 September 2022

THURSDAY, 29 SEPTEMBER 2022

THURSDAY, 29 SEPTEMBER 2022

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

karakia/prayers

karakia/prayers

SPEAKER: Members, in further celebration of New Zealand Chinese Language Week, Dr McDowall will say the prayer in Cantonese.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): 全能的上帝，為你賜給我們的恩惠，獻上我們的感恩.拋開所有個人利益，我們承認國王，並祈禱在我們議案的討論與決策中得到主的指導.使我們能夠為了新西蘭的福祉與和平,以智慧、正義、仁慈和謙遜的態度處理國會事務，阿門.

Resignations

Rt Hon Trevor Mallard, New Zealand Labour

SPEAKER: Members, I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard resigning his seat in the House with effect from midnight on Thursday, 20 October 2022.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 18 October. In that week, legislation to be considered by the House will include the first reading of the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill, the second readings of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill and the Māori Purposes Bill, and the third readings of the Fisheries Amendment Bill and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill. Wednesday, 19 October will be a members’ day.

There will be an extended sitting on the morning of Thursday, 20 October, and later that day, the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard will deliver his valedictory statement.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I thank the Leader of the House for that update. I wonder if he could advise the House as to whether or not the Government has any intention of adopting as a Government bill the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill, which is currently a local bill.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): That bill will continue to be a local bill.

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

SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Hāpai te Hauora requesting that the House pass the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill

petition of Eye Health Aotearoa requesting that the House recommend that the Government fund the first ever Aotearoa New Zealand Eye Health Survey

petition of Morgan van Loggenberg requesting that the House urge the Government to provide more well-trained counsellors in secondary schools

petition of Darrin Cassidy requesting that the House urge the Government to undertake a full and thorough royal commission of inquiry into the Family Court and its practices.

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

CLERK: Report of the Remuneration Authority for the year ended 30 June 2022.

SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Regulations Review Committee on the complaint about the Social Workers Registration Board (Section 13 Fees) Notice March 2022

report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the 2020-21 annual reviews of the New Zealand Film Commission, the New Zealand Artificial Limb Service, and Drug Free Sport New Zealand.

SPEAKER: The report of the Regulations Review Committee is set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK: Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. NICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s statements and actions?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes. From time to time, statements may be made that should not have been. In those instances, such as yesterday with the Minister for Children’s comments in this House, the right thing to do is apologise, and that is what he has done.

Nicole McKee: Does she think that it’s ever acceptable for her Ministers to answer questions with personal attacks on someone’s identity when they’re doing their job, such as children’s Minister Kelvin Davis’ comments to Karen Chhour that she is “looking at the world [through] a vanilla lens.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, no.

Nicole McKee: Has she or anyone in her office demanded children’s Minister Kelvin Davis today apologise for his statements that Karen Chhour is living in a Pākehā world, and “it’s no good looking at the world [through] a vanilla lens.”, and, if not, why not?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Davis advised the office that he would apologise and the Prime Minister agreed with that.

Nicole McKee: Why did Kelvin Davis make his comments towards my colleague Karen Chhour in the House and then double down on them when he was speaking with media yesterday, and how will she ensure nobody in her Government attacks anyone trying to do their job, on the grounds of identity?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Many things get said in this House and this Chamber, and members reflect on that and make a later decision to apologise. That is exactly what the Minister for Children has done.

Nicole McKee: Does she believe I’m asking this question through a vanilla lens, or have I crossed the bridge that is Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and does the Government have a policy to decide when someone is culturally inappropriate?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, in answer to the first part of the question, no.

Question No. 2—Social Development and Employment

2. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: 大家好, and 你好, Mr Speaker. What updates has she seen about people being supported into jobs in West Auckland?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I was pleased to read that more than 40 unemployed West Aucklanders have secured jobs at Costco’s new megastore in Westgate, which opened yesterday. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has worked alongside Costco to help it find some of the right people to staff its first New Zealand store, filling full- and part-time positions in warehousing and product demonstrator roles.

Vanushi Walters: Why are partnerships like this important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This is a great example of what can be achieved when partnering with businesses and employers. The partnership meant that MSD were able to work with Costco to help provide opportunities for people who want to not only build a career in merchandising and warehouse operations but who live and want to work locally. Partnerships like this don’t happen by coincidence, however. MSD’s work brokers make a point of learning as much as they can about an employer’s business so they can match them with suitable job seekers. Helping people find and keep employment is a key focus for our Government.

Vanushi Walters: What feedback has she seen from Costco about supporting job seekers?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I was pleased to read of Costco’s managing director’s commitment to job seekers. Patrick Noone said, “We pay over the award rate and the living wage. We want to give people really, really good jobs; good training.” In response to the notion that other businesses were struggling with a national skill shortage, he said, “If you pay the right wages and have the right working conditions, you [can] get the right people.” He also added that he little problem finding staff himself.

Vanushi Walters: What type of recruitment activities does MSD undertake to support the likes of Costco and other employers?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: MSD held employer days at the Waitakere Service Centre and at Te Manawa library prior to the store opening. MSD also offers a no-fee recruitment service for employers, with the employers often choosing to also interview people at the MSD office, as they can also talk to MSD about extra support that might be available. Once an employer has found a candidate to hire, they may be able to get extra support through a range of training and employment assistance, including wage subsidies and post-placement support and training. In West Auckland, industries like retail, construction, and business support are all regular users of MSD’s employment services.

Vanushi Walters: What other uptakes has she seen on people moving off a benefit?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We’re encouraged by the continuing high numbers of people moving off a benefit and into paid employment nationally. The three months to June saw 26,334 cancellations of benefit as people moved into work, including 9,255 people who had been receiving a main benefit for more than a year. In the Auckland region, there were 7,725 cancellations of benefit as people moved into work in the three months to June.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s statements and actions?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister): on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, in the context in which they were made and undertaken.

Nicola Willis: Will Government employees and employers be required to pay the income insurance levy, and, if so, how much will the jobs tax cost the Crown?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the question, details of the scheme are still being finalised. In answer to the second part of the question, there is no such thing.

Nicola Willis: Can he confirm that the jobs tax—that is, the levies for the income insurance scheme—will be subject to GST, and, if so, how much extra money does the Government estimate it will collect in GST as a result?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, there is no such thing as what the member alleges in her supplementary question.

Nicola Willis: Would the Minister care to explain to New Zealanders who are set to say goodbye, on average, to $834 of their pay packet how that’s not a tax?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because just as the member has never stood up in the House and said that an ACC levy is a tax, this is a levy to run a scheme which will then pay out to somebody, for instance, who is paying $834 in annual contribution, which equates to $16 per week—that would pay to that person $780 per week if they were in receipt of the scheme.

Nicola Willis: Will the Minister consider stopping any low-priority Government spending in response to growing inflation pressure and global financial instability, and, if not, why not?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Government constantly reviews its programmes and will do so leading into Budget 2023. The assurance I can absolutely give the member is that we would never go for a low-priority policy like tax cuts for the highest-earning New Zealanders.

Nicola Willis: Does she agree with the Minister of broadcasting that a merger of TVNZ and RNZ is needed because “We have no longer a trust in national media”, and, if so, what evidence does the Prime Minister have that spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a megamerger will enhance public trust in media?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, in answer to the first part of the question, there have been regular surveys across New Zealanders about their view of all media and a loss of trust in that. More to the point, it is important that New Zealanders have access to content where they can see themselves and hear themselves and that that content is produced in such a way that is futureproofed for New Zealand. It is one of many things that the Government can do to ensure that New Zealanders’ wellbeing and their living standards rise in the future.

Nicola Willis: Does she remain committed to the operating allowance the finance Minister has promised for next year’s Budget, or does she intend to break that spending cap, as has been the case for the past five Budgets, in order to fund boondoggles like a TVNZ-RNZ merger?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance has not advised me of any change that is planned to the operating allowance. The Minister of Finance has, in the past, made clear that the reason we have an operating allowance is to ensure that we reach the bigger targets that the Government has, such as around debt or surplus. And the Government has been able to reach those, having one of the lowest levels of debt in the OECD and a prediction of return to surplus a year before the National Government would have after the global financial crisis. I thank the member for the question.

Question No. 4—Health

4. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of Health: What reports has he seen on the consequences of increased funding provided to Pharmac and the review of Pharmac completed in February?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I was pleased to read from Pharmac that this year, Pharmac has been able to use additional funding in this year’s Budget to fund three new treatments and increase access to an additional 14. It’s also continuing to consider proposals for another eight medicines. Pharmac’s decision to fund Spinraza for the rare disorder known as spinal muscular atrophy and adrenaline auto-injectors for those at risk of anaphylactic or life-threatening allergic reactions, which was announced yesterday, will make a substantial difference to the lives of those who need these treatments.

Arena Williams: What is the significance of funding Spinraza?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Spinal muscular atrophy is a rare disorder affecting up to 75 people, including 35 children, in New Zealand. A Pharmac review earlier this year noted that there needed to be more attention to rare disorders, and the decision to fund Spinraza reflects a constructive approach to rare disorders now being taken by Pharmac. New Zealand epidemiology data suggests that up to 50 people could be eligible for funded treatment with Spinraza under Pharmac’s criteria. Another part of this approach is the development of a rare disorder strategy, which Pharmac and the Ministry of Health are currently in the process of developing.

Arena Williams: What additional funding has been provided to Pharmac?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As promised in 2020, $200 million over four years was provided in Budget 2021, and in this year’s Budget, an additional $191 million over two years was provided—that’s $71 million this year and $120 million next year. This means that over the last five years, this Government has increased the Pharmac budget by $375 million, or 43 percent.

Arena Williams: What other consequences have there been for recent additional funding for Pharmac?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Since 2017, Pharmac’s annual budget spend on chemotherapeutic agents to treat cancer has increased from $83.3 million to just over $149 million. As a consequence of the new funding in Budget 2022, Pharmac’s considering proposals from pharmaceutical suppliers for new treatments for New Zealanders with cancer, including lung cancer, which affects a large number of New Zealanders, and currently has one of the biggest equity gaps for our communities.

Arena Williams: Why is additional funding for Pharmac important?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: New Zealanders generally understand that we cannot do everything in health that we would like to do, but do expect our health system to keep up with orthodox treatments available in comparable countries. This Government has prioritised putting additional funding into health, and into Pharmac, to enable the best-possible medicines with the resources we have. We’ve been able to do this by ensuring a responsible tax regime, something that would be highly unlikely if tax revenue was reduced. Cutting taxes, as some people are proposing, will put these health services and treatments at risk.

Question No. 5—Broadcasting and Media

5. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: Does he stand by his statements regarding the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill, “We no longer have trust in national media” and “We need a trusted public broadcaster”?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Broadcasting and Media): I stand by the sentiment of what I said. However, I recognise these statements are open to interpretation, which is fair enough. So let me clarify what I meant. This was no reflection on RNZ and TVNZ, but a reflection that the whole media landscape has changed, with audiences now more likely to be engaged with streaming services or social media than traditional media. Surveys show that RNZ and TVNZ are our most trusted media, but, overall—as the Opposition knows, or refuses to acknowledge—trust in media is slipping, both here and internationally, and this Government wants to do something about it.

Melissa Lee: If New Zealanders do not trust public broadcasters, as he said, can he explain why they will trust the merged RNZ and TVNZ, which is also a public broadcaster?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: As I said, we have a lot of trust in what’s happening in terms of national media at the moment, and the public should trust that this is a Government that will invest in a very important area of New Zealand and we will continue to support national media.

Melissa Lee: I’m not so sure he actually answered that question.

SPEAKER: I think he did address it.

Melissa Lee: Does he stand by his statement: “There’s no way we’ll be telling editors how to run their news.”, and can he confirm that money from the Public Interest Journalism Fund includes conditions relating to how editors run their news?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’ll answer the first part of the question, and I would ask that member to read the bill—read the bill. In clause 15(3), it clearly says, in terms of editorial independence, “The Minister may not give a direction to Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media (or any of its members, subsidiaries, or employees) for any reason relating to broadcasting, selecting, commissioning, or producing particular content.”

Melissa Lee: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I ask that question again, because I don’t think the Minister even attempted to address the question?

SPEAKER: Well, I disagree.

Melissa Lee: Can the Minister confirm that money from the Public Interest Journalism Fund includes conditions relating to how editors run their news, and will it be reflected in the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media as well?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: As I said, we’ll be very, very clear. It will be very clear about editorial control, as I’ve read out, and in terms of the public media fund, there are clear rules around that also. But the driving principle of the public media interest fund is to support a lot of groups who’ve missed out because of what’s been happening in the media, with some of the global giants taking a vast share of the commercial funding. So it’s been set up by my predecessor Kris Faafoi, and we’re proud that it has supported media groups and communities who have been missing out.

Melissa Lee: Does the Minister believe there is a risk that future Governments will direct the new public broadcaster for political purposes?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: There’s always a risk, particularly if the future Government is that Opposition party across the other side.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Is she considering any new changes to Working for Families in order to meet her Government’s commitment to making “New Zealand the best place in the world to be a child”?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Working for Families has made a considerable difference in the lives of New Zealand families, and I’m proud that such a foundational shift to better support children was introduced by a previous Labour Government. Since then, we have continued to improve it. This Government introduced the Best Start payment last term to support new parents with the costs of raising a child. On top of that, we delivered multiple increases to the family tax credit, firstly, through our Families Package and again, earlier this year, resulting in a $35 increase per week in the primary rate. Over half of all families in New Zealand benefited from these changes. Our changes have already resulted in 66,500 fewer children in poverty, and, as we announced last year, we will build on the success through the next steps with our Government’s Working for Families review.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does the Minister agree with the majority of submitters to the review who “expressed a strong preference for [Working for Families] to become more child-centric and equitable, and said that its objectives should be to reduce child poverty and ensure income adequacy rather than to provide work incentives.”?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I don’t think that those two things are mutually exclusive—reducing child poverty and supporting people into work are connected in some way. We know that around half of children in poverty are in working households. That’s why, when thinking about reducing child poverty, we need to bolster support across the board. As was clear from the engagement findings, people have mixed views on Working for Families. For example, some stakeholders urged just to retain the objective of supporting work incentives, and a large number of stakeholders and submitters said that supporting whānau with the costs of work is important, particularly childcare and transport costs.

Jan Logie: In terms of supporting families into work, will the Government consider the Canadian model, which removes barriers to work by providing free childcare and transport, rather than removing supports for parents doing full-time caregiving?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We are considering a range of things, and one of the other reviews that we have committed to and that is under way is a review of childcare assistance. The threshold was frozen back in 2010 by the previous National Government, which has meant that over time, fewer parents have been able to access the childcare subsidy. That is another example of the very important measures that support people into work that we are considering.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she think it is equitable that children whose parents receive a main benefit miss out on a key Working for Families tax credit, keeping those tamariki locked in poverty; and, if not, will she end this discrimination?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think it’s really important that we support all of our tamariki. That is why we moved to increase benefits, I think, three years in a row running, with significant increases that reversed the changes that had been made to benefit levels back in 1991, I believe. There are a range of initiatives that need to be undertaken. We’re always about looking for fairness in the system. I will acknowledge too that for low-income households, though, it is important that they are supported, because often it’s difficult for them to take up work when they don’t get additional financial support for things like transport and childcare.

Jan Logie: Does she think that caregiving is work—or heart mahi, as Māori submitters referred to it—and, if so, why don’t full-time caregivers get the full support of Working for Families?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’m a mother—absolutely, I know that’s work.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Will the Minister consider recommitting to Annette King’s 2011 promise that under a Government led by Labour, beneficiary families would have access to the full Working for Families?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said, we are committed to the review that we are undertaking of Working for Families, and I certainly wouldn’t want to pre-empt any of the final concluding results from that.

Question No. 7—Sport and Recreation

7. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister for Sport and Recreation: Talofa, Mr Speaker. What recent funding announcements has he made in respect of the FIFA Women’s World Cup?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Sport and Recreation): Last week, I announced that the Government would invest $19 million into upgrades at facilities around New Zealand ahead of the world cup next year. The grounds are match venues or are in line to be training venues or team bases. The upgrades include pitch lighting and facility enhancements, as well as upgrading changing rooms so that they are appropriate, regardless of gender. The venues and local councils are also contributing to the cost of the upgrades. The FIFA Women’s World Cup will be the biggest sporting event New Zealand has ever hosted. These upgrades will leave a legacy for communities around New Zealand and put us in a stronger position when bidding to host major international events in the future.

Barbara Edmonds: What investment is being made into facilities in Porirua, Tawa, and the Wellington region, as part of this announcement?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In Wellington, the Government’s investment is $6 million in total, going towards upgrades at the Wellington Regional Stadium, Martin Luckie Park, Newtown Park No. 1, and Porirua Park, for facility upgrades and changing space upgrades. Historically, female athletes have had to use changing rooms designed for males, with urinals and limited numbers of cubical toilets, and open showers. These facilities represent an important step forward to make sure that we cater equally for all players and officials, regardless of gender.

Barbara Edmonds: What investment is being made into facilities in Dunedin as part of this announcement?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, four Dunedin sportsgrounds will receive a total of $1.6 million in Government funding for upgrades. The Dunedin stadium, Tahuna Park, University No. 6, and the Caledonian Ground will benefit from upgrades, including new lighting and facility enhancements, pitch upgrades, and the installation of new changing spaces that are appropriate regardless of gender. The local Dunedin council and regional development authorities have said that the upgrades will benefit the wider sporting community, leaving a tangible legacy in improved facilities for all sporting codes to enjoy.

Jamie Strange: What investment has been made into facilities in Hamilton as part of this announcement?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, more good news. Hamilton is receiving more than $1.1 million towards the cost of upgrades at four venues: Waikato Stadium, Porritt Park, Gower Park, and Korikori Park. Six hundred thousand dollars will go towards ensuring the training venues have the infrastructure required to host an event of this magnitude, while the remaining $550,000 has been committed to Waikato Stadium and Porritt Park to meet the requirements for the tournament. Authorities in the Waikato have said that the upgrades at local sporting facilities will encourage more people to take part in community sport and that the venue infrastructure upgrades will put Hamilton in a stronger position when bidding to host international events in the future.

Tangi Utikere: What investment is being made into facilities in Palmerston North as part of this announcement?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the training ground at Massey’s Manawatu campus has been chosen by FIFA to be included in possible locations for team base camps. In order to get the sport institute up to the required FIFA standards, developments will include renovating the main pitch, upgrading the field lights, and some minor facility renewals indoors. These developments will benefit, in the short term, Massey and the Manawatū, as well as long-term benefits for football and footballers in this region for many years to come.

Question No. 8—Justice

8. CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by her statement in the House on 23 August 2022, in relation to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, that “I think that there have been a couple of referrals” when asked whether a case had been referred to a senior court; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Since the commission began accepting applications in July 2020, commission staff have received 325 cases. Of those, 94 cases have been closed, while 18 cases have been referred internally for a section 25 investigation. I’m advised that the first onward referral to a senior court is expected to be considered by the commissioners in the next six to eight weeks. Two further cases are nearing the final stages of the internal investigation and will likely be considered early next year. As this work is critical to upholding confidence in the justice system, careful consideration is needed, and progress is dependent on the complexity of the case and the provision of key documents and information from applicants and both investigative and prosecutorial authorities.

Chris Penk: If, as the Minister has confirmed, there have still been zero referrals to courts after more than two years of its operation, how can the Minister be certain of the timing of a particular referral unless the outcome of that matter has been predetermined?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The Minister can’t be absolutely certain, but the advice that the commission has given to the Minister’s office in advance of this question is as I outlined in the primary answer.

Chris Penk: In relation to any upcoming referrals, have victims of the crimes for which a conviction has previously been made been notified that the matters are being reopened or potentially reopened, and, if so, what support is being given to them?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m not able to answer that in respect of an individual case, but I am sure that the commission is taking into account the interests of victims.

Chris Penk: Is the Minister aware of any of the full-time staff employed with the Criminal Cases Review Commission having prior criminal convictions, and, if so, does this seem an appropriate way to arrange its affairs given the need for public confidence in the system?

Hon DAVID PARKER: On behalf of the Minister, I’m not aware of whether or not that is the case. Obviously, it would depend on the nature and age of the conviction.

Question No. 9—Conservation

9. RACHEL BROOKING (Labour) to the Minister of Conservation: 谢谢, Mr Speaker. How has Jobs for Nature supported people into nature-based employment opportunities?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Conservation): 谢谢. Jobs for Nature has been a fundamental in our efforts to build back better and support nature-based solutions. Mana in Kaimahi is one such example, a community project which has, to date, supported 38 people into work and resulted in 136,660 plants being grown, 56,508 trees planted, 29.5 hectares treated for weeds, and 132,878 plants planted in riparian, lake, and wetland areas. Grassroots projects such as these are helping us build a network of conservation champions up and down the country while also supporting employment opportunities and environmental outcomes that will benefit us for decades to come.

Rachel Brooking: How have projects such as Mana in Kaimahi supported young people?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: These projects often do a lot more than providing employment and conservation outcomes. They also provide our young people with opportunities to upskill across the board. This includes support to access New Zealand Qualifications Authority qualifications and opportunities to reconnect people with the community, with supports from groups such as Te Whāngai Trust. They are giving our young people the chance to grow, be mentored, and thrive in our natural environment.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Why, in October 2021, did the Government’s Implementation Unit recommend that Jobs for Nature stop further approvals and for funding to be returned to the Crown because “There would not be a labour force to do the work.”, and can the Minister assure the House that none of the jobs she is counting towards Jobs for Nature already existed before the programme started?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: In answer to the first part of the question, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s Implementation Unit did undertake a stocktake report in October 2021, and the department has addressed the key recommendations of that report by strengthening Jobs for Nature link with internal systems and processes, through improved engagement with our operations business group; continuing to strengthen assurance systems and insights reporting, conducting deep-dive learning review site visits in five regions; and commencing the regional investment review.

Rachel Boyack: What other groups has Jobs for Nature partnered with?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Jobs for Nature has partnered with groups such as Sustainable Business Network, in collaboration with iwi, hapū, and other local groups, to link community restoration and nursery groups nationwide with Jobs for Nature funding. These projects are supercharging conservation efforts of the department, iwi, hapū, councils, and the wider community. It will have tangible benefits for decades to come.

Rachel Brooking: How has Jobs for Nature supported communities through the economic challenges of COVID-19?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The Jobs for Nature programme has been instrumental in providing flexible employment opportunities for staff who were affected by the tourism downturn following the onset of COVID-19. This has meant that tourism operators have been able to retain talent as we worked to reopen our borders.

Rachel Brooking: What have been the overall benefits of Jobs for Nature across the country?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Since the programme began, over 4,000 people have been placed into work by the 212 conservation projects across the country. To date, the Department of Conservation has invested over $460 million into providing nature-based employment opportunities and tangible benefits for New Zealand’s biodiversity.

Hon Jacqui Dean: I seek leave to table a document from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet titled Jobs for Nature Stocktake of Progress.

SPEAKER: Is that publicly available?

Hon Jacqui Dean: Yes, it is.

SPEAKER: I can’t then.

Question No. 10—Children

10. HARETE HIPANGO (National) to the Minister for Children: Does he stand by his statement that criticism of the Government’s Oranga Tamariki policies are “noise”, and does he consider the views of State care survivors are noise?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): I accept that there are criticisms of Oranga Tamariki’s policies in that State care survivors will have views on Oranga Tamariki. I have every intention of engaging with discussions around policies, and a big part of setting the new direction for Oranga Tamariki was listening to those who have experienced the system.

Harete Hipango: Why did the Minister dismiss those with lived experience of the State care and protection system and the concerns they raised questioning the Government’s Oranga Tamariki reforms as “a bunch of grizzlers” and nothing but “noise”?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: That criticism was at submitters who were submitting outside of the scope of that particular bill.

Harete Hipango: Why does the Minister in Government continue refusing to listen—refusing to listen—and act upon the advice of the most vulnerable people, those with lived experience of the very system meant to protect them?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I reject that. I think the member is asking me questions on a bill that I was not responsible for.

Harete Hipango: Point of order. The Minister is of the view that he “thinks”. I make a statement of fact that the Minister has continued to refuse to listen to the public; not what the Minister thinks. There’s a difference.

SPEAKER: That’s not really a point of order. The Minister addressed the question that was asked. Have you got further questions?

Harete Hipango: Does the Minister know better than all those learned and experienced persons, practitioners, and advocates who all disagree with the Government’s reforms—those at the coalface and interface: the child welfare specialists and advocates, social workers, health and legal practitioners, psychologists, doctors, nurses, former police officers, lawyers, judges, academics, public policy experts, community agencies, and Māori leaders, to name but a few?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I’ve never made that claim.

SPEAKER: Question No. 11, Ibrahim Omer—oh sorry, have you got a further supplementary?

Harete Hipango: Thank you. Finally, does he agree that the Children’s Commissioner has been the most vocal, visible, experienced, and credible public advocate for children in this country, and, if so, why did the Government ignore the New Zealand public’s and Children’s Commissioner’s plea to retain and properly resource the integrity and function of her office and role?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I respect the role played by the Children’s Commissioner.

Question No. 11—Education (School Operations)

11. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): 谢谢, Mr Speaker. How are the Government supporting mental health and the wellbeing in schools and kura?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Associate Minister of Education (School Operations)): This Government is committed to improving the mental health and wellbeing of our young people. To this end, Minister Davis and I launched two new, high-quality resources to support wellbeing and the teaching and learning of mental health education in schools and kura.

Ibrahim Omer: Why has the Government launched these resources?

Hon JAN TINETTI: We know that our kids and young people learn best when they are happy and healthy. This Government wants to ensure the very best learning environments for our kids. These resources will help ensure that students have their identity valued, and feel safe and confident in themselves and in their school.

Ibrahim Omer: Have resources been provided for kura kaupapa and in te reo Māori?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Yes, we have. Te Oranga Mauri is a te reo Māori resource grounded in mātauranga Māori and kōrero tuku iho. I tautoko the kupu of my colleague the Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education), Kelvin Davis. The resource affirms existing successful practice in kura, offering a new way of aligning with regenerating ancestral practice by increasing awareness of your own mauri, the mauri of others, and its impacts.

Ibrahim Omer: What are other examples of Government support of mental health and wellbeing for young people?

Hon JAN TINETTI: In addition to the practical guides and resources we’ve rolled out, thanks to the investment made by this Labour Government, 24,000 additional young people now have access to counselling support at school. We also have expanded the Mana Ake mental health and wellbeing programme across six regions now.

Ibrahim Omer: How is the Government supporting teachers to teach mental health?

Hon JAN TINETTI: The resources that we launched yesterday are specifically targeted at supporting teachers, leaders, and school boards. Mental health education is primarily about learning, rather than about solving mental health or public health problems. When students learn the skills to support their mental health and that of others, they have the building blocks to boost their own resilience and experience enhanced wellbeing.

Question No. 12—Education

12. PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Education: What actions has Te Pūkenga taken that have resulted in its forecast 2022 operating deficit being revised down from $110 million to $63 million, and is he satisfied with the actions Te Pūkenga is taking to meet its financial objectives?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): As I’ve previously advised the House, Te Pūkenga has implemented several initiatives to help reduce the deficit, including a recruitment freeze and prudent cost control measures. The improved forecast also reflects higher than expected revenue through Te Pūkenga Work Based Learning Limited, which is due to higher learner numbers. I’m satisfied with the actions taken by Te Pūkenga to improve its financial position in the short term. However, further work is needed to ensure that Te Pūkenga is financially sustainable in the long term, and that work is under way.

Penny Simmonds: Is Te Pūkenga intending to account for one-off revenue derived from land sales as operating income to artificially reduce their forecast deficit, and, if so, does he consider this to be normal accounting practice?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There will be a range of one-off revenue and one-off expenditure that is included in that figure, because when you’re undertaking a significant restructuring exercise, there’s often one-off expenditure which can also contribute to a deficit.

Penny Simmonds: Isn’t it the case that Te Pūkenga has been such a failure, they are now booking land sales as operating income to hide their financial woes?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.

Penny Simmonds: Was there any connection between the chief financial officer (CFO) of Te Pūkenga resigning after less than three months in the job and Te Pūkenga’s accounting practices?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think that’s a relatively serious allegation that the member is making, and if she has any evidence for it, I suggest that she present it.

Penny Simmonds: Isn’t Te Pūkenga’s latest CFO’s resignation after less than three months in the job and its unorthodox accounting practices symptomatic of an institution that hasn’t got a clue how to sort out its financial situation driven by a Minister that has even less idea how to deal with financial issues in a Government obsessed with an ideology of centralisation?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject all of assertions in that question.

Questions to Members

Question No. 1—Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill

1. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Member in charge of the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill: Did he support the extension of the report-back date for the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill from 6 October 2022 to 28 February 2023; if so, why?

TĀMATI COFFEY (Member in charge of the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill ): Yes, and that was to allow more time to consider the issues that were raised by submitters and the Attorney-General, and to further engage with the council following the local elections period.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with the Attorney-General, who said the bill breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act by giving extra voting rights to one group of New Zealanders, and, if so, why is he still supporting it?

Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The member in charge of the bill has no responsibility for the Attorney-General’s advice.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Speaking to the—

SPEAKER: You asked for his opinion?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Yeah—did he agree with it; that’s all.

TĀMATI COFFEY: I don’t feel as though, as the sponsor of the bill, it’s my position to give a position on whether or not I agree with an Attorney-General report.

Special Debates

Migrant Exploitation Inquiry—Report of the Education and Workforce Committee

MARJA LUBECK (Chairperson of the Education and Workforce Committee): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the inquiry into migrant exploitation.

The report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the inquiry into migrant exploitation was an in-depth and constructive inquiry. As chair of the select committee, I would like to begin by thanking all the submitters who took time to write to us or present to us. We had a total of 82 written submissions, 55 from individuals and 27 organisations, and we heard many of these in person.

I will begin with the context in which this inquiry was carried out. As noted in the introduction of our report, migrant exploitation is widespread and takes many forms. It’s a spectrum of non-compliance with minimum employment legislation, from ignorant non-compliance through to forced labour and people-trafficking. Migrant workers are more likely to be underpaid, denied leave, made to work excessive hours, and denied basic employment protections, resulting in financial, physical, and psychological suffering. Exploitative work practices have negative implications for our economy. Such practices undercut good employers and contribute to wage suppression and job displacement in low-paid industries. Migrant exploitation negatively affects New Zealand’s international reputation, and it must be condemned.

The number of complaints to Immigration New Zealand about exploitation have increased significantly over the last decade, from 31 allegations in 2011-12 to 390 in 2018 and 2019, and with the launch of new reporting tools in 2021, that number subsequently rose to 855. Eleven percent of temporary migrants who responded to our survey also reported that they felt threatened by their employer.

With these very serious issues in mind, we started an inquiry into migrant exploitation on 20 October 2021. Within this inquiry, we were also interested in the reforms made as a result of the 2019 review of temporary migrant workers. We drafted our terms of reference, seeking to consider the frequency and scale of exploitation of migrant workers in New Zealand, investigate the impact of exploitation and what can be done to address that impact. Through the inquiry, we planned to look into the Government processes used to investigate cases of exploitation and find out what barriers prevent migrants coming forward to report exploitation.

In 2019, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) led the review into the exploitation of temporary migrant workers. As part of that review, it convened a consultation group representing migrants, businesses, unions, and international students. It undertook public consultation on policy proposals. The submissions that we received for this inquiry reflect many of MBIE’s findings from their 2019 review. Submitters described the causes and most common forms of migrant exploitation. Exploitative employers take advantage of the power imbalance between employers and migrant workers. This imbalance is often compounded by cultural differences, the migrant’s isolation from family and friends, and their unfamiliarity with New Zealand laws. Some submitters said that employers believe that they are unlikely to be caught exploiting migrants. MBIE agrees with submitters that employers need to have a better understanding of their obligations. It also agrees that employers’ compliance with employment law needs to improve and that greater powers are needed to investigate and take action against exploitative employers.

MBIE has expanded its information and education activities since July 2021. These activities are aimed at improving employers’ awareness of their obligations. The dedicated phone line for migrant exploitation has answered over a thousand calls since it launched in July 2021. The general employment phone line received over 77,000 calls in the last year. Many were from employers seeking to better understand their obligations or how to meet them.

The new Accredited Employer Work Visa will require employers to be accredited and pass a job check before they are allowed to employ migrant workers. This visa has become the main pathway for employer-assisted temporary work visas from 4 July this year. The process for the new Accredited Employer Work Visa will allow Immigration New Zealand to conduct compliance checks with employers after the initial application process has finished. This promotes further accountability for employers.

The Government has allocated $50 million to support its implementation of new measures to address migrant exploitation. This also funds an information and education plan. The plan focuses on providing more information to employers and migrant workers about employment rights and obligations, visas, and support for victims.

We acknowledge the work gone into education and information for employers. We believe that migrant exploitation will primarily be lessened through better enforcement and monitoring. We welcome the increase in the number of Immigration New Zealand staff and labour inspectors dedicated to investigating reports of migrant exploitation. We recommend the ongoing evaluation of the Accredited Employer Work Visa to determine whether accreditation and ongoing compliance checks are comprehensive in preventing exploitation. Along with this, we recommend the Government investigate ways for migrants to be better informed about their employment rights through the information provided in the Employment New Zealand learning modules.

A large proportion of submitters identified employer-assisted visas as a cause of migrant exploitation. These visas involve tying a migrant’s immigration status to a particular employer. Submitters said this creates a power imbalance between the employer and the migrant worker. This imbalance can be abused. MBIE said that being on an employer-assisted visa is one factor that can increase the risk of exploitation, and the aim of this visa is to prevent exploitative employers from hiring migrants. We recommend there be ongoing evaluation of whether migrant exploitation protection visas and variations of conditions are easily and quickly accessible. This evaluation must consider processing times.

Submitters identified a number of barriers preventing migrants from reporting exploitation. These include immigration and visa status, financial uncertainty, and inadequate support for victims. Submitters proposed a range of solutions. They include better information for migrants about their rights; more financial, language, and legal support for migrants; greater empathy from officials; faster immigration processes; and amnesties for overstayers.

MBIE said that it views reducing barriers to reporting exploitation as key, and as a result of its 2019 review launched a dedicated phone number and new online form to make it easier to report migrant exploitation. We realise it can be difficult for migrants to report exploitation, and we acknowledge the bravery of the people who came forward. We note the work that has been done to mitigate barriers to reporting exploitation. We recommend that the Government allocate more funding to organisations that support victims of migrant exploitation and investigate how it can prevent exploitation from occurring in the first place.

Restricting work rights for partners of work visa holders may have negative outcomes. We heard repeatedly from submitters that migrants don’t report exploitation because they fear deportation or other changes to their visa status. Similarly, some migrants may not report family violence because their immigration status is tied to an abusive partner. MBIE said that changes to work rights for partners of work visa holders are being made in the context of the Government’s immigration rebalance. It said the rebalance aims to improve productivity and ensure the migrant workforce is high-skilled. MBIE has said that the requirements imposed on Accredited Employer Work Visa holders need to also be applied to their partners. Not doing so would undermine the Government’s goal of limiting the ability of employers to hire migrants for lower-skilled, lower-paid roles. We recommend that the Government prioritise work to make sure migrant partners and families are suitably supported by the immigration system after any situations of family violence.

As previously mentioned, the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) policy review which was begun in 2019 but delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic is currently under way, with proposals anticipated to be put before Cabinet by mid-2023. The review has a specific focus on the wellbeing of the RSE worker, including the quality of accommodation and the rules for deductions. We recommend the Government work to ensure that employers who provide accommodation to their employees do not lock workers into substandard accommodation arrangements.

I want to again thank all those who took the time to contribute to this piece of work. Their valuable contributions have shaped an important piece of work. I also want to thank the Office of the Clerk, our officials, and my colleagues on the select committee around the House for their collaborative contributions. I’m proud of the report our committee has presented, and we hope our report highlights the important issue and the work still to be done. With our borders open once again and near-record low unemployment, migrant workers are returning to New Zealand, helping to grow our economy and bring new perspectives to our communities.

Protecting migrant workers from exploitation is a priority for the Government, and today’s introduction by the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan of the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill will crack down on employer non-compliance. Any form of exploitation is not acceptable. Minister the Hon Michael Wood said it best: “These crimes deprive people of their human rights, traumatise victims and hurt communities and the economy—they must be stamped out.” Thank you, Mr Speaker.

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

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak to—and it’s a rather unfortunate topic but also a very, very important topic in terms of exploitation of our migrant population in New Zealand. I guess, nobody’s actually suggesting that all migrants are being exploited or that all employers are terrible employers, but it does actually happen in New Zealand. I think it is a very, very sad indictment on our country and our systems where we have a situation where migrant workers who come to New Zealand—often with the grand hope of growing their personal wealth for a better future for their family, potentially for their children to have better opportunities than themselves, which is in fact often the hope of migrants who move to this country, like my parents had for myself and my brother—often find themselves being exploited.

I endorse part of what the previous speaker, Marja Lubeck, has said, in terms of one of the reasons why, and that is that often most issues are related to things like the visa status of the migrant, whether it’s actually a student or employer assisted visa rather than a residency visa, or whether the migrant comes from lower income source countries, poorer countries in effect, or has very poor English proficiency and lacks the independence in terms of support. They don’t actually have the support network around them—no family network—for them to seek assistance, and potentially they’re working outside of their visa conditions, which means they’re actually working illegally so they’re too afraid to seek assistance, and so they often are targets of abuse, I guess, in a way; it is abuse, and they actually need the job to support themselves to remain in the country.

I think it is very pertinent to put some of the numbers to bring context into the exploitation issue that we have. I think, according to the report, going back to 2011-12 year, there were 31 allegations or complaints to immigration. By 2018-19, there were 390 complaints to immigration of exploitation. And with the launch of new reporting tools in 2021, the number of complaints rose to 855. I guess it actually means that that’s making it easy for people to complain—and, obviously, with certain complaints, they will be wrong; you know, allegations of abuse that which may never been proven—but the fact that people feel comfortable to bring that abuse and exploitation to the authority for them to investigate, I think, is very, very good progress, going from 2011 to now.

New Zealand has had a huge number of temporary migrant workers. We currently apparently have 170,000, which is down from 235,000 before the COVID pandemic. One of the problems is that we do have a lack of employees in this country. We need more workers for businesses. And when I read the report, submitters described the causes and most common forms of migrant exploitation to be the power imbalance that exists between employers and migrant workers. The imbalance is often compounded by cultural differences, the migrants’ isolation from family and friends, and the unfamiliarity with New Zealand laws. As a migrant who has actually moved to this country—I know it was a little while ago that I moved to this country, but coming to New Zealand, even having lived in Australia—and in Australia I would have thought our trans-Tasman cousins were more similar to New Zealand than anywhere else in the world. But even then I found New Zealand, when I first arrived, different to what I was used to in Australia. The terminologies were different. For example, in Australia, the dairies, as we know as dairies, are called milk bars. And in New Zealand, if I said, “Where’s the milk bar?”, people would go “What?” Exactly. It’s terminologies that are different. Our cultures are different. And I think for a new migrant coming in from countries where they have a lower socio-economic background, are poorer countries not proficient in the English language, and they have no familial support, they are exposed and have no concept of where their rights are in this country. I think it is ripe for them to be exploited, and I’m glad that this report actually exists.

One thing that actually does concern me about the report, particularly since there is cross-party support to make sure that we highlight the issue—normally that’s what happens with inquiries at select committee. But it does actually concern me that there were things that I actually put on the report that weren’t part of the select committee process or the inquiry. For example, the National Party does not support the recommendation that Immigration New Zealand should consider involving the views of the union at the accreditation stage of the accredited employer work visa process, because nobody who submitted to all the officials at any stage during the inquiry said that; it was added at the end of the process by Government members without any chance to question officials, submitters, or, in fact, the unions themselves. I think it is rather sad that we did that because I think often inquiries from select committees are about the submissions and what was actually said at select committee, and I don’t think things that are not said should be added for ideological reasons.

New Zealand has a cost of living crisis and we also have an employment shortage crisis. Many employers who actually want to employ people from overseas have to be accredited employers, and the kind of hoops they have to jump through to prove that they should be included as an accredited employer is actually a way to stop them from wanting to be accredited because there’s so many things that they have to tick. It’s like a tick-box exercise, one after the other, to prove to Immigration that they are accredited, qualified, to employ people from overseas. And, yet, every day, even in the ICT sector, there are about 3,000 jobs that are being advertised because we can’t get enough people in New Zealand to work.

The issue is that, for example, the visa category for partners—New Zealand competes with the rest of the world for people who have the skills to come here. One of the things that they look at is whether their partner, their wife or their husband, can work in this country. And when the Government decides to get rid of the previous immigration setting for automatically being granted, the work right is being removed by this Government, which makes it harder. What it means is that people who are looking to New Zealand to come to, to do work, see that their partners don’t actually have an automatic right to work here, and they have to, in their own right, have a job at a particular level and a particular pay before they can have the work right. To me, that actually restricts them from thinking New Zealand is a good place for them to come, and it may even open the partner up to the kinds of exploitation that we are looking to prevent. Because often when people have certain restrictions, they are open to potentially working under the table, and, although it is illegal, it does actually happen in this country and everywhere else. I think the settings really need to be right and we need to protect the vulnerable community who come here, who actually work, and they work really hard. We need to protect them from exploitation because any exploitation is bad, in my opinion.

I commend the work of the select committee and the members who have actually listened to the submissions. I wasn’t one of them, but I just want to acknowledge the work that they have done.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. “Migrant workers living at school camp forced to endure ‘unacceptable conditions’”. “‘Stood on and sworn at’: police investigate alleged assault on migrant workers”. “Employers openly talk about charging ‘migrant meat’ more for residency”. These are the realities that many of our migrant workers face in Aotearoa, and as a House I want us to reflect on our complicity in creating the conditions for this exploitation to happen.

For far too long, politicians across the House have used language that dehumanises our migrant communities and reduces us to economic units, whether it is “Chinese-sounding names” or talking about our work as “low-skilled, low-value”. When we refer to our communities in this way, and uphold policies that enable exploitation, it is simply not good enough to talk about the role of employers, and we need to reflect on the role that we play to ensure that our migrant communities can thrive. This is why this inquiry into migrant exploitation is so important. It was an opportunity for our migrant communities to be heard in Parliament and for us, as a cross-party group, to put out some recommendations for the Government to, hopefully, follow through.

Throughout this inquiry, one of the key themes that came through from submitters—many of them migrants—was the power dynamic that existed between employers and migrants themselves. That power dynamic came from the visa system that ties workers to a single employer. That gives employers so much power over the lives of immigrants, where a worker knows that they’re scared of raising concerns because of the risk that their employer may penalise them. We have created the conditions for exploitation to happen, and we’ve made it hard for migrants to come forward. Too many of the migrants who have come forward right now are on limited visas, facing potential deportation instead of being supported. It is not good enough to simply put in place measures to support migrants once exploitation happens; we need to prevent exploitation from happening in the first place.

Despite so many of our submitters talking about the need to decouple work visas from single employers to end this practice that effectively amounts, in some cases, to modern-day slavery, I was deeply disheartened to not see the cross-party group recommend the decoupling of work visas from single employers. We’ve had unions, the Productivity Commission, and migrants themselves being really clear of the need to make these changes. We’ve also covered the issue around the barriers to reporting exploitation when it happens, and it was really clear that the criminalisation of migrant sex workers continues to play a role in entrenching exploitation. We also saw how overstayers face exploitative conditions and find it really hard to report exploitation—and sometimes when they do, they once again get punished instead of supported. This is why the Green Party continues to call for the decriminalisation of migrant sex workers, as well as an amnesty for overstayers, as part of a holistic response to this growing issue.

We also addressed the fact that migrants are not given proper protections under the Human Rights Act 1993. Migrants cannot make complaints to the Human Rights Commission on issues relating to immigration, and we’ve accepted in our immigration laws that it is OK to discriminate against migrants and to basically not cover them on what should be a fundamental right. So this is why we continue having disabled migrants facing horrible conditions and being prevented from being able to participate in our communities and therefore obtain visas.

One of the things that I was particularly concerned about from our committee findings in relation to the working rights of partners is that as of December most partners of migrants will lose their ability to participate in employment. And despite the inquiry being so clear that Cabinet even highlighted the potential increased risk of family violence as a result, the Government decided to go ahead with these changes, and I want to remind the immigration Minister that he plays a role in the commitment to Te Aorerekura—every Minister plays a role in preventing family violence and it is such a shame that this Government is going to put in policies that are going to cause harm.

So, as we work through this committee and this report, I was really pleased to none the less see a very collegial approach to this, and I do want to thank the member Ibrahim Omer for the work that we did to encourage migrants to make submissions. But the work is not finished. We have so much more to do ensure that migrant workers are free from exploitation, and I want to encourage this Government to once again not stack ambulances as the bottom of the cliff but to make the necessary changes to prevent exploitation from happening. Migrants should never be facing conditions that effectively amount to modern-day slavery. This needs to change right now and the Green Party will continue fighting for this.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of ACT to talk about this issue and this report. This is a tricky topic. Migrant exploitation is an incredibly serious issue. In terms of the amount of it in New Zealand, it is often hard to say, though the causes can be varied.

One of our primary concerns with the inquiry into migrant exploitation is that it could be used as a vehicle to justify the Government’s immigration policies, in particular those that have created significant distress over many years, particularly throughout the pandemic. Such policies include, obviously, stranding people offshore, splitting families up, freezing pathways to residency—and the main pathway is still not open—and just tons of ad hoc policy-making along the way to try to make up for it.

As I said, this is a very serious issue. What I would add is that complicated immigration law and complicated immigration policy is often why those who are exploited end up at community law centres or talking to advisers or perhaps a lawyer, pro bono, getting help from them to work through the process, even with the launch of the new visa. The complex system means that it’s easier to cause these problems and it’s harder to actually get out of them.

So that’s the backdrop: the closed border; work rights, as the Green MP Ricardo Menéndez March mentioned; expired visas; people who are stranded overseas and can’t come back when they’ve got belongings here and, in some cases, some family here—and we’re still dealing with those issues.

Now, one thing I want to turn to is the Accredited Employer Work Visa. This is something that I’ve had concerns about since it was announced, or detailed, last year. It was good to see that it got delayed in the first instance, because it clearly wasn’t ready. That being said, it has rolled out, and one of the most perverse features of that scheme is tying visas to employers, so making it particularly difficult for a migrant employee to get a job and then for them to move. In the whole scheme of our immigration system, combining six visas into one where they’re locked in and they can’t actually get out without going through a whole lot of process is just absolutely the perfect recipe for migrant exploitation.

To add to that, the bill that was announced today in the press release from the Government is basically just a band-aid solution for a problem that’s caused by the Government. You know, it’s a shame that that bill is actually needed because of a problem that the Government caused.

So further with the Accredited Employer Work Visa scheme, in addition to making it hard to switch jobs, you’ve also got employers. Somebody might be a bad employer—or on the margins—and there’s an incentive to actually, because it’s so difficult, avoid that accreditation scheme altogether and to just keep doing what they’re doing and illegally hiring migrants. So you’re going to get a bit of a two-phase system there.

So overall, it’s just incredible that the Government has done this report into migrant exploitation and they say they take it seriously and they’re doing this bill, because as far as I can tell, the vast majority of exploitation in my exposure to this sector is caused by Government policy just making things too hard, too difficult, too much interference and people get—

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: So out of touch. Clearly has no idea.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL: So out of touch? I’ve been in the industry for many years; probably longer than you have, so—anyway. In terms of the scale—

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: And you still have no idea.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL: —of exploitation and the new visa that was launched, and it’s—the interjections; clearly the Government takes it seriously, just laughing away at this.

So in terms of the migrant exploitation visa that was launched, there were 134 granted in one year. So, I mean, that’s good, 134, but in the grand scale of the number of migrants in New Zealand, I would suggest that if that was the panacea to an exploitation problem, something is going wrong there. Either people don’t have access to it or they don’t understand it, or something.

This clearly needs to be taken more seriously. From our point of view, it’s deeply ironic that we are having this conversation, because migrants have probably never before been treated so badly by a Government in New Zealand as they have by this one. We’ll continue to speak in favour of migrants, in support of migrants, and in support of good policy. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Kia orana, 谢谢, and talofa, Madam Speaker. Pasifika workers who come to Aotearoa to work deserve to have a warm place to live, safe working conditions, and good pay. Migrant workers and Pasifika workers come here with dreams. They are not just economic units to plug into the capitalist matrix; they come here with dreams. That’s how many of our families got here. That’s how my family got here, and that’s how many of the families of members around the House got here as well. They come here with dreams and aspirations for better work and better jobs and education opportunities for their children. But no matter where they come from or why they travel to Aotearoa for work, the very least that we can do—this Parliament and the Government—is guarantee everyone who comes here is paid properly, treated fairly, and has a safe place to live. The Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme is exploitative. The rules put in place are left unchanged by the current Government and do not guarantee people the same conditions as local workers and other migrant workers.

And I get it—there is a review on the cards, and it’s coming down the track. But here’s the thing: that’s not until next year, and it’s too late, because that exploitation is happening right now. That exploitation is happening right now. Only this week, we heard yet another story about the exploitation of Pasifika peoples travelling to Rotorua for work. Migrant workers housed at a school camp in Rotorua were forced to endure unacceptable living conditions, including sharing just two washing machines between more than 160 people. And that’s what the inspection reports revealed. Men’s and women’s quarters were right next to each other, despite complaints that female workers felt unsafe. They were too scared to go outside or alone, let alone to the toilet blocks at night.

Here’s a quote from one of the reports that came out of the Official Information Act: “I myself would not want to live in such conditions and can only imagine what our workers have to endure.”, a farmer liaison worker wrote in a complaint to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, MBIE. The documents also included details of an investigation into a site run by Turners and Growers in Hastings where a complainant said, “A horrible stench of shit hits you when you arrive.”, due to what they believed were overflowing septic tanks. This is unacceptable. This is unacceptable treatment of Pasifika workers.

New Zealand has been down this path before. We just apologised last year for the treatment of Pasifika workers, and the result of that was the Dawn Raids. We’ve been here before. We know that this exploitation is happening now, so the right thing to do is to speed up that review process. Get it happening now because it’s happening now. Earlier this year—because this is not an isolated event—the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, Saunoamaali‘i Karanina Sumeo, travelled to Blenheim to investigate the work and living conditions of Pasifika workers under that same scheme. There she found horticultural workers being housed six people to a room, charged 150 bucks a week to sleep in freezing and damp conditions which see them fall sick repeatedly and then refused paid sick leave. That is why this review needs to start now. And we know that because we know that worker exploitation is happening right now as well.

This is not new. Attention has been brought to this through the inquiry process, and it comes up in the media. And I ask myself, “Where is the collective outrage? Where is the collective outrage of what’s happening with Pasifika workers? Would this be acceptable if these were white workers? Would it be? Would it be acceptable if these were a bunch of French students working in a ski field? Would it be acceptable?” It would not be. Where is our collective outrage? And that’s why it’s really important that this review happens now. The scheme needs to be replaced, and there needs to be a number of things put into place, including independent inspectors of the accommodation. We talk about healthy home standards; what about healthy home standards for the workers? Paid sick leave: if you get sick and you end up in hospital, that’s expensive. You need to sort out the insurance side of things as well—medical insurance for RSE workers. Workers should also be trained on health and safety standards.

We’ve got a long way to go. Aotearoa is a part of the Pacific. We need to treat our relatives and we need to treat our neighbours with dignity and respect. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Can I begin my contribution with a word of thanks to the Education and Workforce Committee, chaired by my friend and colleague Marja Lubeck. Thank you for the work that the committee has done to produce the report, and can I also acknowledge all those who submitted as part of this inquiry.

The report reflects, as Marja has said previously, what we found also through the 2019 temporary migrant worker review that was undertaken by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), that looked into the specific kinds of measures that the Government could take to stamp out migrant exploitation. As many members in this House have said, this is unacceptable, and that is why we embarked upon the review process to find out what we could do to stamp out this issue of migrant exploitation.

Many have shared stories in this House about the exploitation that many others have been subjected to, and I spoke this morning, when I announced some further steps that we’re taking as a Government, of a person that I supported many years ago, prior to entering Parliament, who, when I worked through with him his bank statements, had been paid, on average, $4 an hour, well below the minimum wage. He’d been made to stay in a room that was just slightly bigger than a single bed, and had been locked in that room on weekends so that he couldn’t access any of the support that he might have otherwise. This is exactly why our Government has taken such a strong stance to end this exploitation, and I absolutely do not accept that what we are doing is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, or that it is not good enough, because, frankly, no other Government has taken the steps that we have to do this.

In line with the select committee report, what we’re wanting to do is to prevent migrant exploitation from ever occurring. We’re doing that through a programme of information, education, and awareness raising. As the select committee has pointed out in our own research, commissioned by MBIE, many migrant workers aren’t aware of what their basic employment rights are in Aotearoa New Zealand. Many employers of migrants are not aware of what their legal compliance should be, and so we’re ensuring that we do what we can to expose both migrant workers and employers to those rights.

Today, I announced, for example, the community pilot that we are undertaking with community organisations—business networks like the Pacific Business Network and other associations like the Restaurant Association, who already have links with these community groups to ensure that they are supported to access tools that they can use to avail themselves of the information around those rights as well. The deterrent effect of the bill that was introduced into the House today will also take many steps to ensure that employers, for example, who repeatedly refuse to comply are made to comply, or, for example, are disqualified from directing or managing a company. There are further infringement offences in that bill as well that will have a deterrent effect.

We’re also ensuring, through tools that came into effect in 2021, that migrant workers have the avenues that they need to be able to report exploitation in a way that is safe. Many migrant workers have said to many of us on this side of the House, over many years, that they have felt that reporting migrant exploitation would result in them being deported. That was one of the key concerns and main fears that was shared with us. And so we ensured that there is an 0800 line that allows for direct reporting of exploitation, an online form in which people could do that, and the 0800 line has translation into about 180 languages, and also the migrant exploitation protection visa, that speaks to the fear around linking—you know, the link between them and the power imbalance between them and employers. This allowed migrants to report exploitation without the fear of deportation, and no migrant who has used this avenue has been deported, to date.

The final point to that is the enforcement, and ensuring that we strengthen the enforcement and compliance regime that we have, to ensure that employers comply with their legal obligations and stop profiting from the exploitation of migrants, and that’s the step that we’re taking with the introduction of the bill to the House today. So I absolutely reject claims that we are soft on exploitation or that we don’t take this seriously, or that it’s the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, because it’s not; it’s the fence at the top of the cliff. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. As a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, I believe that this inquiry was, overall, a very good inquiry, because none of us want to see migrants being exploited in this country. Sadly, from time to time, that does occasionally occur. New Zealand must protect its reputation and that of our employers. We need them to be highly regarded because we need migrant workers in this country. So many fields and so many areas in our country, our economy, and our productive sector are being hamstrung by a lack of migrant workers. It doesn’t matter where I go, whether it’s to a youth expo or to a business group, I get bailed up by employers saying they are desperately short of workers and finding it so difficult to get new migrants in.

National, in our differing view in the report, note that the Government’s reset policy to remove open work rights for partners of principal applicants from the end of this year will actually increase the chances of migrant exploitation. So while the member of the Government across from me, Priyanca Radhakrishnan, spoke about what wonderful things they are doing, it is incredibly bizarre that the new reset of policy is actually going to make it easier for exploitation. The cost of living crisis and the rampant inflation will mean that these partners of principal applicants will need to work for their families to be able to survive here. They are the ones that will be most likely to work illegally because the process and the pay rates that are being brought in by this policy reset are just too onerous for businesses to be able to cope with.

So we will see those partners working illegally, becoming more at risk of exploitation, or we will see those partners not working and becoming socially isolated at home. I personally saw the vulnerability of partners in that situation—partners of those on student visas—in my previous role. I saw how isolated those partners could become, how vulnerable they become to the prey of employers who will take advantage of them, but also how vulnerable they become to the risk of domestic abuse. We know that when people and families are put under pressure like this, things go wrong—they make bad decisions. We see things like domestic abuse increase. I saw it not often but often enough to concern me with partners of those on student visas. So the Government’s own policy reset is likely to cause further harm. So that member that spoke so passionately about the wonderful things they are doing needs to take a good look at that policy reset and see how it is going to open these partners up to the risk of exploitation.

Another significant concern that we had that wasn’t put into this report but was brought up by a number of submitters and a number of people in industry for this inquiry is that—the majority of individuals who are exploiting migrants are migrants themselves. It is incredibly important for that to be acknowledged because that then should be something that is looked at closely in the accreditation of businesses by Immigration New Zealand.

Speaking about the accreditation process, and, again, it doesn’t matter where I go to, I have employers coming to me and tearing their hair out over the complexity, the slowness, the onerousness of the accreditation process. We do not agree that the unions should be brought into that accreditation process. It wasn’t put forward by submitters; it adds cost and complexity to it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be able to speak at this point in this special debate on the Education and Workforce Committee’s inquiry into migrant exploitation. We’ve heard now from the chair of our committee, Marja Lubeck, on the findings of our select committee inquiry into migrant exploitation, and we’ve also now heard from the Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, Priyanca Radhakrishnan, on the Government’s response to the inquiry and important issues raised by many in the community on this important issue, with the aim, of course, of protecting against migrant exploitation.

I also want to comment briefly on some statements made by others in the House. We had the first speaker from the National Party, Melissa Lee, mention that the inclusion of a very modest recommendation of the committee that we recommend the Government should investigate whether it should consult with unions as part of the employer accreditation process for the Accredited Employer Work Visa was ideological and shouldn’t have been included, because it wasn’t specifically raised by submitters or officials. Now, I reject the assertion that that member made, because I don’t think select committees are there just to report what is said to them and what they are advised to do; I think select committees are there as part of an important parliamentary process. And, as parliamentarians, I think we have role to consider what is put before us and also to make our best recommendations based on the evidence and our own minds turned towards the subject matter. So I reject that assertion by that member, who, I note, did not participate in the committee. I also reject the allegations made that the reset will increase exploitation. This is not correct.

This inquiry and announcements come at an important time for New Zealand. As our borders open and we once again welcome migrant workers, from a range of industries, back into New Zealand, it’s really important that we look at what is a serious issue, which this Government is taking extremely seriously. I want to stop here and acknowledge the huge contribution that migrants and our migrant communities make to New Zealand. Migrant workers form a part of almost every sector, industry, and workplace in New Zealand, and their contributions are hugely valued. However, as we have heard from contributions throughout the House today and also from the submissions to our inquiry, sometimes we as a country can fall short of our own high expectations when it comes to the experience of migrants when they come to Aotearoa. Often the migrants that are most subject to exploitation are frequently those who are the most vulnerable. That includes those who have limited English language or are under financial pressure, or who may have a limited familiarity with the working rights that we accept and expect for all those in Aotearoa New Zealand. In these cases, we recognise the inherent power imbalance that exists between worker and employer.

In our inquiry, we heard from over 80 submitters, and one of the submissions was from the Citizens Advice Bureau, who are often the first port of call for migrants when they experience or are struggling with unfair treatment. As part of their submission, the Citizens Advice Bureau detailed examples of exploitative and harmful practices, which, unfortunately, they have seen in relation to migrant workers’ experience in New Zealand. These included an employer using an employee’s visa status to threaten or exert pressure on them, or coercing them into accepting employment terms or conditions which are below the minimum standards that we accept in New Zealand. Another situation that the Citizens Advice Bureau raised with us as part of our inquiry was wages being withheld at the end of an employment contract, failing to provide payslips, or not delivering on promises of paid overtime. We’ve also, sadly, heard examples of bullying and harassment towards migrants. This is why it is really important that we’ve heard today about the new Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill, introduced today, which is designed to protect migrant workers from exploitation, as the Minister has outlined in her contribution to the House. I very much support this bill and look forward to the first reading of this bill and also submissions to the select committee on this bill.

So to conclude, we have the responsibility to our migrant workers and, in fact, all workers in our country to ensure they work in safe workplaces where they are treated in good faith. We do this not because we have to, not because it’s good for our reputation, but because it is the right thing to do, and I hope, with the continued work of this Government in this employment area, we can further contribute to making sure New Zealand is a safe workplace for all New Zealanders and all who come here to work.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I can’t say it’s a pleasure to take a call in this debate, because in an ideal world we wouldn’t be having this debate. So I think that is something that we should remember.

Migrant worker exploitation is a complete enigma to me. As an employer of some years of many, many people, I cannot for the life of me understand why an employer would exploit a migrant when we’re desperate for people to work for us, we’re desperate to bring people into the country, to grow our country, and to help us run our businesses. Yet here we have a sector of our community exploiting those people who come into our country. We should also remember, of course, that we’re a country built on migrants for hundreds and hundreds of years. We wouldn’t be here at all if it weren’t for migrants to New Zealand.

Sadly, I’m somewhat misguided in my thoughts that it’s an enigma, because, in fact, as the report that we’ve received from the Education and Workforce Committee well points out to us, there are many things going on in this sector that shouldn’t being going on. We’ve got unscrupulous employers—a few of them—adding significant cost, compliance, stigma, and reputational damage to so many good employers. They also add reputational damage and potentially significant damage to our international reputation and, consequently, our market place. In many of those employers’ cases, the very industries that they are working in run the risk of being significantly damaged by the activities of those people.

The main reason that we must take strong action in this area is because we want people to feel they can come to New Zealand safely, that the country’s a wonderful place to come to and live in, work in, and grow their families up in. If our international reputation in that respect is not very strong, then we’re inevitably going to have people not wanting to come to New Zealand and we’re going to suffer significantly as a result of that. We cannot achieve those aspirations for those people who want to come to New Zealand to work and to live, unless we have a very prosperous economy with a great international reputation.

One of the earlier things I got to do in my time in this Parliament was to review a bill called the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This bill was brought into Parliament specifically to deal with the conditions of workers on those foreign charter fishing vessels at the time. It was around 2013-14 that we reviewed that Act and passed a new bill, primarily to improve conditions on those fishing vessels.

The interesting thing, for me, was, though, that we got the opportunity to inspect some of those vessels as part of that bill being passed, and the conditions on them were extraordinary. They used what they call “hot beds” where three people would sleep in one bed per day—in other words, they rotated through eight hours. It was, no doubt, quite fun for them. But not only that but those beds were four-foot-six long—and you’d have to be Andrew Bayly’s size, basically, to fit into them! So it was quite a significant challenge. But I think that pointed out to me the conditions that we have in some of our industries in New Zealand were a long way from where they needed to be. [Interruption]Madam Speaker, there’s a lot of stuff going on in the background; I can’t hear myself think.

The whole point of that bill was to improve conditions for people working in that industry, most of whom, whilst they weren’t migrants, were foreign people working in New Zealand waters and under New Zealand conditions. That bill brought them into New Zealand conditions and significantly improved the conditions in that industry.

One of the other things I find really interesting is that if you’ve come from a sector like I do where we’ve employed what were historically known as “shearing gangs”, “forestry gangs”—we also have horticultural workers being employed in what you might call “gangs”; I guess there’s better words for them nowadays, but none the less, they are, effectively, gangs—it’s much easier for exploitation to take place in those kinds of conditions.

I think that the changes the Government’s made and the recommendations the select committee made with respect to employer accreditation will help a lot in that area. But I think, also, that for those people employing, much as the workplace relations legislation puts the onus on the contractor and the employer of the contractor, the same thing needs to apply in this case, because we’d get much better behaviour in those gangs if the person who was employing them to do the work then insisted that that work was done in a manner that was sustainable and equitable.

So I’ve run out of time, Madam Speaker, but thank you for the opportunity to speak on this. I just hope we get to the point where we fix it.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): 谢谢, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be the last speaker on this very important issue, which is close to my heart, actually.

It’s no secret that migrant exploitation is widespread today, and it does exist in our country, as we speak. It only takes one Google search to find stories of the horror and misery of exploitation. It’s an evil practice which has stained our country’s beautiful image, and the sooner we eradicate it the better. I’m glad that the Government is taking it seriously and that we are acting on it.

Over the last decade the number of complaints being seen has jumped from 31 in 2011 to 855 in 2021—it’s probably counting up—and the survey also showed that 11 percent of migrants felt threatened by employers. This is highly likely underreported as well. Support networks often are unaware of the local laws. The life of a migrant is often harsh and isolated—one is cut off from the outside world with no support networks. There are language barriers and customs, and hence they are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation.

I just want to mention a few things about what the exploitation looks like. I know that my colleague Marja Lubeck touched on this, but for the people who are listening to us from outside who might not know what the exploitation looks like, it’s underpayment, excessive workload, long hours, denial of employment contracts and pay for their jobs, passports being seized, and tricking and intimidating them with deportation. Exploited migrants often have their movements, communication, and living conditions controlled by employers. In extreme conditions, it can be forced labour, trafficking, and slavery. While the above list is shameful and depressing, the number of exploited migrants is increasing. But I’m glad that the Minister, the Hon Michael Wood, and the Associate Minister, the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan, who just spoke today, are taking this matter very seriously.

The Education and Workforce Committee has done a good job in launching this inquiry. We have received about 74 to 80 submissions. We heard from 31 submitters as well. And the committee, as a result, made 11 recommendations. I’d like to commend the committee members for their collegiality and hard work.

The Government, so far, has announced and implemented a range of policies to combat migrant exploitation. This includes but is not limited to—the list is quite long. But I just want to mention today that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan has introduced a new bill that’s designed to protect migrant workers; the Accredited Employer Work Visa scheme has been in place; and the introduction of the Migrant Exploitation Protection Work Visa—the list goes on.

When I was new to this country, in 2009, my first job was cleaning in a hostel. I was made not only to work excessive hours, but when I called in sick, really sick, I was told to come in and that “No one is going to cover for you.” Because it was 2009 and, to me, getting that job in New Zealand at the time was like winning Lotto, and I had to drag myself out of bed and come to work and work seven days for 12 hours, and often the work was seven to six days.

This is widespread. Myself and Ricardo from the Green Party have launched quite a few workshops and we heard from people. Some came to us behind closed doors and told us “I wanted to speak up but I’m too scared.” I just want to tell the people who submitted that we applaud your bravery for coming forward. To those who wanted to come but couldn’t because they were too scared, we also tell them “We hear you.”

I want to send a message to employers who are exploiting our migrants. I am telling them: “The Government is coming for you and the law is coming for you. Your number’s up and your days are numbered. You’d better stop, because you bring shame on our country.” These are a very tiny minority. The vast majority of our employers are good employers. They treat their employees with the dignity and respect they deserve. But to those who are exploiting our migrant workers, we tell them: “We are coming for you.” Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Report noted.

Bills

Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill

Second Reading

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I present a legislative statement on the Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill.

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

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I move, That the Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

This bill forms part of the Government’s response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on the Christchurch mosques. The bill touches on important constitutional matters, such as the fundamental rights of people to open justice and a fair trial, the respective roles of the judiciary and the executive, protecting national security, and the principles of open government and democratic accountability. This bill provides the courts with a clear and consistent process to manage national security information in both civil and criminal proceedings. Currently, there is no clear path for courts to take when national security information is relevant to a case. The courts need to establish a suitable process each time; this can be contentious, costly, and uncertain.

Our current general law does not provide enough assurance that security information can be adequately protected if it needs to be used in court proceedings. This creates domestic and international risks for New Zealand in terms of safety, security, and international relations. The lack of a clear process for protecting security information in court could lead to the Crown deciding not to bring proceedings or to settle a claim against it.

The current law also disadvantages the person who is affected by a decision of the executive that involves national security. The affected person may not fully know the reasons for the decision against them or the full details of a case against them. The lack of full disclosure puts the affected individual at considerable disadvantage if they want to challenge the executive’s actions or decisions. Under normal conditions, this would not be tolerated in our courts.

This bill will help to maintain public confidence in the operation and integrity of the justice system by providing a clear approach to protecting national security information while maintaining principles of fairness and natural justice. The bill will ensure that New Zealand’s framework for managing national security information is consistent with comparable jurisdictions where similar legislation is in place. These include Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

I want to briefly highlight the key aspects of the bill that will ensure a fairer process for managing national security information in the courts. The bill will enable closed court substantive hearings but only where the risks of disclosing the national security information justify this departure from ordinary open processes. A closed procedure would take place in a secure court facility with only security-cleared personnel and the judge present. The court would be closed to the public and the media.

The non-Crown party will not be present, but safeguards in the bill will mitigate this disadvantage. The non-Crown party’s interests will be represented by a special advocate. Special advocates are highly experienced security-cleared lawyers who will act in the interest of the person who is not allowed to see the national security information that is alleged to be relevant in their case. The special advocate and the judge would have access to the national security information. The judge would be able to direct that a summary of the information is prepared for the affected person so that they can then instruct the special advocate.

In most cases, the judge will assess whether the information is national security information as claimed by the Crown. The judge will also decide how the information should be protected in the proceedings. The judge will have a range of options including providing redacted documents to the affected person. The judge may also exclude certain information.

In certain cases, the judge will not determine whether the information is national security information. This is where the Attorney-General and the Minister of Foreign Affairs certify that information as national security information. This process is intended to be reserved for information of particular sensitivity where certainty is needed to protect the country’s security interests and our foreign partner relationships. In these cases, the judge can only order that the case is heard in a closed court or that the information is excluded. However, even in these cases, the judge will be able to see the information that is covered by the certificate.

It’s important to stress that closed court processes will not be available in a substantive criminal trial. The bill retains the fundamental position that a defendant will always be present during a criminal trial. However, the bill does enable a new pre-trial process to enable national security information to be used and protected at a criminal trial.

The bill also replaces existing procedures in other legislation where national security information is used in decision making, like the Passports Act, the Terrorism Suppression Act, and the Overseas Investment Act, among others. This means there will be a consistent set of protections and procedures where national security information is relevant so that affected individuals have fundamental rights. The bill does not affect immigration proceedings, however as immigration will continue to retain its own scheme.

In conclusion, I want to thank the Justice Committee for their careful consideration of this bill. The bill received cross-party support at the select committee stage, and I thank all parties for their constructive participation in the consideration of the bill. I’m confident that this bill strikes the right balance between the need to protect security information and the need to ensure that the fundamental principles of justice are not unjustifiably limited. I commend this bill to the House.

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

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Madam Speaker, thank you. I pick up where the Minister left off by noting that parties have unanimously supported the bill to this point, and National continues to offer its support to the Government in legislating in this space, which concerns not only fundamental human rights, so far as they relate to persons in a courtroom, but also in matters of national security. And I think one should not lightly depart from the convention that these matters are dealt with on a bipartisan nature. We’ve seen nothing that would indicate that we should.

So I start, as I say, by advising the Minister and his colleagues that we will continue to support the bill. At the conclusion of his remarks, the Minister also made a point of thanking the Justice Committee for its hard work in considering the bill. I would also like to acknowledge the submitters who took their time and lent considerable expertise, actually, to the question that the Justice Committee was considering. I’m not a permanent member of that committee, but I take an interest in this particular matter—it’s somewhat within my portfolio, for the Opposition, of courts matters—so I was pleased to be able to join colleagues from across the House on the Justice Committee for at least some of its consideration.

The general context of what we’re discussing, I think, is worth setting out, because the technical detail, important as it is, flows really from those big picture questions of what we’re considering. We’re considering, at a level, the difference between the competing rights of the State and an individual, and we’re also considering on a level weighing up security interests versus civil rights—namely the right of a person to have at least minimum standards of criminal procedure observed and accorded to them. And to the extent that we are also interested in the openness and transparency of the justice system, and justice—as has famously been observed—being not only done but seen to be done. To that extent, we’re also interested in the rights of society as a whole to know that there are robust procedures in a courtroom. So all these different competing interests do need to be weighed carefully.

I think that the Justice Committee did a good and thorough job of weighing them, but it’s also worth noting, of course, that when we’re talking about balancing rights where minimum standards of criminal procedure are concerned, those rights are generally considered irreducible as far as they go. So it’s not reasonable to make a trade-off and have a bit less of that safety of conviction, so to speak, when weighing these matters. So one has to take very seriously the fact that a person’s right to a fair trial mustn’t be reduced below that level.

The access to justice aspect of the bill and what the legislative intent is is really important. Access to justice in this country is significantly under threat at the moment. Not—I will state bluntly—through any design or deliberate action, I think, but the sheer difficulty of reaching court, having one’s matter, whether civil or criminal, heard in a timely fashion, and the cost involved. These are profound challenges to the rights of Kiwis to have access to justice in our time. And the access to justice issues should be seen as part of that overall mix; albeit that they concern, particularly, the ability of a person to be able to be represented by a lawyer or “advocate”, I think, to use the phrase in the legislation. In fact, a person who is subject to proceedings such as the bill covers actually will not necessarily be able to choose their own lawyers. That’s a bit of a departure from the usual way of things, and there are reasons for that. There are good reasons that are justifiable, and indeed justified, by the bill. And as the select committee has made clear in its consideration, its report, these things were, indeed, carefully weighed.

I do acknowledge that submissions were made that emphasised that it was important not to treat lightly a person’s right to be able to have good legal representation. And, of course, it’s to be hoped or—more than that, actually—expected and demanded that a person will have good legal representation, and there are certain mechanisms in the bill that are designed to ensure that. But we should all be diligent as lawmakers and policy makers and those who care about the rule of law to ensure that that is the case, as far as we can tell, and certainly to maintain an active interest in the matter and to monitor the way that the bill is being used going forward.

There’s a bit of a theme of alignment in the bill, and these themes, again, sort of ran through the select committee’s consideration. There’s, on a level, alignment between criminal and civil jurisdictions. Not strict or not exact alignment. And, of course, they are different types of matter that could come to a court, but whereas often one would think instinctively of a matter that involved national security as perhaps naturally leaning towards the criminal side of the ledger—and an obvious example might be terrorism or espionage—in fact, there might well be civil proceedings. There might be a dispute between a party in which it’s relevant that there is a national security aspect or question over the behaviour or conduct of one party. So it’s appropriate that civil and criminal proceedings are both covered in the bill and, to the extent that makes sense given that they’re different jurisdictions, similar philosophy is applied to those big questions, as I mentioned before, of allowing access to information, legal representation, and so on.

I think it’s helpful for courts not to have to rely on the very general principles that, as the Minister has read well, do otherwise have to be employed by courts. So we’ve got something on the statute book that will provide at least a measure of certainty; albeit in the individual circumstance of any case, they’ll have to apply it as best they can and make those judgments in both sense of the phrase as they go.

Finally to the Minister’s point, again, about comparable jurisdictions. I think this is a worthwhile point in the sense that the Minister made it but also in another one. And if we say, well, we should derive some comfort here at the bottom of the world and literally as an island and somewhat potentially insular in our way of thinking at times, to look beyond the horizon and say, “Well, are we doing things in the same way”—not that we should necessarily do things in the same way for the sake of it, but if comparable jurisdictions that have similar legal systems are doing a similar thing in their respective courtrooms, then that is probably as good a guide as any, at least as a starting point, that we’re on the right track. But also, given that often times these same nation states are our security partners—be it allies or friends or very, very good friends or friends with military benefits or however we might describe them—it makes sense that we have alignment there too, because it will mean that there’s a degree of trust and confidence for the sharing of information, maybe even transport of individuals in question, interoperability, intelligence, and so on. So it all makes sense from that point of view.

I will just note, because I’m interested in the operation of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, that the Justice Committee, I think probably as prompted by the excellent advisers to that body, thought it would be helpful to clarify whether the Criminal Cases Review Commission was in or out. The report of the Justice Committee says that whereas the bill is meant to apply to courts and tribunals, the slightly different beast that is the Criminal Cases Review Commission could be considered as either. Well, actually, specifically they said that it has a primary function of investigating and reviewing convictions and sentences and deciding whether to refer them to an appeal court and that it carries out that function in an investigative manner rather than a judicial one. I’m not sure that wording’s quite correct. If I’d thought about it at the time, I probably would have suggested a wording that talked about investigative versus adversarial approaches. The function is judicial either way, I think, but in any case the right decision, I think, was made by the committee, which is to say that for the sake of certainty the commission should be either in or out and it’s out, so the bill doesn’t apply to that.

So I haven’t even got near the particular aspects of the way that the evidence could be determined prior to a trial, whether it’s, again, civil or criminal, but my time approaches the end. So I will say probably at this point that I will look forward, as I know you will look forward and everyone in the House will look forward to hearing what we will have to say about that. Well, actually, colleagues in the remainder of the debate might have things to say about that, and they’ll probably say it more sensibly than I would at this time of the week anyway, even several coffees in. So I’ll leave my remarks there, except to say we continue to support the bill for the reasons we’ve said and look forward to hearing the rest of the discussion about it.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): 你好, Mr Speaker. The Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill implements the majority of the work undertaken by the Law Commission back in 2015. The task that they undertook at that time was to review how national security information is treated in our courts, and particularly around how decisions are made dealing with that sensitive information. The question at the heart of that inquiry by the Law Commission was: what should happen when information relevant to legal proceedings—how is that treated when disclosing it might prejudice New Zealand’s national security? So, really, it’s one of the toughest issues to be able to balance up in how we map that out. The Law Commission found a number of inconsistencies in terms of how things have been operating and gaps in the current law, so this piece of legislation set out to try and close some of those gaps and give greater clarity in terms of the process—really, what we’re needing to do—hopefully, before it’s required.

The current law doesn’t provide enough assurance that national security information can be adequately protected if it needs to be used in those courtroom settings, and this potentially creates a national security risk for our country. The current law can also disadvantage effective people who may not know the reason for a decision against them. So the Law Commission recommended that legislation clear up this inconsistency, and, really, that’s done in the nature of having and maintaining fairness and natural justice. So those were the principles forefront in the minds of those in the Justice Committee when considering this legislation and how we can strengthen it further.

The bill set out to achieve those objectives, and it’s important that I set out right at the start that this forms part of a larger suite of measures that are designed to strengthen an end-to-end system and prevent and respond appropriately to terrorism. It also supports our Government’s wider response to the 15th March terror attack in Christchurch.

So the committee received 14 submissions in total, and we heard from three of those. A key feature of the bill is that the court should be able to order a closed procedure when dealing with national security information. It will be for the courts to decide how to manage national security information and where the risks of disclosing that information are sufficiently serious to justify withholding it or not. In cases where it is in the interest of justice to exclude that information from proceedings, it will be withheld completely. The closed procedure would take place within a secure court facility with only security-cleared personnel and the judge present, and the court would be closed to the public, media, and any non-Crown parties.

A key feature of this bill—I won’t go through all of it, because there is a lot in this bill, so I’m just going to highlight some key features of the bill and then quickly go over the changes that the select committee did as part of its process of looking at the bill. A main feature is the role of special advocates in closed procedure. Special advocates are security-cleared lawyers who act for people who are not allowed to see national security information in their case because the court has decided that disclosure to them will have a security risk. So the special advocate and the judge would have full access to that information, and the judge would be able to direct that a summary of that information is prepared to the affected person and their lawyer. So it, essentially, acts as a buffer in that sense to make sure that there’s a good access of information but it’s also protecting the interests of national security at the same time. Closed hearings and special advocates are already used by the courts, but this bill will create clear rules to be followed in all cases where the closed court procedures and special advocates are used.

As already mentioned, the bill does not provide for the use of closed procedures in substantive criminal trials. The bill retains the fundamental position that a defendant would always be present during a criminal trial. However, what the bill does do is provide a new pre-trial process that enables national security information to be used but protected at that criminal trial. The court would need to decide in a closed court pre-trial hearing whether admitting national security information in protected form is consistent with the defendant’s right for a fair trial.

To cut to where some of the interesting discussion happened, if you’re interested in this sort of thing, which I am, it was really revolving around clause 12(1) of the bill, that provides that “the Crown must give the authorised court access to any security information at issue in the specified proceeding[s].” That means that the Crown would also give any special advocate and any special adviser access to that security information at issue.

When the committee was taking a look at this, we considered clause 12(3), which as introduced would give the court discretion not to apply the requirements set out in 12(2) if the court decided that a special advocate or special adviser should not have access to that information. We raised some concerns around this area and recommended that clause 12(3) be amended to incorporate a threshold for the use of the discretion. The threshold would align with the existing powers and limitations already in place under the Evidence Act 2006, including the threshold for excluding evidence, in section 8 of that Act. This would clarify the circumstances in which the court may wish to rely on the discretion provided in clause 12(3).

I’d like to give special acknowledgment to my colleagues on the Justice Committee, Vanushi Walters, Arena Williams, Emily Henderson, and Willow-Jean Prime, who all worked and utilised their strong—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Hey—hey!

GINNY ANDERSEN: Oh, and there were some National people who occasionally paid attention, like Mr Goldsmith. So I’d like to acknowledge that there are some really good, strong legal backgrounds that were utilised in making sure this bill is as good as it possibly could be.

Look, I’ll conclude by stating that this forms part of a wider range of end-to-end processes to make sure that New Zealand’s justice system is fit for purpose, particularly dealing with modern challenges such as terrorism and how we treat information in our courts to ensure that people get a fair trial but, at the same time, protect our national security. I commend it to the House.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and it’s my pleasure to speak on the second reading of the Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill, which the National Party is supporting, and, indeed, I understand the entire House has supported to this point. As Ginny Andersen, the previous member, indicated, it has been something that has come out in response to a royal commission’s report back in 2015.

If we cast our minds back to 2015, we can think of, in many respects, a different era. Yes, terrorism was still, of course, a major issue globally, particularly following 9/11, but had been around, sadly, for longer than that, but we in New Zealand hadn’t experienced it firsthand to the same degree. We of course have subsequently, very sadly, but also the global situation has changed in relation to national security quite substantially, with a major invasion within Europe for the first time since the Second World War. Of course, there was the situation in Crimea before, which people, in hindsight, didn’t pay enough attention to.

We are now living in a very different world, sadly, in the last few years, and, of course, there are ongoing tensions in our part of the world that we are concerned with, but it seems like a very distant time when the previous Prime Minister Helen Clark talked of the benign security environment in which we lived. That certainly doesn’t feel the case any more, so it’s absolutely appropriate that we should be always thinking about how we, as a country, prepare ourselves and ensure that our laws are appropriate, just as we do so in the broader context in terms of ensuring that our economy is strong so that we can best defend ourselves and that our relationships are strong so that we can best defend ourselves.

In that context, this bill is part of the tidying-up work that we need to ensure that our courts system has an appropriate framework in place to deal with national security information when it comes to the court or in administrative decisions. These rules and approaches and frameworks have developed in an ad hoc manner over the years before, and there was a certain lack of clarity and some inconsistency, both in regard to individuals and in regard to national security. So this bill sets out to address some of those issues in terms of an overarching legal framework to address these issues.

Previous speakers have dealt with the details of the bill, and there probably doesn’t appear to be a great advantage in my going on in great detail. But, just briefly, if I were to make the point that the bill establishes a new legislative framework to cover the disclosure and management of security information. First, in civil proceedings, where an application is made by any party—and it most probably will be the Crown—for information to be treated as security information, the court will be required to use a closed-court process and, in the preliminary hearing, closing the court proceedings to the public and the media and non-Crown parties. Now, of course we don’t want to be doing this as a general rule, and there needs to be a high threshold for this, and so that’s obviously the underlying situation in all these cases. The judge must be security-cleared, and the special advocate can have full access to the security information.

There are two different approaches: there’s the general track, and then what’s called the national security information (NSI) certificate track, which gives the ability for the Attorney-General and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to jointly issue an NSI certificate in cases as an alternative to the general track. When it comes to administrative decisions, there’s another set of proceedings, and also in the criminal side, again, there are other things.

So the issues that we dealt with as a committee—and I want to acknowledge the work of the chair of the committee, who worked hard in this area. There has been a general comity across the committee on some aspects, and, to be honest, there weren’t a huge number of submitters on this bill. I mean, three came and gave oral submissions. There were a few more written submissions, but it wasn’t controversial, particularly, in that sense. But there were one or two who were concerned with balancing the protection of security interests against our fundamental principles of open justice being a very important element. There were some who thought it didn’t strike that balance correctly, but most of us in the House—I think almost all—conclude that it does.

There was some discussion about the role of the special advocate, and I don’t need to go into the details there other than to say that, quite often, people look at Parliament and conclude that there is nothing but discord and conflict, but there are actually many times when we in the House come together across the aisle in the spirit of bipartisanship to deal with some broader issues—particularly in relation to our national security—and this is one of them. That happens surprisingly often. So it’s with those thoughts that I conclude.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): 你好, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call. Many people say that security is the first obligation of the State. That may well be true, but it’s certainly not a simple one. It presents a perennial task of assessing security risks but also the task of continuing to ask ourselves whether we have a fair balance in the law. Other speakers have referred to the 2015 Law Commission recommendations from which this bill makes proposals. The Law Commission, itself, recognised this challenge when they said in their report: “There is no doubt that, in some situations, the need to protect national security means that information cannot be dealt with in open courts. However, the protection of the rights to natural justice and open justice must be preserved, as far as possible, as these are values that lie at the heart of our democratic framework and way of life.” This was certainly a feature of our discussion at the Justice Committee.

I am going to extend a hand over to congratulate colleagues on the Opposition benches as well. I do think we had an extremely collegial approach to this bill—in particular, to Joseph Mooney, Chris Penk, and Nicole McKee, who had a number of conversations with us over the breaks because we were really determined to ensure that where we fell was on a fair balance. One of the issues we discussed was in relation to clause 12(1) and (2), which required the Crown to provide information to the authorised court but also to the special adviser who was there to represent the interests of the accused. What we discussed was clause 12(3), which created a new power to potentially withhold some of that information. The discussion we got into was whether a new power or a new threshold was being created by the insertion of clause 12(3). So the recommendation that came out from select committee was to be clear that clause 12(3) was only reaffirming the measures or the standards that are already in place in terms of the Evidence Act.

I won’t speak to the other aspects of the bill other than to say this is a great example of where we can have a really robust, collegial conversation about something that is of critical importance to New Zealand’s security. I commend this bill to the House.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Others have talked about the history of this bill and have pointed to the events of March 15, the terror attack—the gravest we’ve seen in living history here in New Zealand—and then others still have pointed to 9/11. I see the origin of this bill in New Zealand law coming out of the Ahmed Zaoui case, which was in the context of the war on terror, when one morning, New Zealanders—including myself as a young baby law grad interning at Amnesty International—woke up and found that there was an Algerian asylum seeker being held without charge or trial on national security secret information that he couldn’t access, and no lawyers and no judges could access. That went on for two years.

We realised that our then Labour Government—and it is nice to see a Labour Government bring this bill—had adopted national security legislation that allowed for that to happen because we were so keen to cooperate with our so-called allies who had gone into war post 9/11. We realised that the rule of law was slipping in our world in very close proximity to us all, but also across what we normally call the free world, and, in the wake of that, we saw Guantanamo Bay and we saw the Zaoui case being fought out here.

Eventually, it was the courts that freed Mr Zaoui. It was the courts that put in place a process which I think this bill attempts to legislate for, where there could be a special advocate—where there was a requirement that actually, if the executive says it has secret classified information, well, then it better give that level of security clearance to someone that can actually advocate for the accused person with such grave consequences.

Yes, the war on terror still wages on, and, yes, post - March 15th we’ve become a nation that’s a bit more aware of our own national security apparatus needing to be updated and futureproofed. But I do also want to remind us all that in New Zealand terms, the only terror group or entity that relates to March 15th in terms of being a white nationalist group or holding the ideologies that led to March 15th is still only that particular terrorist. So this bill is much more likely to be applied to those like Mr Zaoui, who was then classified as a terror threat as an Opposition MP in Algeria, and that was his only crime, as it turned out, once we saw that information. It wasn’t accusations of terror at all, even though our national security agencies had taken the word of the Algerian Government.

So this is why it’s so important to get this right, because national security information is something that’s shared across the globe and it doesn’t have the level of rule of law or due process that we might expect applied to it here. We can’t just replicate that hysteria or that unfairness here. We’re not necessarily, if we do that, even catching terrorists or stopping national security threats.

This bill tries to legislate for that process, and the Green Party didn’t vote for it at first, because we had some quite serious concerns, but we did agree to come back to it as a caucus after the select committee process, because we were hoping that once the Law Society and the Human Rights Commission—who I had engaged with on the bill initially, and I knew that they kind of did share some of those concerns—had been heard by the committee so that those concerns might be allayed and addressed. I do want to acknowledge the Justice Committee, because I know that they worked really, really hard on this. Some of those concerns were addressed, but, unfortunately, not all were.

I did note that Mr Goldsmith, in noting that there were only three oral submissions, then also noted that some of those submitters didn’t think that this bill struck the right balance in terms of upholding the rule of law or the kinds of human rights protections that it should, and that those—and I know, because I’ve seen those submissions—breaches were not justified or that they could be addressed in other procedural safeguards, but that wasn’t adopted. He said that some believed it’s the Law Society and the Human Rights Commission we’re talking about. But it’s the independent agencies that we entrust to tell us, as a House of Representatives, when we are breaching some of those processes—in particular, in the case of the Law Society, the people that have the practical application of this work in our justice system and can give us solutions. So it was disappointing to see the departmental report not really address those concerns and sort of brush them off.

Some of the concerns we still hold, and, importantly, to start with, the definition of “national security information” is so broad—and others have made this point—that it actually has the potential to catch a lot that doesn’t need to be caught. So the bill, in our view, falls short of the intention, which is to have a really well-defined standard for what does qualify as national security information that needs to be protected in a process like this.

In terms of the special advocate, there’s still an incredible imbalance there, where even though there’s a requirement that they be present—and I keep reading this again because I find it so bizarre that this breach would be provided for still. The Crown has a general exemption from providing access to national security information to the court or the special advocate, even though that person and the judge involved will have full security clearance if the court decides that’s OK. There’s just absolutely no reason for that to be provided for in this bill, and courts are most likely to rely in a situation like that, in a proceeding like that, on the word of who we call national security experts.

So this is a huge hole. If the national security agency says it doesn’t want to or doesn’t think it should have to provide the information, even to security-cleared counsel, then it just won’t. There’s just no justification for that provision being in a bill like this when all of the other processes have been put in place, including the security clearance.

The cost of the special advocate may be borne by the non-Crown party—with equality of arms being such an essential part of fair and due process, there’s no justification for this being there. We know that the special advocates will likely be QCs, so it’s quite high cost to even have access to a special advocate provided for in this bill.

The Crown must be notified every time the special advocate has a communication with the non-Crown party whom they represent. I quote this from a submitter: there’s a massive technical disadvantage that’s been created, where special advocates have to give the subject matter of their communication and the fact of their communication with their client—or the person they, in an arm’s length way, represent—to the Crown. There’s no real point or national security issue that would justify that.

So there are holes. There’s an attempt—and I hope that in future we come back again to this—but the bill in its current form still allows vast types and information of a certain nature that is not necessarily security-sensitive information to be included in classified, opaque processes. It still allows for no counsel that has the job of representing the accused person to have access to it, and it creates a cost that’s beyond justification on that person. So it is not a fair trial in the sense that we would expect in any other part of our jurisdiction.

The experts on human rights and rule of law agree that there is much work to be done that hasn’t been done in this bill, and even though I think the committee tried its best, it doesn’t meet the standard that we would expect in upholding our human rights - based system and guarding against the kind of slippery slope that we saw with the war on terror, where we gave up on our rights en masse with the hysteria of terrorism. So I don’t commend the bill to the House.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand in support of the second reading of this, the Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill, on behalf of the ACT Party, noting that this bill has come about in response to the royal commission recommendation made back in 2015, where this bill is being made to support our national security interests while at the same time ensuring access to natural justice.

I’d like to begin by thanking the officials and colleagues across the Justice Committee for their work on this bill, especially as it comes back to the House still with, mostly, support across the House.

This bill will create a new stand-alone Act that will implement a policy on how we are to use security information through court proceedings and in decision-making situations. I note at this stage that security information relates to both national security and classified security information.

Finding the balance between protection of security information and a defendant’s right to access information being used against them absolutely needed a solid framework around it. ACT expects that this bill can provide that while still protecting our national security interests.

The effect of this bill means that where security information is devolved in civil proceedings, there will be frameworks around how that is done. This includes being able to use a ministerial certificate option which will guarantee the protection of that information where it is needed. Creating security-approved special advocates trusted to receive security information on behalf of the non-Crown entity has also been established.

It will allow the courts to close hearings and civil proceedings so that information can be securely addressed and will allow security-cleared special advocates access to that information when they represent the non-Crown party. To do this, we do need to replace some of the court proceeding stages within a civil hearing process throughout other pieces of legislation to ensure consistency in how that information is handled, especially in regard to administrative decision-making.

The bill will standardise pre-trial court hearings for disclosure of information in all criminal proceedings where national security information will be used, and it will allow pre-trial hearings that will determine how security information will be protected at trial within those criminal proceedings.

We worked through clause 12, as my colleagues across the House have mentioned, of this bill, with officials. Again, I acknowledge officials’ advice and the work that was done on this. Clause 12 is around the obligation to give the court and a special advocate and special advisers access to security information. There was concern that the Crown could make determinations on whether or not advocates or advisers should be given access to information. The concern being that those affected by court proceedings may still not be allowed access to information for which decisions about them are ultimately made.

Officials advised us that, in their opinion, it was unlikely that the clause could be used, but it was still there, and that meant it could exclude participants from access. Officials gave us an example of where a piece of security information could be irrelevant to the particular case being heard, and therefore there would be no need to share that information with a special advocate, and that this clause would allow a judge to look at that information first and then make the decision as to whether or not the special advocate should have access to it through discovery, based on relevance, of course, to the case.

As a committee, though, we still had concerns around whether this clause created a broader discretionary power that could limit essential information to non-Crown parties, even though it was not the intention of the bill for this to occur. We agreed that the clause should be amended to include a threshold for the use of discretion that could prevent access to security information to either the non-Crown Party or their special advocate or adviser, that the threshold would align with existing powers and limitations that are already in the Evidence Act 2006, and that the Evidence Act has a clause about general exclusion where it says that if a judge feels that the value of the evidence is outweighed by the risk, that the evidence will either unfairly prejudice a proceeding or needlessly prolong it, then they can exclude it, and that in determining this, they must take into account the right of the defendant to offer an effective defence.

There was some clarity needed around clause 29 of the bill as well. The new framework would apply to civil proceedings, including those that already have procedures in place for dealing with security information. This bill here is about dealing with court proceedings and some tribunal hearings where they act just like a court, where there are reviews held to deal with reviewing convictions and sentences and whether they are or should be referred to the appeal court. We determined that the body that hears those cases, the Criminal Cases Review Commission, carry out their business in an investigative manner rather than a judicial one. So we consider then that the Criminal Cases Review Commission process would not constitute a proceeding before a tribunal, as the bill was hoping. We agreed, therefore, to adding an extra paragraph to clause 4 to give a definition of a civil proceeding so that it would exclude an investigation under the Criminal Cases Review Commission Act 2019, unless they applied to the District Court for an order excluding them from the definition of civil proceeding in the bill.

Maintaining civil liberties so that access to information can be achieved for fair hearings while securing national security information is very important and we are in support of a law that extends those civil liberties to all. ACT supports this bill.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): A very short call from me. One point that I would like to make is in response to the idea, from the Green member, that we haven’t struck the right balance here. I come back to the idea that she introduced around the importance of the rule of law when we consider the balancing act that Parliament has to make in these security decisions. I think the starting point for me, and one that I considered with my fellow members of the Justice Committee—who you’ve heard, today, did an excellent job in hearing those submissions and discussing these ideas—was that the first principle of the rule of law is that it is open and accountable, that the Government tells people what the rules are and then they are able to follow them. That wasn’t the case before this legislation was introduced.

The bill provides a framework for dealing with national security information in civil and criminal proceedings, which did not exist before, where Crown disclosure was up to the Crown. It’s important that we put rules around when the Crown must make disclosures, and the balance here is fair. Particularly, the committee honed in on clause 12 to make sure that principles within the Evidence Act in New Zealand might apply in some situations with disclosure to special advocates, whereby evidence that was obtained overseas about something would be introduced in a New Zealand court with the same sort of rigour about evidence gathered here.

I think this bill is a good one—and I thank my Justice Committee colleagues; the chair, Ginny Andersen; and also the Opposition members, particularly the ACT member for her vibrant contributions to these discussions—and I commend it to the House.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): I would like to join in the congratulations of the select committee members of each other. I was not part of the Justice Committee, but I am very happy too to celebrate them working in a responsible, adult, and in the “best interests of New Zealand and New Zealanders” way—particularly the contributions I’ve heard this afternoon from the Labour, National, and ACT parties. I take on board some of the comments that the Green Party’s advocate, Golriz Ghahraman, has made today, but I would say that the world we live in is not a perfect world and not everybody cares about Aotearoa New Zealand or our rights or responsibilities, and that some of the information that our security agencies receive is information that doesn’t necessarily come from our security agencies or from New Zealand. And we need to have a level of, and degree of, trust between ourselves and—I would correct her—our friends with whom we share intelligence-gathering relationships. Those relationships should not be taken lightly, because for a small country like ours with a very tiny population and very little leverage in the world other than goodwill, it is really important that we understand that we benefit hugely by being part of such relationships. Otherwise we would have to try at immense cost and with very limited outcomes to try and replicate that to have anything like the degree of security that we can now.

I’m fortunate to have been in a position over the years in Government of having to deal with a few of the issues raised, and I do know that there will be information behind certain court proceedings that will possibly never come out because it’s just too sensitive. And why is it sensitive? Well, sometimes people’s lives are actually at risk; sometimes methods of people living in countries where they are not free, and I don’t like to criticise the member from the Green Party because I personally like her and she’s a fellow lawyer, but, really, to question freedom in New Zealand—New Zealand is a liberal democracy, and this is not something that we should take lightly. We should be celebrating that, and we should be happy to encourage other liberal democracies to feel like that too. Don’t take it lightly. People die in other countries because they don’t agree with the Government. People lose their lives because of that. We have to value it, and I think it’s precious. Remember too, we are working today in a war memorial. There’s a reason that people like my father went off to war. There’s a reason that they did that, and many of them lost their lives. Why is that? Because they valued freedom. Don’t take it for granted.

And I’m looking at the individual freedoms, and that’s what we’re also talking about here. Yes, the State has a duty to let someone know what it is that they are accused of. Yes, absolutely. This is not a Star Chamber type regime we’re talking about. It is really important people know who’s accusing them and what they’re accused of. But let’s not be naive. We do have a history of people who have meant very ill will to this country. It’s not only the appalling situation we saw of the massacres in Christchurch; it’s not only that one. And that was an appalling situation—the worst of all. But there are other situations—some of which have never been made public. There were some situations that myself and probably also the Minister Andrew Little will be aware of—certain situations where harm has quite definitely been stopped because of the information that never ends up in a court. But the action was stopped, the harm was stopped, people’s lives were saved, and we can’t talk about those instances publicly. But let’s not be naive. The world is not as we want it.

This legislation is good legislation. It is attempting to give some balance to the rights and responsibilities around that information in the court proceedings. But it’s also legislation that, I think, will help to give our friends, when it comes to security, some confidence that they can continue to share with us the information that we should receive. So we commend this bill to the House. The National Party is supporting it.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think this is the first time I have been able to take a call under your particular watch, so again I congratulate Mr Speaker on his promotion.

But the other reason why I bring you into this debate, Mr Speaker, is that today is Thursday, 29 September, and it’s Police Remembrance Day. A number of us in the House are wearing the blue huia pin in reflection of Police Remembrance Day. It’s also the feast day of archangel Michael who’s the patron saint of police. So I acknowledge all the police in New Zealand, Australia, and the Pacific who have been killed in criminal acts while performing their official duties and those members of the police who have passed in the last 12 months.

The reason why I bring you into this debate, Mr Speaker, is because you, yourself, having been a previous police officer—even the member who has just spoken, the Hon Judith Collins, who was a former Minister of Justice and Minister of Police, and myself having worked for a period in the police portfolio—we all probably have very personal accounts of classified information, very sensitive classified information depending on what our classification is. But our understanding of how important this information is needs to be balanced, again, against the fundamental rights for the public in relation to trials. I wasn’t a member of this select committee, but I’ve really enjoyed listening to the debates in the House today. So I want to be able to acknowledge not just the security services but also police who are subject to information of national security.

As the Minister said today, this bill touches on those important constitutional matters, and it’s about balancing that. It’s about balancing the protection of information for our national security, but also providing a fair trial, people’s ability to open justice, the respective roles of the judiciary and the executive, and to protect, again, our national security interests.

I agree with the words of the Minister in his speech on behalf of the Minister of Justice, I agree again with the words that were given by the chair of the Justice Committee, who led the analysis of the bill, and I would like to commend this bill to the House.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a short call on this Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill. I join colleagues around the House in supporting this bill.

I was also not a member of the deliberations of the Justice Committee on this particular bill, but I do sometimes attend the Justice Committee when a permanent member is not available. I know from my experience the careful work that they usually put into their work when I am present, and it also appears from comments in the House that this is what has occurred in this case.

This bill comes against a background of a 2015 report of the Law Commission and also the royal commission of inquiry into the Christchurch terror attacks—so really important pieces of work that form the background of this work. It addresses a tension, which is the importance of an availability of information when you have civil and criminal trials but also the importance of national security information.

The aim of this bill, really, is to produce a clear regime to allow both of these important matters to be considered and to be treated as sensitively and fairly as possible. It does it in a few ways. I agree with the comments that other speakers have made in relation to the Law Commission recommendations. I just want to note a few aspects of it before I conclude.

The bill will address both civil and criminal matters, and they have slightly different ways that both of these are addressed through—civil matters having a ministerial certificate regime and also a standard closed court procedure, and in the criminal matter, pre-trial closed court procedure with special advocates and also pre-trial admissibility hearings. There is also provision within the bill for administrative decisions. So in short, I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I’m delighted to inform the House that this speech, which I don’t even know what I’m going to say, is unclassified. I can also confirm—I can also confirm—that I was on the Justice Committee, but not for much of the time, but I’m happy to put that on public record. But, jokes aside, can I follow up with what Barbara Edmonds was acknowledging, just all those who’ve served in the police, on this Police Remembrance Day—I think it’s wonderful that St Michael the archangel was acknowledged, that is the patron day—so for all those who have served, including my father, but all those who’ve paid the ultimate price in service of this realm.

That actually does fit, somewhat, into this bill around security information proceedings. It’s an attempt by this Parliament—and, I think, a correct attempt—to balance competing rights. One is the transparency and accessibility to justice, but, on the other side, to ensure that the principles of justice are maintained against threat actors, be they State or non-State, across the world.

I think we’ve got the balance right. I want to stress, though, because, actually—and this is, by the way, not a reflection on the Government of the day—I think this is actually a really good bill. I think the select committee and, again, to acknowledge Ginny Andersen, as the chair of that committee, has done an excellent job. But I think this is one that we, as a Parliament, will want to keep an eye on because we are tinkering in two very delicate spaces: access, transparency, and justice; and national security on the other side.

I cannot claim to have sat officially on intelligence committees, but I will happily admit to the House that I’ve spent more time in sensitive compartmented information facilities (SCIFs) than I would care to have thought in this time—and not always in this country. But I have remained loyal to this country, I want to make that really clear, too—I’m just not jumping into SCIFs in, you know, random countries.

But why I say this is, actually, issues of intelligence are exceptionally important. I think, in the context—I know this is a justice bill, but I do see the Hon Andrew Little here, who looks after our intelligence committees—our intelligence officers, both domestic and international, do an exceptionally incredible job. Why I think that, and why I support this bill, is that information, in itself, needs to be protected or treated carefully. Really importantly, the people who collect it, who analyse it, need to be protected.

I apologise if it’s already been raised in the House today, but sometimes the information that is to be shared is not secret simply because of the nature of it, it’s how we got it, how we obtained it, that is so vitally important. I would encourage my Green Party colleagues to understand that—I think, thoughtful contributions, I don’t want to take away from that, but it’s really important, at times, that intelligence is not just simply the writing on the paper, the piece of knowledge; it’s how was this obtained. Good New Zealanders and good people around the globe, often in very difficult circumstances, put their lives on the line. Again, just to acknowledge the work that our New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, Government Security Communications Bureau, and signals intelligence and others undertake.

The other is, obviously, how we treat this information carefully, particularly with the respect of our allies—I know others have spoken about it. I think, again, the bill has this balanced correctly. I’m pleased to see there’s a provision to still allow some information not to be shared. It probably won’t surprise the House or those listening at home that New Zealand doesn’t gather all its own intelligence—we share intelligence, we talk to our friends and allies. We have to take a little bit of responsibility for how we use that information. Put really simply or crudely, if we just start—even in this new court process—sharing information that our allies would prefer we did not, that’s going to have consequences for us, and not just in the judicial process but for our national security. But I do actually have confidence—even on this side of the House—that those Government Ministers responsible in this space understand that and will have engaged deeply and rightly with our colleagues overseas so that they understand—they understand—what we are doing.

The bill, as it proceeds, particularly around the appointment of special advocates—again, it’s emphasising lawyers being the key role; they’ve already got to get their security clearances. I’ll be interested to see how this manifests practically. Again, this is not a challenge to the law. Obviously, we will need to have some lawyers. I think someone erroneously mentioned QCs—they’re now KCs; outrageous—are likely to be the ones called. But, long and short, what is going to be the designated agency, how will these people be identified and—I would suggest—be security cleared in advance? Again, I possibly have missed the section—I know this is third reading—but to make sure that those advocates, I would think, keep their identity and roles secret too.

So I’m just going to leave it there. I think that will indulge the House as a gift to finish up, if the Speaker gives me a nod, otherwise I’ll keep going. Excellent. We’d love to commend this bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 104

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 29; ACT New Zealand 10; Sharma.

Noes 12

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 18 October 2022. Thank you, all staff and members, for your efforts this sitting block.

The House adjourned at 4.57 p.m.