Wednesday, 19 October 2022

WEDNESDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2022

WEDNESDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2022

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

SPEAKER: Members, in celebration of the Niue Language Week, I’ve asked Dr Anae Neru Leavasa to say the prayer in Niuean.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Ko e Atua mua ue atu, fakaaue atu ke he tau fakamonuinaaga kia mautolu. Kia tuku kehe e tau fekovikoviaki, ka e o mai ke fakamanatu e patuiki mo e liogi ke he Atua ke lagomatai mai ha tautolu a tau fakatutalaaga, ke moua e tau lotomatala, tau tonu, tau loto holoilalo, ke leveki atu mo e moua e mafola ma ha Niu Silani. Amene.

Resignations

Dr Gaurav Sharma, Hamilton West

Dr Gaurav Sharma

SPEAKER: Members, I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from resigning his seat in the House with effect from midnight Tuesday, 18 October 2022.

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

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

SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK: The petition of Aida Tavassoli requesting that the House condemn the treatment of the young Iranian Kurdish woman Mahsa Amini, who died recently while in morality police custody; and condemn oppressive and discriminatory treatment of women in Iran.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

Reports in relation to selected non-departmental appropriations for the year ended 30 June 2022:

Vote Environment (Environment)

Vote Environment (Climate Change)

Vote Education

the Treasury annual report 2021-22, with the Minister of Finance’s report on non-departmental appropriations 2021-22

Government Superannuation Fund Authority, Statement of Performance Expectations 2022 and reports and financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2022

2022 annual reports for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Transport, and Oranga Tamariki.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been presented. No bills have been introduced.

Motions

APRA Silver Scroll Awards 2022—Congratulations

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate that this House congratulate all the nominees and recipients of the awards at the APRA Silver Scroll Awards 2022 last night in Tāmaki-makau-rau.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

RAWIRI WAITITI: I move, That this House congratulate all nominees and recipients of awards at the APRA Silver Scroll Awards 2022, acknowledge them for their extraordinary contribution to the culture and creative fabric of Aotearoa, celebrate their unique ability to reach and uplift communities right around Aotearoa and the world, acknowledge the significant contribution of Tuini Moetū Haangū Ngāwai and Te Kumeroa Ngoingoi Pēwhairangi, who were inducted into the New Zealand Music Hall of Fame, and congratulate Rob Ruha, Kaea Hills, Te Amorutu Broughton, Ainsley Tai, Dan Martin, Whenua Patuwai, and Ka Hao, who won the 2022 APRA Silver Scroll Award for their waiata “State Highway 35”.

Motion agreed to.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Finance: Fakaalofa lahi atu, Mr Speaker. What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Statistics New Zealand has recently reported that the number of filled jobs rose by 10,312 or 0.4 percent compared with the previous months to a record high of 2.32 million New Zealanders being in work. This sits alongside near-record low unemployment. The gains have been broad-based across our economy on an annual basis. The biggest increases have been in professional services, construction, manufacturing, retail, and public administration and safety. And by age group, 15- to 19-year-olds made the largest contribution to the increase in filled jobs, making up 17.2 percent of the increase.

Glen Bennett: What other reports has he seen on job growth in the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Earlier this month, the SEEK NZ Employment Report reported that job ads are up 22.4 percent on the same month a year ago, while the trend measure remains near record highs and is around 50 percent above the pre-COVID benchmark of December 2019.

Glen Bennett: How does New Zealand’s employment rate compare with the rest of the world?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealand’s employment rate is among the highest in the OECD at 79.2 percent—the fourth highest among the 38 nations. This compares with Australia in seventh, the UK in 12th, Canada in 13th, and the US in 22nd place. In terms of unemployment, New Zealand ranks sixth equal out of the 38 nations in the OECD.

Glen Bennett: How do the employment reports impact on households facing higher inflation in the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We know that New Zealanders are doing it tough when it comes to dealing with cost of living pressures but, critically, they do this while they are in work. With a record number of New Zealanders in paid work, this helps take pressure off their day-to-day living costs in what is a challenging environment. The Government is of course also doing its bit by supporting New Zealanders with cost of living pressures, such as through the fuel tax cuts and the half-price public transport fares as well as the increases that we’ve seen for seniors, those getting Working for Families, and those on benefits. Having New Zealanders in work in this time of an inflation crisis is critically important to their wellbeing.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Fakaalofa lahi atu, and a warm and happy Niuean Language Week to the House. Yes, particularly this Government’s decision early on in the COVID-19 pandemic to invest in skills, in training, and deliver pipeline infrastructure work. On Monday, the Minister for the Environment announced three more projects that have been referred for fast-track consent. All three were housing projects and, if consented, will provide almost 900 homes in Queenstown and Auckland—areas experiencing high housing demand. This builds on last week’s investment in transport and water infrastructure to kick-start new housing developments in Lower Hutt, Nelson, Rangiora, Ngāruawāhia, Hastings, Motueka, Whanganui, and Lake Hāwea, estimated to enable across the board nearly 11,000 homes. Between 2008 and 2011, residential construction activity halved and only returned to 2004 levels in 2018. In contrast, our strong economic management and fiscal positions means we are well placed to invest in critical new infrastructure.

Christopher Luxon: Does she regret increasing Government spending by a billion dollars a week more, given one result is Kiwi homeowners having to pay hundreds of dollars a week more in mortgage payments?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would note the member’s spending plan would include $3 billion of unfunded tax cuts, which would create an increase in debt, probably drive up unemployment, and would also likely definitely have an impact on first-home buyers, given one of the areas he wants to impact are those where investors are incentivised to buy up houses. On the question of Government spending, do I stand by extra investment in Pharmac? I do. Do I stand by 4,000 more nurses? I do. Do I stand by half a million free mental health services treatment for those suffering mental health issues? I do. What the member needs to be honest about is what he will cut.

Christopher Luxon: So much! When will she admit that that spend—[Interruption]. When you spend a billion dollars a week more there’s a lot to cut, a lot of waste. When will she admit that spending an extra $38 billion at the last Budget was a mistake, given sky-high inflation and interest rates that are heading well over 6 percent by Christmas?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: And here I come back to the facts. As COVID-19 - related expenditure winds down, Government spending as a share of GDP will fall from 35 percent to below 30 percent of GDP, which is within the historic averages that we have experienced in New Zealand. So again, I ask the member the question: what is it he will cut? Will it be the 10,000 more public houses? Will it be the 2,900 more teachers? Will it be the 26 weeks of paid parental leave? Will it be the 61 percent increase in apprentices? What will it be?

Christopher Luxon: What does she say to the family of four I met recently at a budgeting service who had to refinance their mortgage and, because of her Government’s economic mismanagement, their interest payments are now so high they’re struggling to avoid a mortgagee sale?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would say to them that they can be assured that under this Government we will not, for instance, spend $3 billion on tax cuts that will give someone on $300,000, $150 a week and someone on $42,000, $2 a week. Instead, you will get in this Government responsible fiscal management that keeps unemployment down, debt low, and growth higher than many of other countries that we would compare to, and the ability to invest in the services that they need and expect.

Christopher Luxon: You’re not doing it. You’re just not doing it. Does she really believe—

SPEAKER: Order! Yeah, no more of that, please. Ask a question. Don’t give a narrative for anything else.

Christopher Luxon: Does she really believe the economy is doing as—

Matt Doocey: Well, she’s giving a general debate, so it goes both ways.

SPEAKER: Order! Matt Doocey will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Matt Doocey: I withdraw and apologise.

Christopher Luxon: Does she really believe the economy is doing as great as she keeps saying when, just this weekend, there was a break-in at a food bank in South Auckland and, instead of stealing laptops or cash, they stole mince and butter, because her Government has allowed the cost of living crisis to spiral so far out of control?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: You will never hear me deny that there are families in this country that are doing it tough, which is why we have put tens of millions of dollars to support those very services that that member is now criticising the spending that we have put into it. I stand by the fact, as well, that we have increased benefits and finally restored the cuts that a National Government brought in the 1990s. I stand by the increases in the family tax credit, the increases in the minimum wage, the things that will try and reduce down the need on things like food banks, and healthy and free lunches in schools. Meanwhile, that member can’t have it both ways. He stands in this House, criticises that very investment for those families, and then promotes tax cuts for the wealthy.

Christopher Luxon: What about her response to the young couple I met, a teacher and a nurse with good jobs and decent incomes, who are saving for their first home but their weekly rent is up $50, their grocery shop is up $100, and they’re spending $50 a week more on petrol, so instead of looking for a first home in New Zealand, now they’re looking for one in Queensland?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: And that member would want to come in and incentivise investors to come back into the market and squeeze them out. This is what I say to them: there is more to do, but we have increased wages for teachers and nurses. We have stood up and said that we will not stand by while we continue to see supermarkets take more profit out of Kiwis’ pockets than they should. Equally, we have grown the number of teachers and nurses in New Zealand. That member calls them bureaucrats and says he wants to cut them. I say to those families that we know it’s tough but you can be guaranteed that a Labour Government will keep investing in them as public servants in this country. You cannot say the same for National.

Christopher Luxon: Does she have anything to say to the migrant family I recently met who have saved for years to buy a small section to build a three-bedroom home, but now their rent is up, the mortgage cost is going up, and with construction costs going through the roof, they’ve had to abandon that dream, sell up, and keep renting?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I would say is that you can see that every effort we have put in—be it on the Resource Management Act, be it on investing and infrastructure so that we can build houses, be it on public housing, closing off the tax loopholes for investors, evening out the playing field for first-time buyers, and first-home grants—that member has opposed. In fact, the very economic plan that he stands up with would make their situation markedly worse. It is the Bermuda Triangle of an economic plan, and that would surely see more people leaving these shores. And I can tell you, we can see the way that plan worked in the UK.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister act to address the estimated $1 trillion in wealth transfer to the wealthiest New Zealanders in the past two years, driving the very inequality being complained about today?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In all of our efforts, you can see the work we have done to try and lift the incomes of those low and middle income earners in New Zealand, and, in fact, rather than just pointing to the initiatives, we can point to the outcomes. We have turned around the direction of all nine child poverty indicators in this country. Self-reported hardship has decreased. The number of people in hardship—

Hon Louise Upston: That’s not accurate.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I see now the National Party questions Stats New Zealand, but when it’s negative, they support those numbers. I’m actually pleased to see that New Zealanders are seeing an improvement in child poverty; it’s sad that the National Party aren’t.

Christopher Luxon: Has she made the effort to go out and actually listen to a family who’ve seen their mortgage payments increase by hundreds of dollars a week while they struggle to afford basics, like food and petrol, and if so, how can she continue to stand here each and every week and claim that everything is fine and her Government has nothing to apologise or be accountable for?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I am more than willing to stand up and be accountable on every policy we’ve introduced to support those families: the cost of living payment, the investment to make sure that fuel comes down at the pump, half-price public transport, the family tax credit, the winter energy payment. It is not the answer for everything that every family is experiencing, absolutely not. But I am interested to know if that member’s willing to stand on his record, which is tax cuts for the wealthiest. Has that member stood in front of those families, looked them in the eye, and told them that they are worth $2—because that is his policy.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Point of order. It’s quite hard to hear all of the Prime Minister’s answers because of the noise in the Chamber.

SPEAKER: Yeah. I’ve tended to let things run, and I also know what the previous Speaker was talking about when he was talking about getting complaints from the public. Since taking over as Speaker of this House, I’ve taken on board the commentary from most of the parties in the House that they want a more robust question time. Robust doesn’t always mean it’s the loudest, but it tends to be the narrative that is common during question time. I thank the member for making the point of order, because she is actually correct. It is at the point where members cannot hear the answer. My general ruling about that is that the House doesn’t want to hear the answer, and that the Minister answering can pretty much say whatever they like in response to whatever the question is. The Minister could also just sit down, and I will rule, based on the fact that the House doesn’t want to hear the answer, that it’s been addressed. It’s really up to this House to decide what it wants. So if the House wants me to intervene every five minutes and blow the whistle, I can do that. It won’t be a very robust kind of question time, but it will address that issue. I say to the folks at home listening to question time: direct your emails to the people you think might be causing your distress. But I will say to the House: it’s really up to the House to decide how you want to move forward. I’m going to leave it there.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Thank you for your very reasonable response, which would be perfectly acceptable if it were not for the fact that, repeatedly today, in answering questions the Prime Minister has raised questions. And when those questions get raised in general to the House—and not specifically, because the Government cannot ask questions during question time unless it is by way of one of their allocated questions—then, of course, there’s going to be a response from this side of the House.

Hon Grant Robertson: If we were to take Mr Brownlee’s view on board about the strict adherence to the Standing Orders in both answers and questions, virtually every question the Leader of the Opposition gave today would have been ruled out for its inclusion of epithets and assertions and assumptions, and so I think—

Chris Bishop: Oh, rubbish.

Hon Grant Robertson: I think that in a point of order we still have silence, Mr Bishop, I don’t think that’s changed. I think, Mr Speaker, what you have outlined to the House is an approach that you want to take that gives a robust exchange. You’ve put it into the hands of members as to how far that goes. That’s a reasonable position. We’ll see how the public react to that.

SPEAKER: I will respond to the Hon Gerry Brownlee. He does raise a point, but I go back to my ruling on the matter: it’s really up to the House to decide. If we get to a point where parties or members are telling me to intervene, then I’m quite happy to do that. But as the Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out, a great many supplementary questions that I’ve heard since taking over probably would have been ruled out of order by previous Speakers of this House.

Question No. 3—Housing

3. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister of Housing: Fakaalofa lahi atu, Mr Speaker. What actions has the Government taken to address the shortage of housing in Hastings?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): In December 2019, the Government entered into a bespoke place-based partnership with the Hastings District Council, Ngāti Kahungunu, and other local partners. As of August 2022, it has delivered, compared to October 2017, a net increase of 166 public houses and around 70 renewals; 160 additional transitional housing places, with another 253 in the current pipeline; 44 affordable rental papa kāinga, plus infrastructure for a further 14 homes; repairs to 40 homes on whenua Māori; a homelessness hub; and infrastructure to enable 150 affordable homes.

Anna Lorck: What investment has the Government made in housing infrastructure in Hastings?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Last week, we announced $18.5 million worth of investment throughout the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund (IAF) to improve road access and resolve capacity constraints in the district’s waste-water network. This was a joint application between the Hastings District Council and the Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust. The council believes that IAF funding will enable around 4,000 new homes across multiple developments, including 380 on several papa kāinga developments, 670 affordable homes, approximately 1,300 public homes, and 1,650 market homes. Physical works are expected to commence next year.

Anna Lorck: Why did the Government identify Hastings as a place to focus efforts?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Under the previous National Government, Hastings had a net loss—

SPEAKER: Order! Yeah, that’s not a great way to start off an answer. You should just address the question.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Hastings was chosen because between 2008 and 2017, it had a net loss of 192 public houses. Hastings was experiencing rapid population growth which outstripped consents, little new affordable or public housing supply, and there was limited council engagement in housing and infrastructure investment. Motel use for homelessness was high, and iwi had high levels of housing need but also high levels of housing aspiration. Hastings was chosen to trial the place-based partnership approach because of the high level of need and the willingness of the council and iwi to explore a different way of working.

Anna Lorck: What change has there been in the number of households in emergency housing in Hastings as a result of this Government’s actions?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The successes of this pilot has meant withdrawing from the use of motels for emergency housing. On 13 May 2022, 133 households were in emergency housing in Hastings. This is down to 65 households as of 7 October, allowing the Ministry of Social Development to withdraw entirely from the use of four motels. The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development is also withdrawing from motels as transitional housing, having exited 26 rooms at one location. This work is not complete, but we are showing how it can succeed.

Anna Lorck: What impact has the housing repair programme had in Hastings?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Funded in 2019 as part of the place-based approach, the housing repair programme has focused on critical repairs on homes on whenua Māori where poor housing quality was repeatedly putting children in hospital. Across the two-year repair programme targeting 40 homes, 314 whānau members have identified and benefited from significant health improvements, including 119 tamariki aged under 10 years.

Anna Lorck: What has made the Hastings place-based partnership so successful?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: A key factor has been strong leadership from the Hastings District Council and Ngāti Kahungunu and the willingness to think outside the box and beyond their traditional roles. There is a strong emphasis on jobs and skills development for locals. Ngāti Kahungunu is very active in partnering with Kāinga Ora through its construction company, K3. K3 provides pastoral support to construction sector apprentices and it supports opportunities for Māori businesses to grow and it will deliver 130 affordable rental properties through our Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga partnership.

Chris Bishop: How many children are living in cars, tents, and motel rooms in Hastings?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: If the member had listened to answers to previous questions, the answer is far fewer, because we are starting to repair the damage of the net loss of 192 public houses under the previous National Government. If there are children in motel rooms in Hastings at the moment, it is because of the actions of the previous National Government.

Anna Lorck: What is the housing pipeline in Hastings beyond the homes enabled by the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There are a further 500 homes in the Hastings partnership pipeline, and these include 130 affordable rentals to be delivered by iwi through Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga; 150 affordable homes to be delivered by the Hastings District Council; and 250 public and transitional housing places.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: When was inflation last in the Reserve Bank’s 1-3 percent target range, and when does he expect inflation to return to below 3 percent?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): As has been the case since 1989, it is the Reserve Bank’s independent responsibility to manage price stability. The monetary policy remit sets out that the Reserve Bank’s monetary policy price stability objective is to keep future annual inflation between 1 and 3 percent over the medium term, with a focus on keeping future inflation near the 2 percent mid-point. The last time an annual headline Consumers Price Index (CPI) reading was between 1 and 3 percent was in the March 2021 quarter. In response to the second part of the member’s question, making such predictions is extremely difficult in the face of continuing global uncertainty. Bearing this out, there was a range of predictions when annual headline CPI inflation returned below 3 percent. For example, both the ANZ and BNZ’s latest published forecasts are for annual CPI inflation to be below 3 percent from the December 2023 quarter. The Reserve Bank, in its latest forecast, have CPI returning below 3 percent in the June 2024 quarter; Westpac from September 2024; and ASB during the fiscal year beginning July 2024. For comparison, the IMF is forecasting inflation to remain above 3 percent in Australia, Canada, the United States, and the UK during the 2024 calendar year; and in the euro area, during the 2025 calendar year.

Nicola Willis: Does he agree with ANZ that the domestic inflation surge is looking worse by the day, and what domestic factors does he consider are driving inflation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the second part of the question, there are a range of factors that are driving inflation. These include the ability to access goods at a price—including from overseas due to supply chain constraints—labour supply issues, which are indeed challenging for many firms around the country. Many of the issues that the member describes as “domestic” remain heavily influenced by what is a global problem.

Nicola Willis: Does the Minister accept that the Government’s immigration settings have contributed to severe worker shortages that are now driving up inflation and Kiwis’ household costs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I accept is that the Government’s Immigration Reset has now seen around 66,000 job checks undertaken so that those positions have been approved to be recruited. We have more than 30,000 working holiday visas that have been approved. If the member is now wanting to rewrite history about the way in which New Zealand got through COVID and made sure that we actually kept New Zealanders healthy, that’s up to her. We don’t govern in hindsight; we govern in the present and our immigration policies are contributing as we move forward to New Zealanders having the labour force they need. I absolutely acknowledge—as I just did in the last supplementary answer—that labour supply is an issue in the New Zealand economy, and we are resolving it.

Nicola Willis: Why, when labour supply is such an issue in the New Zealand economy, is his Government continuing to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to create Jobs for Nature, and is it sensible to be wasting taxpayers’ dollars on creating jobs when New Zealand farmers and businesses are crying out for those workers?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, this is an interesting development: members opposite touring around the country supporting the conservation initiatives, supporting the initiatives of primary industries to support the ability to not only help people get jobs but also protect our environment. Suddenly the National Party turns, but we’re seeing the real National Party now, aren’t we? They want more people out of work. That’s what the National Party want: more people out of work.

Nicola Willis: Isn’t it the case that the Government’s inflationary programme of reckless spending, in which every dollar spent can be defended in the Minister of Finance’s world, and broken immigration settings are directly driving up mortgage rates for Kiwis?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. What is reckless is a party that would promise tax cuts for the wealthiest New Zealanders. Liz Truss has worked it out. They’ve dropped it, but not the National Party: they want a tax cut programme that would give rich New Zealanders thousands of dollars a year and those on the minimum wage $2 a week. Trickle-down economics, more people unemployed: that’s the National Party’s recipe.

Nicola Willis: What does he say to the recent homebuyers who had to borrow massively to buy a house in the market his Government allowed to spin out of control, and who are now kept up at night in terror, worrying about looming mortgage refixing?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I would say to all New Zealanders is that we recognise that this is a tough time for many Kiwi households and businesses. That’s why we’ve stood alongside them through COVID, that’s why we continue to support low and middle income New Zealanders with policies to lift their incomes, which the National Party have opposed. I also say to those people: do they want a tax cut policy that would return a billion dollars to speculators and investors and take away that opportunity from first-home buyers?

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

5. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Prime Minister: Fakaalofa lahi atu. Kia ora tātou. Does she have confidence in all her Ministers?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Fakaalofa lahi atu. Yes.

Rawiri Waititi: How can she have confidence in her Minister for Children when 5-year-old Malachi Subecz died in Oranga Tamariki (OT) care after suffering months of abuse at the hands of his carer under Oranga Tamariki, despite multiple warnings from family members as to the safety of the child?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have confidence in the Minister for Children because his entire focus is about preventing the kind of tragic and horrific circumstances that we’ve seen reported around the death of Malachi. There is additional work that’s being done alongside the report that’s already been released; we need to learn from all of them. But in the meantime, you can see the work and some of the outcome from the investments that have been made. They’re about prevention—stopping the uplift of children. Because we’re working much earlier with whānau, we’ve seen uplifts come down, we’ve seen greater investment in preventative care, we’ve seen greater partnerships with iwi organisations who know whānau and can work with them directly. But we have to try and do everything we can to prevent another circumstance like Malachi.

Rawiri Waititi: Does she accept the findings of the Ombudsman that there were “a litany of failures” from OT leading up to Malachi’s death, including the failure to investigate multiple reports of concern and not considering the obligation under the Child Protection Protocol at any point?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m advised that Oranga Tamariki has accepted the findings of the Ombudsman. Important to remember that, of course, there is also the Oranga Tamariki practice review and the Government-wide system review as well. We need to understand every different contributing factor to the circumstances that led to Malachi’s death. I personally believe that we need to make sure that we have all such reports so that we can make sure we leave no stone unturned.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was clear. It was: does she accept the findings—not whether Oranga Tamariki accepts the findings.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.

Rawiri Waititi: Is she concerned that accountability for Oranga Tamariki in these situations will be even more difficult under her Government’s new oversight regime, which weakens oversight to the point where the only watchdog will sit within the Education Review Office, of all places?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, I think here the member is leaning very hard on the findings of the Ombudsman. In fact, the changes that have been put through this House reinforce the role of the Ombudsman and demonstrates that, actually, the Ombudsman has long held a role in investigating circumstances such as this. But I think everyone in this House wants to be in the position where we’re not at a point where it’s about receiving complaints about the experience in care, but we prevent children from entering care in the first place because we work with whānau to prevent these circumstances. No one wants to be in the situation we have—the Ombudsman monitoring these circumstances—because it led to tragedy in this case.

Rawiri Waititi: Will she ask for the Minister’s resignation, given that no officials have been stood down, let alone fired, following this tragedy?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, I will not. Also, I would add that we are still awaiting the Oranga Tamariki practice review which is equally important for us to get a full understanding of what’s happened here, as well. I would also just acknowledge, when I was Opposition spokesperson on children, yes, we must all keep calling for the change that’s required to protect our tamariki. But I will also always draw a distinction over what it was the Minister held personal responsibility for.

Question No. 6—Conservation

6. RACHEL BROOKING (Labour) to the Minister of Conservation: How has Jobs for Nature supported employment opportunities and conservation efforts across the country?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Conservation): Fakaalofa lahi atu, Mr Speaker. Jobs for Nature continues to provide positive outcomes for our natural environment by employing New Zealanders, up and down the country, to plant trees, build fences, and restore habitats. Across all Jobs for Nature projects combined, funding has been provided to support over 2.5 million hours of work to provide a positive and lasting impact on the social, economic, and environmental values of this unique region, as well as create an enduring conservation legacy.

Rachel Brooking: What milestones have been met by Jobs for Nature since it began?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Since the programme began in 2020, more than 2,000 kilometres of tracks have been maintained. That’s more than the length of the State Highway 1; 7,000 hectares of riparian planting, protecting New Zealand’s waterways, have been completed, which is the equivalent to 7,000 rugby fields; and 56,000 hectares of weeding has taken place, an area larger than the size of Wellington.

Rachel Brooking: How has Jobs for Nature supported employment opportunities and conservation efforts in Southland?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The Jobs for Nature project Te Tapu o Tāne is supporting the Southland economy by setting up three native plant nursery businesses, providing an ongoing environmental resource for the region through enhanced native tree supply, greater skilled labour, and wider knowledge of restoration practices.

Rachel Brooking: What other Jobs for Nature projects have supported employment opportunities and conservation efforts in the regions?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Jobs for Nature has been instrumental in retaining talent in our regions. On the West Coast, Jobs for Nature has leveraged off the existing restoration work at Bullock Creek by expanding the work further, with a focus on wetland restoration. The project will create up to 40 employment opportunities, and planting an estimated 478,000 native trees over 153 hectares of land.

Hon Eugenie Sage: What benefits, if any, does she see in extending Jobs for Nature beyond its June 2024 end date, and what advice has she sought from the Department of Conservation on extending it?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Sustaining the benefits and outcomes created by these projects is now a key focus area of the department. Prior to being allocated funding, projects are assessed against an investment framework, which included sustainability of outcomes. Many project partners have built this into project planning already, with iwi, council, community, or other groups committing to undertake maintenance work in future years or active plans in place to secure future funding.

Question No. 7—Justice

7. NICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Minister of Justice: How much in financial reparations is currently outstanding to victims of crime, and what is the lowest amount being paid by instalment to a victim?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I’ve been advised that around $112 million in reparation payments are owing as of June this year, across multiple years’ worth of overdue reparations. Some offenders, though, are unable to pay or do not have a source of income—for example, if they are in prison—meaning that the lowest amount being paid would be zero. There has been a 10 percent decrease in reparations outstanding over the past three years. However, I have asked my officials to provide advice on making collection of reparation debts a higher priority, and I expect further improvements in this area.

Nicole McKee: What does she say to Jeremy, who is still being drip-fed a court-ordered reparation of $600, 10 years after the initial order?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I’d say to that gentleman that the reparation system, in my view and in the view of Government, is not working as effectively and efficiently as it should—10 years is far too long. Across all of Government, there is a work plan in place that looks at debt to Government. It is multi-agency and it looks at the prioritisation of what is extracted and at which point, and the priority that is given to each of those payments that are taken out. That’s a substantive piece of work and is one in which I expect we will see reprioritisation of reparation payments.

Nicole McKee: Is the Minister aware that one victim is receiving reparation at the small amount of just 65c a week, and, if so, what initiatives does she have to ensure that this victim benefits from a victim-centric approach?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Yeah, I am aware. I’m aware that some individual victims are paid 60c. As I said, some individuals are paid none due to whether or not an offender has any income at all. There is, as I said, a piece of work that’s happening across Government to look at the way in which the prioritisation of debt is paid, including reparations, and I think that we should see and will see improvements in this area.

Nicole McKee: So what further considerations, if any, has the Minister made towards victim reparation delays using that victim-centric approach lens?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The victim-centric approach lens is the one that I guess we have advocated for in the design of the programme that’s looking at all of Government—what is taken out of an individual’s weekly payments. You’ll be aware that there’s a multiple take that is taken out of an individual’s pay for childcare, other debts, and victim reparations. There is a piece of work that looks at whether or not the prioritisations of those reparations is fit for purpose. My view is it’s currently not, but we’re working on a piece of work to look at whether or not there need to be changes to those prioritisations.

Nicole McKee: Does the Minister endorse ACT’s policy of reforming the reparations system so that the Crown faces the burden of risk of slow reparation payments or non-payments, rather than the victims of crime, and, if not, why not?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: New Zealanders, I think, rightly might have some concerns if it was the case that the Government was to bear the burden of debt for not just the victims but the vast range of areas where Government is aware individuals are seeking payments, whether those are things like child support payments, whether those are things like victim reparations, whether they are—there’s a broad range of areas. Currently, as I said in my primary answer, there’s over $100 million worth of debt that’s currently outstanding and owed. It would be a substantive policy decision for any Government of any ilk to take on that amount of debt, and it’s not one that I’m actively considering at the moment.

Question No. 8—Health

8. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: What concerns does he have in Middlemore Hospital’s ability to provide health care, following the recent independent report which found the hospital’s emergency department was “unsafe, dysfunctional and overcrowded”, and reports that senior doctors have requested that the Royal Australasian College of Physicians consider revoking Middlemore Hospital’s General Medicine training accreditation?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Firstly, once again I acknowledge the family who is at the centre of this matter and, indeed, the member’s questions. I do have confidence in Middlemore Hospital to continue to provide care to the roughly 700 in-patients who are there right now and the expected 300 to 350 people who will turn up to their emergency department (ED) today. To the second part of the member’s question, I disagree that the solution to a doctors shortage is to train fewer doctors. There are approximately 500 doctors currently working at Middlemore Hospital who are in some form of formal training. That’s about 200 house officers in their postgraduate year 1 and postgraduate year 2, and 300 registrars. They are doing vital work, and I thank them for it. I am advised that the letter the member refers to was one sent to the Royal Australasian College of Physicians. The letter was not sent to me or to Health New Zealand. The college is independent, and I do not know if it has responded to the correspondence.

Dr Shane Reti: Are the 60 doctors who signed a letter to the Royal Australasian College of Physicians correct when they wrote that there is a crisis at Middlemore Hospital, or are all 60 doctors wrong?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have not seen the letter that the member refers to; it was not sent to me.

Dr Shane Reti: Which other hospitals, if any, are also currently at risk of removal of training accreditation?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not aware of any New Zealand hospital that is at risk of losing their training accreditation, and I am confident that our public hospital system—that, today, is looking after, roughly, 7,500 people who need their care and are being well looked after.

Dr Shane Reti: What does he say to doctors at Middlemore Hospital who have stated, “We have given everything we have to provide care to our patients despite unprecedented staff shortages and the inevitable consequences of burnout, illness, and moral injury.”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I will say again what I have said repeatedly, and that is that I think we have an outstanding health workforce, who have worked under incredible pressures this winter, and in the last two years, and I’m aware also of the vacancies that continue in our public health system. I am confident that Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health and the Nursing Council, and others who are involved in making sure that we have the health workforce that we need to fill those vacancies, are doing everything they can to expedite the arrival of people and the recruitment of people to fill those roles.

Dr Shane Reti: Why should the sector have any confidence in a Minister who, in the same week, has a damning independent inquiry into a tragic ED death and then has 60 doctors at the very same hospital request that training privileges be revoked?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think that the health workforce can have confidence in a Government that has increased its funding of the health system by nearly 45 percent in the last five years and has invested nearly $7 billion in a rebuild programme for our facilities that were left to disastrously run down between 2008 and 2017.

Question No. 9—Māori Development

9. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister for Māori Development: Fakaalofa lahi atu. How has the Government supported Māori into employment and training?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Through TPK—Te Puni Kōkiri—this Government has invested funding into employment and training programmes that are providing a by Māori, for Māori approach grounded in values of rangatiratanga and kotahitanga. These investments include the cadetships Pae Aronui, Taiohi Ararau—programmes which support Māori from all walks of life to lift their qualifications and gain employment.

Arena Williams: How is the cadetship programme making a difference for Māori in employment and training?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Our cadetship programme has been operating for just over 10 years, and in that time it has supported thousands of Māori kaimahi to improve their skills, wellbeing, employability, and earnings. We know from monitoring and evaluation just how successful the cadets programme is. It benefits businesses, employees, and communities. Our 2021 survey of employers showed that 90 percent of cadets were employed at the same organisation; 88 percent received a pay rise; 58 percent received a promotion within their organisation; and 94 percent believed the programme had prepared them for their long-term careers. In 2021, we supported over 1,300 cadets—and more than 100 employers—to gain work experience and improve formal and informal skills and increase their employability.

Arena Williams: How is Pae Aronui making a difference for rangatahi Māori and employment and training?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Pae Aronui is a programme to test innovative approaches to support rangatahi needs to achieve employment, education, and training outcomes in line with our aspirations. Over the past three years, Pae Aronui has been running a total of 749 places which were funded for rangatahi; 706, or 94 percent completed their one-year programmes; and 637, or 85 percent of participants, achieved employment and/or educated-related programmes.

Arena Williams: How is Taiohi Ararau making a difference for Māori in employment and training?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you for that question. Taiohi Ararau is a programme supporting Taiohi needs to obtain their essential documents. This is really important—for example, their birth certificate, driver’s licence, IRD number, and bank account. This is a key step on their pathway towards education, employment, and training.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: This is boring.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: From the ongoing—I know this is boring for the Opposition—sad. But from the ongoing programmes in the North, which began in 2022, reporting shows that out of 168 participants so far, 49 have achieved employment outcomes, five have moved into training, nine have moved into education, 78 have achieved the birth certificate. Some wonderful results.

Arena Williams: How is the Government committed to the ongoing success of these programmes?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you for the question. In Budget 2022, this Government has committed to the ongoing success of these programmes. Cadetship funding was baseline from $4.5 million to over $11.5 million in future years, which shows our continuing support for Māori into sustainable employment and training. An additional $7 million per annum was provided to extend the Pae Aronui programme for an additional two years and to expand into further regions to continue to test different innovative approaches. And an additional $1 million per annum was provided for two years to expand the Taiohi Ararau programme to test approaches for Taiohi need in additional regions and high-needs areas. This Government is doing so well with Māori at the moment.

Question No. 10—Justice

10. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Justice: Does she have confidence in the Government’s approach to regulating the use and supply of all drugs, including alcohol?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I have absolute trust and confidence in the extensive work our Government has done in drug law reform, particularly with respect to regulation. I want to acknowledge the former Minister of Justice, Minister Andrew Little, for his work there. Though there is always further work to do—and one area I think our Government does agree that there is further room for work is in the area of alcohol policy.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is she aware that in 2020, over 4,000 people appeared in court for cannabis offences, and, if so, does she endorse continued criminalisation of cannabis use and supply?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I note that the Misuse of Drugs Act is not within my delegation; it’s within the delegation of the health Minister.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d make the point that the Minister of Justice is responsible for the facilitation of the criminal justice system, including our courts.

SPEAKER: Sorry, what was your question again?

Chlöe Swarbrick: My question pertained to whether she is aware that in 2020, over 4,000 people appeared in court for cannabis offences, and, if so, whether she endorses continued criminalisation—that is, the criminal justice system and prosecution therein—of cannabis use and supply.

Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order. The Minister of Justice is responsible for the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

SPEAKER: I rule that the Minister should answer in so far as she does have responsibility—in particular, the first part of the question.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I am aware that since the 2019 amendments, total convictions for cannabis use and possession have fallen by 48 percent from 2,565 to 1,335. I’m also aware that in 2021 and 2022, 144 people were convicted of cannabis possession and/or use as their most serious offence. We’ve seen a substantive reduction in the way that New Zealanders have been prosecuted for personal use of cannabis. In addition, we’ll also be aware that here in Aotearoa, we have the clean slate legislation. So after somebody is convicted for a possession-like offence, their record will be expunged within seven years.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does she believe that one person convicted for cannabis use in this country is a fair outcome, when health data shows that more than 600,000 New Zealanders used cannabis last year alone?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: We’re in an interesting position here in New Zealand, because we did go out to the public at the last general election. We asked the public as to whether or not cannabis should be decriminalised here in New Zealand—

Hon Members: Legalised.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Legalised; my apologies. Goodness me, it’s been one of those days! But what happened there is that the New Zealand public said “No”. And therefore that has meant that, with respect to further reform when it comes to the regulation of cannabis, whether or not things are legal or not—we went to the electorate and they said “No”. So whether or not I have a personal view or otherwise is redundant. We amended the law in 2019. In 2019, we enabled the discretion to sit squarely with the police as to whether or not they charge, and indeed we’ve seen a radical reduction since the introduction of those amendments in 2019.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does she believe that the presumption of supply for specified quantities of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act is fair and reasonable given it contravenes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act presumption of innocence?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Again, the Misuse of Drugs Act does squarely fall within the purview and any amendments related to that fall within the purview of the Minister of Health. That is the presumption—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Wasn’t a health question. Simple justice question.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: No, the Misuse of Drugs Act, Mr Brownlee, is the responsibility of the health Minister.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will she consider adopting my Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill—which implements recommendations made in Government-commissioned reports such as the safe and effective justice review—as a Government bill?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I just want to acknowledge the member for her continued advocacy on drug law reform; including alcohol. I want to acknowledge the many members in this House that have advocated for reform of alcohol law policy. I’m looking particularly at you, Lydia, up there in the back—10 years on the front line. We will be introducing a Government position on the alcohol law reform. Your bill is a member’s bill, and our caucus will vote according to their conscience.

Question No. 11—Emergency Management

11. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister for Emergency Management: Fakaalofa lahi atu, Mr Speaker. What recent reports has he received on the preparedness of New Zealanders for an emergency?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): I was recently briefed by the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) on the results of the 2022 Annual Disaster Preparedness Survey, an independent survey that tracks how prepared Kiwis are for a disaster. The survey is an important reminder to get prepared. It found two in five New Zealanders said they were well prepared for a disaster; one third of us have taken steps to prepare themselves or their households for a disaster, in the past 12 months. The results also reflect the cycle of household preparedness spiking after a big event, but then tailing off.

But there are some positives. The survey showed that Kiwis have a sound understanding of natural disasters and their impacts, and that preparing for a disaster is all of our personal responsibility. Most people continue to know what actions they should take in an earthquake or tsunami, and over half view disaster preparation as being quite easy. Overall, this is a timely reminder to all of us that small steps taken now can help us all when an emergency strikes.

Rachel Boyack: What advice does the Minister have for people who see effort and cost as a barrier to getting prepared for an emergency?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Getting prepared is actually easier than one may think. It just starts with a conversation with your family or your flatmates to just make a plan. What would you do if an emergency strikes when you were not home? What would you do if an emergency strikes and the kids are at school? What is the plan for nana or grandad? Having a plan in place costs nothing but can save a life. [Interruption] I’m really disappointed that the National Party members wish to heckle during something that is so important but, nevertheless, maybe people at home may wish to see some examples by this Government that getting prepared for an emergency can make a big difference when an emergency strikes.

Rachel Boyack: Where can people find information to help them get ready for an emergency?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: New Zealanders can find simple advice and tips at www.getready.govt.nz which has recently been translated into multiple languages, and people can also check out their local civil defence group to find out more about plans in their area. You’ll find information on what to do when a flood, landslip, earthquake, or tsunami hits—

Simeon Brown: What about a by-election?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —including how to get prepared and things to think about when developing plans. I see Simeon Brown heckling about the next election and a change of Government. That is appropriate, because this is about disasters, after all.

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Rachel Boyack: What else is the Government doing to get Kiwis prepared for an emergency? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, we’re going to hear this question in silence, thank you. [Interruption] No, I want to hear that question.

Rachel Boyack: What else is the Government doing to get Kiwis prepared for an emergency?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: NEMA launched its first national tsunami map, the Own Your Zone campaign, and the Get the Flood Out! campaign earlier this year, while continuing to promote the successful Long or Strong: Get Gone campaign. NEMA is also developing a new national preparedness campaign to encourage Kiwis to get ready. At 9.30 a.m. next Thursday, we are holding the New Zealand ShakeOut earthquake drill and tsunami hīkoi. People can join over 580,000 participants by signing up now at www.shakeout.govt.nz. This will be occurring during a parliamentary sitting day and I would encourage all members to participate and help spread the word for what to do during an earthquake and a tsunami.

Question No. 12—Police

12. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: How much money has been paid out of the Retail Crime Prevention Programme to date, and how many businesses have had protective equipment installed since the fund was established in May this year?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development) on behalf of the Minister of Police: Fakaalofa lahi atu, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Minister of Police, I’m advised that as at 14 October, $147,468 has been paid out from the programme, and a further $233,393 has been committed for further assessments and installations. In response to the second part of the question, 126 stores have been contacted, police have assessed 80 of these stores, and 59 have been allocated to a supplier for a site visit. Thirteen stores have either had products installed or are in the process of having products installed, seven are complete, and six have commenced installation. This is in addition to the thousand fog cannons that have been installed to protect businesses across New Zealand from robbery since 2020.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he accept that it’s an abject failure on the part of his Government that only seven businesses have received any form of physical support from the fund while, at the same time, there have been over 210 ram raids?

Hon STUART NASH: I don’t know how things were done when you were in the service, Mr Mitchell, but these days police make sure they put processes in place to ensure the integrity of every dollar spent. I support the police 100 percent to get on top of this, and I suggest you should as well.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Well, we were backed by a strong National Government and we actually arrested criminals back in my day, Mr Nash.

SPEAKER: Order! Yeah, that question’s out of order. Have you got another one?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That’s exactly the point I was making with you, earlier. The answer that was given by the Minister to the previous question invited that response. Now, if you’re going to look at the Standing Orders, you can be liberal about the way they’re interpreted, but the one Standing Order for the asking of the question mirrors a question for the answering of a question. We always know it’s an unequal contest and the answer to a question will always be longer and probably have more points in it, but it should not have questions in it, and that’s exactly why Mr Mitchell would have responded the way he did. I think it’s unreasonable to cut him off.

Hon Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This brings us back to the earlier exchange. Mr Mitchell’s question contained an assertion in it. If we were being strict about the Standing Orders, as Mr Brownlee would want, the question should have been ruled out before the answer even came.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: You can have an assertion if it’s in answer to a question.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I have ruled on this earlier. I’ll reiterate what I have said before. When such questions are being asked, I’m going to assume that the member knows what they’re doing. If the member is saying to the House that they did not know, then they should say it. But if assertions are in there, I have said before, if that’s the part that the Minister would like to answer, then that’s what it is. The member also knows that to start a question with a commentary about the answer is out of order. That’s the end of the matter.

Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seeking your clarity on this, as my initial response, when I stood up, was in direct response to the Minister asking me what policing was like back in my day.

SPEAKER: Yeah, and I called you based on you wanting to ask a supplementary. That was out of order, and I’ve ruled it as such.

Hon Mark Mitchell: When the Minister said, today, at a meeting with ram raid victims, “I absolutely accept there is a crime emergency”—can he explain what a crime emergency is?

Hon STUART NASH: That there is a crime emergency. It is the reason why the Labour Government promised 1,800 more police when the previous administration said there was going to be no more. We’ve delivered well over 1,500 more police, and it’s the reason why the Minister has said to the police that we need to fast-track this. It’s the reason why a thousand fog cannons have gone in place. It’s the reason why we’re putting all these programmes in place to ensure that police listen and work with key stakeholders to come up with innovative solutions and strategies, and we are in the process of implementing these.

Hon Mark Mitchell: So, as the Government haven’t been able to deliver their 1,800 new police officers, what does he say to police officers in Auckland that have had a net loss of front-line police officers in the last month?

Hon STUART NASH: When we came into Government, there had been a drop in police officers in the previous three years, and they, the previous National Government, had said to the then commissioner, “There will be no more police until 2020.” We changed that. There are now 1,500 more police on the beat, dealing with key stakeholders, arresting perpetrators, and keeping our communities safe.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does the Minister realise that under a soft-on-crime approach, the public is exposed to a ram raid every 15 hours in New Zealand?

Hon STUART NASH: The Nats voted against our legislation that increased penalties for gun crime—now, that is soft.

Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very short and concise question, and it wasn’t addressed at all.

SPEAKER: No, it contained an assertion, and that’s what was answered.

Urgent Debates

Oranga Tamariki—Murder of Malachi Subecz

SPEAKER: Yesterday, I received a letter from Jan Logie seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the opinion of the Ombudsman on the murder of Malachi Subecz. I indicated to her that I would consider that application today, since I had already determined yesterday that an urgent debate would be held on the matter raised by Brooke van Velden. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The Ombudsman is an Officer of Parliament and responsible to the Speaker, not to the Government. However, the opinion deals with matters involving Oranga Tamariki which are the responsibility of the Government. Public confidence in our child protection system is of great importance and warrants setting aside the normal business of the House. I call on Jan Logie to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Deputy Leader of the House): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I move, That the sitting of the House today—

SPEAKER: No, that will be done at the end of the urgent debate.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

Malachi was five years old when he was murdered. Malachi experienced repeated beatings, including being held under bath water, burnt in a shower, and twice thrown against a wall. Then he was murdered. There is nothing we can do about that now, and nothing I’m going to say or focus on is meant to remove responsibility from Michaela Barriball. She needs to live with the consequences of her brutal actions. The reason we’re having this discussion in the House today is not just, or even primarily, because of Michaela Barriball’s actions; it is because there were opportunities for Oranga Tamariki (OT) and other statutory children’s agencies to intervene to protect Malachi—opportunities and legal obligations that they comprehensively failed to take.

The Green Party, the family, and the public need to understand how this happened, and, even more than that, we need confidence that the Minister and the agencies have a plan that is specific and comprehensive enough to prevent this and other injustices and tragedies from happening again. I realise there is a commitment to reform Oranga Tamariki, and the Minister actively asked for the role to be able to drive that change. I also realise that, with such horrifically high rates of child abuse and deep structural racism and ableism and a degrading of social work practice by unsafe caseloads and tick-box processes within our child protection systems, transformation won’t happen overnight. I get it. But, alongside many others, I currently lack confidence in Oranga Tamariki and, connected to that, the Minister, to be able to deliver on transformation and do their part to protect our children through that process.

Today, I want to start by going through what I understand happened, from the Ombudsman’s report, public reporting, and talking to Malachi’s uncle. The first failure and event in this chain was that Malachi’s mum was arrested and, despite drug paraphernalia being present in the house when she was arrested, Malachi was left at the house with people not even really known to him. When Malachi’s mum was sent to prison, and despite family conversations discussing Malachi’s staying with family, he was sent to stay with Michaela Barriball, who was related to his mum’s co-offender. No safety check was done. If it had been done, they would have found a history of child abuse. No thought was given to whether the relationship of Michaela to the co-offender might create an opportunity for Malachi to be used as blackmail or punishment. The cousin made an initial report to the police but was told that it was a civil matter because there was a case in the Family Court, and she should go to Oranga Tamariki.

On 22 June, the family lodged a report of concern with OT, identifying actual and potential harm, medical neglect, and suspected physical abuse. On 28 June, the family sent through a photo of suspected facial bruising. This was put on file on 6 July, and evidence of this type legally requires a report to the police. This was not done. OT decided, in the wake of that, that no action was required. At no point did anyone from that agency talk to Malachi. The family put in a complaint regarding that decision. OT decided there was no need for a peer review of that decision, and the social worker who made the initial decision was involved in that decision. There are reports that, at some stage, Malachi’s mum’s probation officer made a report of concern. Computer records show Malachi’s file was opened at that time, but there is no record of a report of concern. Malachi’s day-care centre noticed his injuries in the months before his death and photographed the bruises and black eye but never alerted authorities. They’ve had their licence revoked as a consequence.

Malachi was pulled out of day care by Michaela. The family contacted two Ministers’ offices and were told there was nothing they could do as there was a case in front of the Family Court. An Opposition MP’s office was contacted and requests for support were made, but no help was given. Michaela text her partner on several occasions that she was going to kill Malachi. There was a hearing scheduled for the Family Court on 29 October, but no welfare checks were made prior to that and Michaela cancelled that court hearing. Then Malachi was admitted to hospital on 1 November with significant injuries. Michaela, the woman convicted of his murder, sat by his bed in the hospital, and it was only the day after that that Oranga Tamariki contacted the cousin to tell her he was in hospital and there were concerns he would not survive. They did that after the district health board had activated the family violence child protection protocol to notify Oranga Tamariki. That same day, the family knew the uncle called Oranga Tamariki to ask how to make a complaint, and he recalls being told there was no complaints process and he could speak directly to the duty social worker. On 8 November, the uncle and cousin made a complaint to the Ombudsman, in their words “to stop the paper shuffling”, because that is how they experienced the system as they tried to protect and keep Malachi alive. And on 12 November, Malachi died.

I want to be very clear in this House and to the public that Malachi’s uncle and cousin did exactly what we want everyone to do. They stood up for that five-year-old boy, and they kept standing up in the face of incredibly distressing inaction from everyone they spoke to. And when I spoke to Malachi’s uncle, he asked what else they could have done. Like, they thought about going in and taking him, but they feared that they would be arrested for kidnapping if they did that. And that was a real fear. This goes to the heart of the tension when we want people to make complaints and we want to keep children safe. Our agencies have to act. And we’re not asking for or wanting an overly risk-averse child protection system that doesn’t listen to whānau. That is not what I am standing up here asking for. Not listening to whānau was, again, what went wrong here, and I would say in-built biases were also part of that.

This is not a different problem from children being taken from their whānau where there were safe places for them to go within the wider whānau; it is the same problem. And in this instance, the Ombudsman found that Oranga Tamariki “has acted contrary to its own policies, which requires the wellbeing of children and their families to be central to decision making. Oranga Tamariki does not appear to have fulfilled the bare minimum of the process required to ensure Malachi’s safety.”

So it’s clear Oranga Tamariki, OT, failed and all of our child protection agencies failed. And I stick by that description because the abuse of a child, and the death of a child, cannot be considered anything other than the most profound failing. If we recognise that and hold that close, then I hope we’ve got a chance of learning the lessons that we need to learn to stop this happening.

Where was the voice of the child in all the decisions made about him, Minister? To have confidence moving forward, we have to look at what we’ve seen before and what has happened since. And I don’t understand why it took Oranga Tamariki until February to provide the Ombudsman with the relevant records to assist this investigation. I do not understand why they could not comment on actions at that time, despite the fact I’ve read their justifications—I just don’t get it.

I don’t understand why it took until May—at a time of public interest in Malachi’s death—for Oranga Tamariki to announce they would conduct a practice review. I do not understand how the Ministry of Education has managed to conduct a review and remove the licence from a private business, and yet Oranga Tamariki—who should be holding the welfare of Malachi and children at their front and centre—have not managed to do that review.

I do not understand why the Minister has said the practice review was delayed so much because they were waiting for the Ombudsman’s report, when OT said they wanted the Ombudsman to delay his report until they’d finished their practice review. Why has it taken six months to do an internal review? I want to know how we could possibly have confidence in the organisation when the Ombudsman has publicly said OT’s lack of engagement was curious and very unacceptable. OT—and this is his words—“has failed to give me an open picture of what occurred here and why.” He further said that the lack of cooperation was so bad, it hindered his job and he would keep a close eye on Oranga Tamariki’s own review. So he experienced the agency who was supposed to and is legally charged with the duty of putting the wellbeing of children first, as obstructive in his job of providing oversight, which we heard the Prime Minister trumpet in this House as “essential” in terms of our child protection system.

So how, also, can the Minister rely so heavily on the future direction plan to assure us that these concerns are in the process of change, when the plan had developer Kaimahi Ora’s strategy for all supporting staff, to enable work-life balance, to be completed six months ago, and now staff are going on strike to protest over unsafe workloads?

I know a staff member who’s left that agency, when they were involved in that process of transformation, because they were putting proposals out and then sitting around twiddling their thumbs because they got no response back and they could no longer deal with sitting in an agency supposedly going through transformation, and not having anything to do. At a time where our kids are being abused in care at higher levels than we have seen when a child is murdered as a result of the failure to intervene, I just find that incomprehensible and there is nothing that I’ve heard from the Minister or the staff leading Oranga Tamariki or those agencies that breaks through my sense of déjà vu of another report—another failing—and a “Yes, this sucks; we’re doing to do better” and nothing changes.

I really wonder how the Minister can tell us he’s pleased with progress, as he did on Newshub Nation, when reported abuse of children in care has increased, and Treasury has found that Oranga Tamariki lacks a clear organisational strategy and does not have a partnership strategy absolutely central to the process of transformation that’s articulated.

And as a VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai youth council member has said to me, they’re saying in response to this situation that there’s really deep mamae with all of this and that there are counsellors—care-experienced tāngata—who are willing to put in mahi to ensure things like this don’t continue happening.

Iwi and hapū from across the motu have shown that they are more than willing to put mahi into this, but Oranga Tamariki continues to charge forward—essentially, putting the lives of all tamariki in their care at risk; not engaging with them, not asking them, in their experience, about what could be done differently. And they want an assurance that the voice of the child will be central, that the care-experienced voice will be central in these changes because they know that’s the only way to make it work.

I also want to finish on a core point where concern that the Minister characterised transformation—throwing out the agency versus doing what’s being done now—and ignored the proposal from the Waitangi Tribunal for a Māori transitional authority, which would have devolved responsibility and provided accountability and oversight that could have motivated—stimulated—actual change as well as accountability.

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

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): First, let me acknowledge that what happened to Malachi is shocking and no child deserves to be treated like that.

There are a few points that the member has raised that I want to address, though. One is the call for hapū and iwi to be central to the decision making. Now, if she’s read the Oranga Tamariki Future Direction Action Plan, she’ll see that one of the five recommendations is that there is what, basically, amounts to a transfer of resources and decision making to hapū and iwi and communities. That is probably the part of the future direction plan that I am pushing the hardest. Now, I don’t want to replace Oranga Tamariki (OT) with another bureaucracy. Instead, what we are trying to do with the future direction plan is to move the resources to communities, hapū, and iwi so that they can make the decisions that need to be made.

Now, there are some five communities across Aotearoa where that is being piloted. One is Waikato-Tainui, the other is around the Ngāti Kahungunu area, the third is Ngāi Tahu, the fourth is Taumarunui, and the fifth is up in Tai Tokerau. There are two communities there: Whangārei and Kaitāia. And just recently in Kaitāia, we launched Te Atatū, which is, basically, the community-led response to this. Change is happening.

That doesn’t, though, excuse what happened to Malachi. New Zealand has been dealing with this child abuse problem for generations. Nobody finds it acceptable and certainly I don’t find it acceptable. We are talking about an issue that really cuts deep and change isn’t going to be simple or easy, but I am determined to make the changes and to turn things around. The future direction plan is one part of it. The Oranga Tamariki Action Plan is another part.

There are multiple reviews already under way to understand what happened to Malachi, and these do include the Oranga Tamariki practice review and then the Government-wide system review. The practice review from Oranga Tamariki regarding Malachi is expected soon and I understand this review will be much broader and much deeper than what the Ombudsman conducted, and it will likely identify further areas where Oranga Tamariki could have and should have done better. But once we know what these areas are, I expect action to be taken.

The Ombudsman review is important and it responds directly to the two concerns raised by members of the whānau. I acknowledge that the concerns of the whānau were around a failure to properly address the report of concern made and that Oranga Tamariki did not have a suitable complaints process. In this case, the Ombudsman found that Oranga Tamariki acted unreasonably and wrongly in addressing the report of concern made by Malachi’s whānau. Oranga Tamariki do not refute that and have accepted the Ombudsman’s report and its recommendations.

Now, I did put up my hand to take this portfolio. I do not want what happened to Malachi to happen to any other child and I’ll do everything in my power to ensure we are changing the system. The approach we’ve taken in the past to try and prevent this kind of thing from happening just hasn’t worked. The ministerial advisory board that I appointed, a group of independent experts, said Oranga Tamariki needed radical change, and the Government agreed to all of its recommendations.

We are doing things differently. During Labour’s time in Government, the uplifting of Māori babies has dropped by about 75 percent and the number of kids in care is the lowest since Oranga Tamariki was formed. There are over 70,000 reports of concern every year—200 a day—and 50,000 children at any one time who have come to the attention of the agency who social workers support to stay safe and out of care. As I said on Newshub Nation the other day, 50,000 are kept out of care every year. They are protected by the work that Oranga Tamariki social workers do, and that’s fantastic. The problem is that one mistake is what Oranga Tamariki is judged upon.

So just a few key statistics. Uplifts are down 73 percent since 2018. Last year, there were 402 compared to 1,473 in 2018. The numbers of children in care are down to 4,722 from 6,316 in 2018. We have established meaningful partnerships with communities; uplifts in Kaitāia and Waikato-Tainui have decreased by over 30 percent following the development of, and investment in, localised partnerships, which is what I’ve been talking about, and I mentioned the future direction plan.

Oranga Tamariki is committed to understanding where they have fallen short in the practice for Malachi and his family. They are doing their own practice review and will apologise to the whānau in cooperation with the Ombudsman and with the whānau advocate. After a complaint from members of Malachi’s family, the Ombudsman has completed an investigation and it has found that Oranga Tamariki could have done more to respond to the family’s concern for Malachi’s wellbeing and safety.

Oranga Tamariki have accepted all of the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s review and are now awaiting the Chief Social Worker’s practice review—the outcome of that review. It is my expectation that Oranga Tamariki will do all they can to implement any changes necessary as a result of the reviews under way. Oranga Tamariki chief executive Chappie Te Kani has advised the Chief Ombudsman that depending on the findings of the Chief Social Worker review, he intends to provide the whānau members with a fulsome, accurate, and sufficient apology framed by the outcome of the practice review.

Please don’t let me give the impression that an apology makes up for what happened to Malachi. An apology will be sincere and it will be genuine. It doesn’t change what happened to Malachi. So Oranga Tamariki have had contact with a number of Malachi’s family members where appropriate and when it was wanted. The practice review team requested to meet with the whānau who made the complaint to the Ombudsman. However, Oranga Tamariki were advised by their advocate, the whānau advocate, that this meeting could not take place until the Ombudsman’s review and meeting were completed. Oranga Tamariki have needed to be sensitive to the needs of the whānau and have been working at their pace. This is not a case of Oranga Tamariki dragging its feet or failing to act. There was a decision made to undertake these broader reviews and to make sure there was a very clear picture of what went wrong. Oranga Tamariki have committed to owning their failings and taking actions to address these.

So when I became the Minister for Children, it was clear that, as an agency, Oranga Tamariki wasn’t up to scratch. There were challenges with front-line practice, head office decisions, and the overall approaches to working with tamariki and whānau. Since becoming the Minister, I appointed a group of independent experts, the ministerial advisory board. The board said Oranga Tamariki needed radical change, and the Government agreed to all its recommendations. In August of last year, Cabinet accepted the recommendations of the board and agreed to the future direction of Oranga Tamariki for the next two to five years. This included the Future Direction Action Plan, that draws together themes from across Hipokingia ki te kahu aroha Hipokingia ki te katoa, the report of the ministerial advisory board, as well as recommendations from previous reviews and the Waitangi Tribunal report.

We are working to address these challenges. OT has a new leadership team, new financial team, and has introduced the future direction plan, which will shape the way it operates. The future direction plan is ambitious and seeks to address the issues within OT head on. Most future direction plan actions—in fact, 90 percent of them—have been progressed. There needs to be a fundamental shift in the approach, the operating model, and the practice of Oranga Tamariki to be truly tamariki- and whānau-centred. Oranga Tamariki is making a fundamental shift towards practice that is based on the rights of tamariki and whānau and the relationship it builds with them. It sees tamariki in the context of whakapapa and understands their safety through a more holistic view of oranga.

Through these changes, Oranga Tamariki is working to improve understanding and management of social worker capacity, the caseload complexity, and the workloads, and to support our front-line kaimahi with improved supervision support. I note that the member who spoke before me spoke about social workers concerned about their workloads. Remember, this future direction plan has only been in action since Cabinet agreed to it in August of last year. So it will take some time for the actions within the future direction plan to be implemented fully.

Oranga Tamariki will redesign how it approaches reports of concern and other assessments, especially by incorporating partners, community, and whānau in our processes. In fact, up in Kaitāia, the reports of concern are addressed with the community providers, and Oranga Tamariki is just one part of the group that, on a daily basis, addresses the reports of concern. That is something that I would like to see right throughout the country. Whereas in the past, it had been Oranga Tamariki that received the reports of concern and made the decisions. Oranga Tamariki was at the centre of all decision making; it’s now becoming part of the community—and when I say community, I mean the hapū and iwi as well. It’s just one member in the team that looks after the needs of tamariki. So there is an organisational focus on improving leadership capability, including social work supervision, to ensure those doing the front-line mahi know how and where to get support for themselves. Oranga Tamariki underwent a significant practice shift following the Ombudsman’s findings into uplifts. The findings and reviews were tough, but, as Minister, I was determined to see Oranga Tamariki step up and make the changes.

Annually, the number of section 78 orders granted for pēpi has decreased significantly since 2017. In response to the Ombudsman’s findings in this area of practice, Oranga Tamariki now routinely reviews practice and decision making for all section 78 orders made for unborn and newborn pēpi. We cannot ignore the fact that nearly 70 percent of children in the custody of Oranga Tamariki are Māori. Ignoring this reality has got us to where we are today. We also need to recognise that often Oranga Tamariki works with tamariki with the highest needs. So what became clear to me quite quickly when I became Minister was that Government agencies could work better together to support tamariki and whānau. This Government has taken action to make sure the Government is working together for tamariki with the greatest needs by developing the Oranga Tamariki Action Plan. This cross-agency approach will support the removal of silos to deliver outcomes for those who need them the most.

And, as I said, rather than having Oranga Tamariki at the centre, I want to see Oranga Tamariki become an enabler and coordinator for Māori and communities to empower Māori and communities to put in place the supports needed by whānau sooner rather than later so any tamariki and whānau who come through, or are likely to come to the attention of, Oranga Tamariki are well and truly at the centre. That shift to the system is well under way.

To conclude, as I said earlier, what happened to Malachi was shocking. No child deserves to be treated like that. Again, New Zealand has been dealing with a child abuse problem for generations. Nobody finds it acceptable, I don’t find it acceptable, and everybody has a responsibility here to address the problem that many just don’t want to talk about. We know that the system, as it was, did not work. We saw that change was needed in order to improve outcomes for tamariki and whānau, and I’ve been working to make those changes possible. We are looking at new ways to partner with communities, iwi, and local organisations to ensure equitable outcomes for all children. Oranga Tamariki is not perfect, but it is starting to improve—this is seen in the decrease in uplifts and the decrease of children entering into care. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Every child’s life matters. Malachi Subecz’s life matters. The debate in this House today, and the call that I take, is in the memory of Malachi. Often I hear members in the House stand and say, “It’s a privilege”, and they take a call with pleasure. Today, I take this call with privilege but with a strong sense of despondency, dismay, a gut that’s wrenched, and disappointment that the State failed Malachi and his family and loved ones. The first duty of the State is to protect its citizens. The most serious responsibility and duty of care of the State is to protect its most vulnerable, and our children are vulnerable. The culture of our country does not value our tamariki as taonga in the way that it should. Regrettably, our State welfare agency, Oranga Tamariki—which is meant to be about the wellbeing, welfare, and best interests of our children—did not provide the blanket of protection and security for Malachi and also many other children. This debate, my address to the House, is in the memory of Malachi.

It’s all very well for members in this House to stand and speak about “what if”. We’ve heard the Minister speak about future directions; that future direction must factor in the importance of Malachi’s life in a way that the agency and its agents—who were responsible for providing that blanket of protection—did not.

As a former child advocate and child welfare lawyer, knowing full well the system, having worked in the system of Child, Youth and Family, as it was, and within the Family Court system, it’s not just the system that let this little boy down; it was the agents working the system. This is an awful, avoidable tragedy, and, obviously, and understandably, our thoughts are with Malachi’s family. He was an innocent and vulnerable child who was failed by Oranga Tamariki. Chief Ombudsman, Judge Peter Boshier, has provided a most compelling finding describing Oranga Tamariki’s response as a litany of failures. I add to that that this is also about the State being held accountable for its litany of liabilities. I acknowledge the Green member of Parliament Jan Logie for putting the motion to the House so that we can raise and we can alert and lift the level of alarm to New Zealanders about the appalling state and culture and attitude we have towards our children.

For the moment that these matters are before the media there is this anguish, there’s this disgust, there’s this outcry, and then it disappears. This House must hold Oranga Tamariki to account for its failures and its flaws and its faults that have been identified in Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier’s report. He is the Officer of Parliament who formerly served 25 years as a Family Court judge and a Principal Family Court Judge, and prior to that served many years as a family lawyer, so the recommendations that he makes are profound and are based on experience.

It’s long overdue that the Government and child welfare sector took the politics out of this and listened to those who know—listened to those with lived experience—and take heed. I heard the Minister in the House talk about the changes that will be made by this Government. However, this Government fails to listen to those with lived, knowledgable experience. There is a commission of inquiry into the abuse of those in care that is still ongoing. However, this Government saw fit to pursue its agenda with the oversight of Oranga Tamariki bill—now law. The very purpose of that bill—now law—was to ensure that there were not going to be failings like this case. There has been the appointment of an independent children’s monitor who looks externally. The advice that was given to the select committee not only from me but from other members working in the sector, is that there are the internal mechanisms within the agency that need to be adjusted. Instead, the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Act—now—totally overlooks that, and here we have yet another review which, for some reason, Oranga Tamariki failed to heed the initial recommendations and findings of the Ombudsman, saying that before it took action to apologise to Malachi’s whānau, they would await the outcome of their internal practice review.

The Oversight of the Oranga Tamariki System Act has external agencies—the independent children’s monitor, which was set up to look over complaints as an external independent agent without going into the internal mechanisms and failings and flaws of the processes within the organisation itself—bolstered the Ombudsman’s office with fiscal resources, and then restructured the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, the most significantly responsible and respected children’s advocate, voice, and representative.

The details of Malachi’s case and the memory of his death should not ever be forgotten. There are failings within Oranga Tamariki—its systems—but there are also failings in terms of accountability for poor practice. It’s been outlined that if this were an accident or a death in a workplace, undoubtedly WorkSafe New Zealand would be in there without hesitation and would take action. That has not been done six months later. Where is the responsibility of this Government and its accountability to recognise that a child has died because of its litany of failures—the litany of liabilities this Government must be held responsible for and account for? It needs to go internal and look not just externally from independent agents but to make amends, and in making the amends never forget that every child’s life matters. How many more deaths do there need to be? Take care of our children; take care of what they hear, take care of what they see, take care of what they feel, for how the children grow, so will be the shape of Aotearoa.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): The debate raised in the House today was brought about by the tragic death of five-year-old Malachi Subecz and the concerns that all of us across this House and, indeed, across all New Zealand have at this young boy’s untimely and tragic death. Questions have been asked and they continue to be asked as to how Malachi was left in such a situation that he was suffering daily beatings, burnings, and malnourishment at the hands of a carer that Oranga Tamariki approved and that our agencies paid to take care of this young boy. It is mind-boggling that our agency Oranga Tamariki has failed not only this child but others, and it is a continuous pattern which is contributing to the death of our children, our tamariki.

The Ombudsman, to his credit, has fairly quickly figured out what went wrong: Oranga Tamariki did not conduct an investigation into the report of concern about Malachi’s welfare made by his cousin; Oranga Tamariki denied a complaints process to Malachi’s uncle; Oranga Tamariki omitted to do all that was necessary and desirable for that child’s wellbeing; Oranga Tamariki did not speak with Malachi to check that he was safe or that he even wanted to be with his carer; Oranga Tamariki did not consider conducting a safety check on the home that Malachi was living in; and, contrary to Oranga Tamariki’s own policies, which require the wellbeing of children and families to be central to their decision making, they did not even fulfil their own bare minimum requirements to ensure Malachi’s safety, his welfare, and his wellbeing. Not once did Oranga Tamariki prioritise Malachi.

Between June 2021, when Malachi’s mother went to jail, and 12 November 2021, Malachi’s protection and safety were compromised many times. Complaints went unchecked. Photographs of Malachi with bruising around his eye were simply filed away. Oranga Tamariki failed this young lad, and within five months he was dead. Where was the Minister on this—where is Kelvin Davis, the Minister for Children, on this tragic death?

We have legislation in place to protect our children. We have processes, we have guidelines, we’ve got frameworks, and we have laws—for goodness’ sake—designed to ensure that the welfare and the interests of all children that come through Oranga Tamariki are prioritised. The bare, basic, minimum legal requirements were not carried out by this Government’s agency, and so I ask again: where’s Kelvin? Where is the Minister for Children? Hiding behind a report that isn’t written yet, a report not written by the organisation that enabled the death to occur in the first place. He’s hiding behind his Government’s failure to protect some of our most vulnerable children—the failure of his agency to not follow through with their own mechanisms to keep our children that need them safe.

I heard the Minister say in an earlier speech that uplifts were down, but that doesn’t mean that our tamariki are safe. It’s like the prison population: if it’s down, that doesn’t mean that there are no criminals out there. It means that we’re not addressing the issues, and I’m not surprised by that. I’m not surprised to be told that 67 children who are known to Oranga Tamariki have died since this Government took office in late 2017. What I am surprised by is the silence of this Government to the nation’s outrage.

Then, while we continued to hear no condemnation from the Minister, we were advised of another report just yesterday of a child who has suffered 63 injuries—that’s right, another child—who has now been left with a permanent disability from a head injury he received at the hands of his carers. They are people that Oranga Tamariki allowed this child to go back to, even after they had already lost that child due to abuse—carers who had hurt this child so badly that he needed two craniotomies. He had fractured ribs, he had retinal injuries to his eyes, and he had damage to the ligaments in his neck. This child, who was abused when he was nearly four years old, now needs a wheelchair, and this child was reportedly placed back into the care of his abusers.

At this point, I’d like to acknowledge the work of our medics, who fight to save our children who present with such injuries. Hawke’s Bay Hospital staff saved the life of the child that I just spoke about. I’d also like to acknowledge the bravery and stamina of our community, who fight for the rights of children all over this country, and I acknowledge the families who have fought, loved, and lost children—especially Malachi’s uncle and his cousin.

There will be an apology at some stage for Malachi, but apologies hold little weight if the children in need are forgotten in the process. If nothing changes—if another child dies—then the apology is empty.

We implore the Minister to stop sitting on his hands and to do something and to say something. Stop hiding behind unfinished reports. When Minister Davis walks his bridge, he needs to look down at his shoes and see the cracks that are appearing, because our children are falling through them, and the lifeboats under his bridge are either gone or they’re sinking. We need to save our vulnerable—our at-risk tamariki.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for Youth): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As other speakers have done before me in this House today, can I begin by acknowledging what happened to Malachi and to say that it was absolutely shocking and unacceptable that this happened to a child in Aotearoa New Zealand. As we know, the Chief Ombudsman received a complaint about the actions of Oranga Tamariki (OT) in relation to the death of Malachi, and that the Ombudsman found that Oranga Tamariki acted unreasonably by not investigating the report of concern after completing its intake and assessment processes.

It is important that we have a clear understanding of what happened to Malachi. As others have mentioned previously, there have been multiple reviews under way. There’s been an OT practice review and also a Government system-wide review on what is needed and what is happening. I challenge a little bit what the previous member, Nicole McKee, said in terms of anybody in this Government hiding behind reviews, because, really, what we are seeing take place here is reviews into a system that has had gaps, and what we want to do is to make sure that we identify whether the system as a whole could or should have done more to prevent what happened to Malachi. That is included in the scope of the Government-wide review to be able to use the findings and the outcomes of individual agencies’ internal reviews related to this case, to look at what those gaps were across various spheres and to then use what we find there to strengthen the system as a whole.

It’s also to identify significant risk factors of child abuse, including how the relevant processes for each agency or regulated service to notify and respond to potential child abuse interacts across the system—the coordination and the information sharing across various agencies. That’s what the reviews that have been mentioned will undertake and will lead to in terms of change.

Oranga Tamariki has accepted the Chief Ombudsman’s recommendations and, I know, as Minister Davis has said in the House previously today, that he has made it his mission to enact those changes. The system that we had inherited was already flawed. What we’ve been trying to do on this side of the House, and the Minister’s been leading, is the changes that are needed to shift that direction of Oranga Tamariki. Again, to a point that the previous member made in terms of numbers being down, it does not show—as she was saying—that the Government is abdicating its role in terms of strengthening the system. It doesn’t show that it’s not working. What it shows is that change in direction in terms of what the Minister is leading, in terms of OT working with whānau, with communities, on the ground with iwi and hapū to change things so that children don’t need to come into OT’s care. That’s what we’re seeing with the drop in numbers and that’s the point that the Minister was making there as well.

I want to touch on, in the time that I have, some of the changes that are taking place in terms of Oranga Tamariki’s practice. We have heard already that OT is committed to understanding where they’ve fallen short. They have accepted that this should not have happened, that there were gaps, and they have committed to understanding what those gaps are and plugging those gaps. That’s why all of the recommendations were accepted by OT. The Minister also mentioned the Future Direction Action Plan, which will shape the way that OT changes the way that it operates. And that’s what we are seeing as well, the fact that there needs to be a fundamental and significant shift in Oranga Tamariki’s approach, so that what happened to Malachi doesn’t happen to other children as well. That fundamental shift is under way.

As the member Jan Logie said in her contribution, change does take time, it doesn’t happen overnight, but the steps to ensure that that change happens is well and truly under way. And what that change is, is to ensure that tamariki are seen in the context of whakapapa and that OT as an agency, and that agencies across Government, understand what their safety needs are in a more holistic way. It’s through those changes that OT is working to improve the way that they understand and they manage social worker capability, capacity, caseload, complexity,—all of which are issues that have been touched on in the House today—workloads, the support that is provided to front-line kaimahi and the improved supervision that Minister Davis spoke about as well. OT is redesigning how it approaches reports of concerns and other assessments, and is also looking at how they work better—as I mentioned previously—with whānau, with iwi and hapū, and ensuring that the needs of those children are central to the work that it undertakes as well.

That is really the shift in the way that OT is working, that the Minister’s talked about and that the Minister is leading. As he has said, what he’s trying to do and what OT is trying to do is to empower Māori and communities to put in place the supports needed by whānau sooner rather than later. The whole point of this shift in practice is to empower and strengthen communities so that children and their needs and their aspirations and their safety is protected. It’s a primary prevention point of view, changing the landscape so that children don’t need to come into OT’s care. That’s really the fundamental shift and the crux of the Minister’s work in terms of changing the direction of OT, and that is the shift that I mentioned that is well under way.

As he has mentioned also, community-led solutions are incredibly important. We see that across Government and across the work that is happening, whether it’s in the space of child protection or family and sexual violence more broadly, or the child and youth wellbeing strategy that also—all of these pieces of work look to create an integrated system so that people and children don’t fall between the cracks. What we’re trying to do here, whether it’s through Te Puna Aonui—which was the joint venture which brings together about 10 different agencies, to look at how we take various actions that sit across Government agencies and across Government to strengthen that integrated support.

I’ll just touch on, in the time that I have left, some of those changes that we are making in the broader family violence prevention space as well. For the first time, we have a long-term national strategy called Te Aorerekura, and I commend the work of the Minister Marama Davidson as well in terms of leading the delivery of that strategy and the design of that strategy. That is another strategy that is aimed at integrating the system and making sure that people don’t fall through the cracks, and that we achieve long-term change as well. Preventing violence against children and youth is at the core of the actions embedded across the Te Aorerekura strategy, and that again is about transforming our systems.

There are specific actions within Te Aorerekura that work towards building the specialist capability workforce that we need to work specifically with children and young people, understanding what their needs are in terms of family violence prevention, working again with whānau, family, and communities to ensure that they have the support that they need, whether it’s to access services or whether it’s to support those who are facing family violence and acting as bystanders in that space as well. Just recently, we’ve introduced digital tools because we knew it was highlighted through COVID that people weren’t able to access the support that they needed because of the reliance on face-to-face services as well. And so now we’re looking at how we expand the support so that people can access that support wherever they are, whenever they are as well.

All of those are steps that are taken by this Government to strengthen that integrated system, to transform the way Government agencies work so that we no longer work in silos, but can actually work together to put the interests of families and children at the heart of what we’re doing.

So, just in conclusion, I end where I began. What happened to Malachi was absolutely shocking. It was unacceptable. And the work that we’re doing across various spheres and sectors on this side of the House is to do everything that we can to prevent such situations from occurring in the future. Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): “such situations from occurring in the future.”—sounds a bit academic, really, doesn’t it? What we’re talking about is the last few hours, days, weeks, and months of a five-year-old’s life. Malachi, a young child who was vulnerable already because his mother was in prison. That child should have been a high priority for Oranga Tamariki, for that circumstance alone. Often, when we debate issues of child protection in this House, there are some pretty easy problems that are identified—some pretty ugly ones. Somebody knew what was going on and didn’t report it. Yes, that happened in this instance, and what was the consequence? An early childhood centre identified concerns and didn’t report it. The Ministry of Education took swift action and they’ve lost their licence. They have been held accountable for their failure to act.

But, also, in this instance, family members of Malachi raised reports of concern. And what would you expect in a situation like this? You would expect the agency responsible would take a complaint seriously. To have a report from the Chief Ombudsman where he says that Oranga Tamariki failed to do the bare minimum—we’re not talking about one mistake. We’re not talking about one error. We are talking about the fact that Oranga Tamariki, who was responsible for “ensuring that children and young people are safe and nurtured in their whānau, families, and homes.”, failed to do the bare minimum, and that is why we are debating—I’m not sure that we’re debating; we are talking about the tragic life that young Malachi lived and didn’t survive, when family members have raised concerns and Oranga Tamariki failed to take the bare minimum steps to ensure he was safe.

We’ve heard the Government members talk about systems and processes and reviews and all of these wonderful things, but the fundamental heart of this is somebody failed to take action to ensure that child was safe—not just once; multiple times. I don’t think I’ve ever read a report from the Chief Ombudsman that is as scathing as this one. The Government members can talk about improvements all they want; this is the core, fundamental reason that Oranga Tamariki exists: to keep children safe from harm. When those concerns are raised, you would expect that they are investigated. You would expect, when there is photographic evidence of harm, the police are involved. You would expect the child is spoken to, that the home is visited and inspected. But, no—and I’m quoting from the Ombudsman—“There is no record that Oranga Tamariki considered its obligations under the [Child Protection Protocol] at any stage, nor did it record any consideration of the suspected bruising.”

There’ll be people, unfortunately, who see this as part of our national shame, and another child that’s added to the list. In New Zealand, on average, one child dies from abuse every five weeks. Oranga Tamariki has one job. When there is a complaint, when there is photographic evidence, their job is to take it seriously. But, no, what did we hear happened? There’s a bit of paper shuffling and “not my responsibility”, “oh, it belongs over there”, “oh, no, someone else should look at it”, “oh, no, we don’t have a complaints system.” When a poor family member then contacted Ministers, contacted Parliament—still no action, when they knew that Malachi’s life was in danger. I just can’t imagine what it’s like for his family, when they did everything possible within their power to prevent this and the system—the system—let them down. But, guess what! The system is made up of people to serve other people, and, in this instance, our most vulnerable: a five-year-old boy whose mother was in prison. That is what’s disgraceful.

Where is this review at? “Oh, no, there are a couple of reviews, so we should feel relaxed about that.” Why is it taking so long? Why isn’t this urgent? This boy died in November last year. We are nearly a year on, so why aren’t those investigations complete? Why hasn’t the Government taken urgent action? Why has there not been an apology? That’s what is disgraceful today as we debate—I’m not sure that we’re actually debating—a report from the Chief Ombudsman that says Oranga Tamariki failed to do the bare minimum.

So, you know, what does need to be done differently? Well, first of all, we do need to ensure that anyone who is working with children in an educational setting has child protection training. The National Party supports Child Matters’ call to ensure that that training is mandatory. That wasn’t the problem in this case—someone recognised it, but didn’t take action. Perhaps, actually, the agency that’s responsible for child wellbeing and their protection from harm needs to have that training themselves, because they’re the ones that took no action. That is what’s disgraceful—absolutely disgraceful—and no words that the Minister utters in this House today can take that away. The accountability has to sit with the people in Oranga Tamariki that the concerns raised about this child’s wellbeing were raised with. That’s what accountability looks like.

The Minister talks about the fact that we’ve got fewer children in State care. I actually don’t think that’s the right measure; I think the right measure is that there are fewer children being harmed. That has to be the outcome that New Zealanders are seeking. If a child is taken into State care because they’re at risk of being harmed, that’s a good thing. The outcome has to be protecting children from harm. We have to make sure that when issues are raised, those people who operate in the system do their jobs, are accountable, and make sure that no child is dropped between the cracks.

One person should be responsible for that child, but, instead, he died following sustained and horrifying abuse at the hands of the person that was meant to be looking after them. In New Zealand, when the Prime Minister says this is the best country in the world to be a child, I’d argue that’s clearly not the case.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. First, I want to recognise the appalling loss of a beloved child at the hands of one who was entrusted to look after him—a loss that can never be repaired for his whānau. But the appalling reality is that Malachi’s loss is not unprecedented in New Zealand. Drawing on figures from 2009 to 2018, the Family Violence Death Review Committee—and how appalling that we need a committee with that name—estimates that about 70 children are killed by family and caregivers every year in New Zealand; a child killed, on average, every five weeks. We have a shameful record of child abuse, stretching back generation after generation.

The Ombudsman’s report on the opportunities to protect Malachi that were lost by Oranga Tamariki is deeply, deeply upsetting. The fuller recitation of the facts by Jan Logie should be enough to bring each of us to our feet and to tears—multiple failings, across a range of agencies, who passed the buck again and again. As an ex-practitioner, it is also deeply, deeply familiar. I did not—thank God—work on cases in which children were killed, but over my time in practice I have worked on multiple cases in which we fought to get Oranga Tamariki to accept that children in its care were at risk of, or were, being abused, to get police and multiple lawyers for children and Family Court judges to take whānau concerns seriously, to take the words of children themselves seriously. A senior UK academic I know well once remarked that, if you want to get away with a crime, assault a pre-schooler, because no one believes them and everyone prioritises the accused’s rights over the child’s rights.

Now, some social workers, some police, some lawyers are excellent, but my definition of an “excellent practitioner”, in the past, has been one who was prepared to stand up against the system, not one who operates within what we have had. What we have too often faced is people who prioritise the system over the child and the whānau, who shut their ears to criticism of their decision making or their preferred caregivers. Like most ex - Family Court practitioners, I have seen social workers double down to protect and support their preferred placement. I have also had the dubious privilege, as a practitioner, of living through a number of reviews, reports, and re-brandings of Oranga Tamariki, most notably, in the recent past, under the Opposition—the rebranding exercise that saw it renamed Oranga Tamariki, with the nice orange logos. So I get the scepticism with which our reform programme has been met.

As I sat through the submissions process for the Oranga Tamariki oversight bill, I heard that scepticism reflected back to me again and again in the anguish and the pain of professionals and whānau with too much experience of failed reform. I have also never forgotten a comment on the death of Victoria Climbié in the UK, where social workers’ failings were “of the usual variety”. The reviewer commented, however, that the constant flogging of social workers breeds a defensive culture, which lends itself to the sort of closedminded, doubling down that has put many of our children at risk over the years. Defensiveness breeds a shell of closedminded, self-protective arrogance. Arrogance breeds the inability to listen and respond to reality, and so we perpetuate systemic neglect and abuse.

But we are not offering a defence on this side of the House. The Government accepts fully that Oranga Tamariki has been broken, and broken for a long, long time. Minister Davis asked his reviewers for the brutal truth, and when it came, and when it was brutal, he accepted it absolutely. We are committed to radical change. We are committed finally to working with whānau. Will we get it right every time? No. But to those who say, as did Ms Logie, as did Ms Hipango, in the oversight hearings, that we should be waiting for yet another review or a study, no. We cannot afford to wait for the perfect model, and, in fact, I doubt any Government could produce a perfect model. The same Family Violence Death Review Committee that produced those damning figures pointed to the need for a fundamental shift in the Government’s approach—that we need to stop treating ourselves as the saviours and start working with community. That is what we are doing. That is Minister Davis’ vision. Get on board, and we can do something about children like Malachi.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Kai kinikini ai te mamae i ahau, e, tōtatatia rā, ki wawe au te mate.

[The pain within me gnaws on, hasten, that death may soon come.]

I stand as a father of a five-year-old, and I’ve found it quite difficult to sit here and listen to the kōrero about this young boy Malachi. I find it difficult that someone who was entrusted to the State, to ensure that they were safe, has lost his little life, due to the abuse, due to the neglect, and due to being ignored by the State. I’ve heard the statistics, today, that a child dies every five weeks. That is absolutely appalling. If I look in the history of my people—not Once Were Warriors; once were gardeners, once were fishermen—there is nowhere in our history where children were treated, abused, and ignored. It is the contrary. For someone who has been brought up with oriori, which is our version of how—I don’t know how to explain it in English; a lullaby, but it’s not a lullaby. These were the downloads of our ancestors, of our tīpuna, of grandparents, of parents to their children about who they were, what their whakapapa was, who they connected to, the taonga that they were, te taonga o taku ngākau, ko taku mokopuna e. [My heart’s greatest treasure is my grandchild.]

We have waited far too long for these reviews. Oranga Tamariki has failed 14 reviews. How many more reviews do we wait before something is done? A review, after review, after review—14. When will the devolution happen? I heard about devolution, when will that happen? When will our people be entrusted to look after our tamariki mokopuna? Somebody must pay. Somebody must be accountable. Not an education facility. It starts at the Minister, Kelvin Davis. I asked, today, that the Minister resign or lose that position, because we have, for far too long, waited to get justice for these types of incidents and, at the end of the day, for our tamariki mokopuna. I’ve got a whole lot of kōrero here, but I’m just going to speak from my heart.

So we need action. There has been no action. There has been no accountability. Who is accountable for the death of Malachi and the many other deaths that have come out of the failing system that these tamariki are entrusted in? Come on, e hika mā, we must put the politics aside. Is this our tomorrow? Is this what Ngāti āpōpō looks like? If we must take the example of how to look at mokopuna, we must look at oriori. We must look at the way our tamariki mokopuna were treated in those villages. Colonisation has had a huge part in the way that our tamariki have been treated. To be abused in school for speaking te reo Māori was absolutely something our people had never seen before. And so we must prioritise our babies.

Ko ngā taonga o te iwi ko ā tātou tamariki mokopuna me ō tātou pakeke.

[The treasures of the people are our children, grandchildren, and our elders.]

And those in between have an obligation to look after our mokopuna and to look after our pakeke. Kia ora tātou.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to acknowledge first and foremost, before I talk about Malachi, the Speaker of the House enabling us to have this very important debate. I think it is important that this House take heed of what has happened with Malachi and that we acknowledge the mistakes that have been made and the loss that his family has sustained.

I want to be very clear that every person who has spoken today has spoken their truth and I want to add to that. But first and foremost, the member Rawiri Waititi nearly brought me to tears with his song and I hope at the end of this speech today that we, as a House, consider the heavy matter that we have heard and that we lay that matter to rest for a small amount of time.

The death of Malachi is a really difficult matter for us to talk about and I want to acknowledge Judge Peter Boshier, the Ombudsman, for the investigation that he carried out and for bringing this matter, as an independent person, to this House for us to discuss. I’ve worked with Judge Boshier for many, many years as a domestic violence adviser in the Ministry of Justice when he was the Principal Family Court Judge, and I have always acknowledged the good work that he did in that place. I want to thank him for raising this.

I also want to thank all members in this House for speaking to this matter. But I do have to say, I don’t think family violence and these kinds of matters should have politics played upon them. And that is what we see sometimes in this House, and there is the outrage and all of the things that happen and, actually, what we really need to do is to just stop yelling at each other and start working together. Finger-pointing, blaming, and asking for resignations and all of those kinds of things—what do they do? What do they do? They do nothing. The real work has to happen across the transformation of our country around family violence work. The real work has to happen when each and every one of us puts our hand up and takes responsibility for this kind of horrific history we have in this country.

It terrifies me that more than 15 years ago I worked on the death reviews—on behalf of the Ministry of Justice—where a family violence death had occurred, and it terrifies me that the same systematic issues are appearing here, many years later. It is horrific to think that, again, the siloed mentality of practice, the failure of practice, and the systems, basically continue to support the death of our babies. And it’s just heartbreaking.

There are quite a few in this House who have done this work, who have worked in Oranga Tamariki or worked in the family violence sector or worked protecting children. Many of us have known for years what needs to change, and it’s trying to get everyone to work together to do that. We’re very lucky now that we have a joint venture on family violence and we have a strategy: Te Aorerekura. It’s really important that we have that strategy because this is part of the solution that each and every one of us have to take responsibility for.

So I want to also just acknowledge the Oranga Tamariki workers in this situation. My community, Te Puna, was where this little boy was murdered. He didn’t lose his life; he didn’t die—he was murdered. So this is where this little boy was hurt and couldn’t survive his injuries. And I want to acknowledge those Oranga Tamariki workers, because I’ve worked with many of those officers over the years. I’ve attended so many meetings with these workers, and they’ve actually done the very, very best that that they could to keep and protect our children.

But the system does not allow best practice. And that is what our Minister is saying when he is saying that, actually, we need to change the system. This system does not allow our staff who are working at Oranga Tamariki to have even the basic training around family violence work—and it’s something that I’ve come to Parliament about: the family violence skills and expertise for social workers in this country is abysmal. And the Minister, Kelvin Davis, has actually incorporated family violence practice and identification into the social work development that occurs. This is the kind of transformation that we need, that will protect and support best practice to enable when a child who, by the way, was asked by the little education provider, who hurt him or how he got hurt—he actually answered. If that organisation had known what to do—he clearly said that he was being hurt by his carer, and Oranga Tamariki didn’t pick that up, and the education provider, who has now been closed down, didn’t pick that up.

Each and every one of us, ask ourselves: if you asked a little person, “Have you been hurt?”, or “How did you get that bruise on your head?”, and they said, “I can’t tell you because such-and-such will be angry at me.”—that’s a flag that each and every one of us needs to identify as worthy of a report of concern. And then each and every one of us needs to continue to follow up those reports of concern, because there are more than 50,000 reports of concern in this country. The more reports of concern, the more attention is paid and that is not a system that is a good system; it as an overburdened and under-resourced system—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: You’re in Government.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: I just heard someone say “and you’re in Government.” I’m going to double down on what I said: this is not a political issue—this is not a political issue. This is about the death of a baby, another baby—

Nicola Grigg: Then fix it. Do something about it.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: What do you mean, “Do something about it”? At least we’ve funded family violence services, retraining our social workers to ensure they know this work, making sure that there’s Te Aorerekura with a policy that teaches each and every person in this country how to identify abuse and to report it. We’re doing so many things but it will take not just finger pointing; it will take each and every one of us to get on board and stop finger-pointing.

I want to acknowledge the hurt of Malachi’s family. I’ve been in the situation, when I worked at a refuge, of holding on to babies when they’ve been in hospital, and the Oranga Tamariki emergency social worker standing beside me was crying. So I just want to acknowledge that this work is important. It needs to be better. But these are people too, and they have done their best. But we have failed them because the system does not support what we need it to do.

I just hope I never have to make another speech like this. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time for this debate has expired, and I’d just like to thank the members for the sensitivity with which they approached this tragic event. I think it does credit to the House, the way this debate was conducted.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Acting Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into the morning of Thursday, 20 October for consideration in committee of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill.

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

Ayes 76

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

In 1997, the National Government committed to the Kyoto Protocol. It was an international commitment to reduce emissions, because the issue of climate change was emerging as perhaps the single biggest challenge the world faced into the future. Twenty-five years on, this year, this Government—sorry. If I can go back: because agriculture was almost 50 percent of our total emissions, the Minister of the day committed agriculture to those initiatives. Twenty-five years on, this Government launched last week a report that had been delivered to us from an industry group called He Waka Eke Noa. We launched it out for further consultation with some questions over some of the technical challenges, and therein lies the challenge before us.

Can I just go back to the question of why we’re doing this. In 2021, Tesco, one of the biggest supermarket chains in the world, launched to its suppliers a letter saying, “I’m therefore requesting you do four vital things. Firstly, disclose your current greenhouse gas emissions to us.” The second was “establish a net zero ambition for your business by the end of 2022; set science-based targets to support delivery of your ambition.” And the fourth thing was “switch to renewable electricity.” Now, that was from one of the biggest supermarket chains in the world.

Nestlé, one of the biggest food companies in the world, has a commitment to sustainability. In fact, it’s put out some guidelines as well. They realised that their commitment that 20 percent of key ingredients will come through regenerative agricultural methods, and that most of their emissions are created from dairy and livestock—their advice was that we should care for grasslands, store more carbon, and cut methane produced by animals during digestion through nutrition changes. They’ve partnered with Fonterra and Dairy NZ to take on board these challenges. Indeed, Fonterra is facing more and more questions around the environmental sustainability of their systems to get the right to supply.

On top of that, we’ve had McDonald’s, one of the biggest international chains, saying that they will be zero carbon by 2050 and will require the whole supply chain to be decarbonised by the same time. This is a company that takes 60 million kilograms of beef from our country. And last week at a forum that a couple of the National Party members were at, and I visited too, there was a presenter there from PricewaterhouseCoopers, who said, literally, the drumbeat for net carbon zero agriculture is getting louder by the month, driven by the enormous task confronting the world to reduce its carbon intensity by over half in only eight years. And can I say she went on to say that Morrisons, another food chain in the EU, is an early mover, aiming to meet net carbon zero for its beef by 2030, five years ahead of the industry. These are the market signals that are coming to us, a food producing nation. We have to get on with this.

And can I say that the report—and I’d like to acknowledge the huge work and commitment that the industry put into this report here—identified some of the scientific challenges of measuring, with credibility, the sequestration within the farm system. They’ve acknowledged, as we do, there’s a lot of sequestration occurring, but if it’s to be properly accounted for, we need to undertake quite an amount of scientific research. That’s why, when we put out the discussion document based on He Waka Eke Noa, we asked the questions here: “Do you support the proposed approach for recognising carbon sequestration from riparian planting and management of indigenous vegetation, both in the short and long term? Why? And what improvements could be considered?” This is out for consultation. We are wanting feedback from farmers on the ground.

The document that is being considered is the proposal put to us by the industry. We commit to those industry leaders that we’ll follow through with this. But if there’s a question, as there is from some farmers up and down the country, of why we are doing this, then go and speak to Tesco, go and speak to Nestlé, and go and speak to McDonald’s and ask them why we have to move to reduce the emissions from the food production systems that we—

Nicola Grigg: The Americans aren’t; the Canadians aren’t.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: We are. And we are some of the best farmers in the world. We must be the best farmers for the world and we’ll do that by leading the charge on lowering our emissions from agricultural production.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): It’s been a week of Shakespearean tragedy for this Government, and now is the spring of our discontent as inflation runs right across the landscape, eating into families’ budgets, adding pressure to Kiwis as they go to the supermarket, as they pay their bills.

And with inflation comes higher interest rates, as the Reserve Bank scrambles to restore its credibility as an inflation fighter. Those interest rates will hurt families across the country. An extra $26,000 a year for an average Auckland mortgage holder, we were told today. And the Reserve Bank’s task is being made harder by this Labour Government that still has its foot flat to the floor, increasing spending, adding to inflationary pressures, and starving the country of the extra workers that it needs through overly tight immigration and incompetent visa processing. And it’s still spending hundreds of millions on Depression-era make-work schemes like the Jobs for Nature.

And in this hour of need, do we see Jacinda Ardern or Grant Robertson standing up with a clear plan to get inflation under control, to restore discipline to spending, to reduce pressure on businesses and families, to give people hope? No, we don’t. We see increasing desperation.

They stand like Macbeth as they see the great Birnam wood coming against them, crabbing relentlessly across the plain. All their announcements of spending, all their good intentions, they don’t stop the relentless march of inflation, of falling real incomes, of worse outcomes on every measure: with the wait times in emergency departments, on ram raids, on school attendance, on emergency housing, on people on job seeker benefits, on access to help for mental health all getting worse, despite all the spending—despite an extra billion dollars a week since they came into office.

And then—and then—enter stage left, holding a dagger, enters Dr Gaurav Sharma saying, “I have supp’d full with horrors, and I’m out of here.” The people of Hamilton will have their chance to give their verdict on the Government, the ram-raiding capital of New Zealand will have a chance to stand up and say to this Government, “How have you gone?”, and their wrath will lie hot on the necks of this Government.

And then, lurking in the shadows, we see Willie Jackson and Kelvin Davis like demented versions on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, accusing everybody who disagrees with them with racism, and if they’re Māori then they’re not Māori enough, and Jacinda Ardern looks the other way.

As to the Shakespeare itself, well that was a speedy U-turn, wasn’t it? The Prime Minister spent Monday saying of the Arts Council will, when they pulled the funding for the Shakespeare festival, “Oh, it’s nothing to do with us. They’re independent.” The next thing, she tells the education Minister to find some money pronto—and he did.

And the Prime Minister said she acted in the festival, and there’s a lot of speculation as to what roles she took. Was it Bottom from A Midsummer Night’s Dream, perhaps, who said, “The eye of man hath not heard, the ear of man hath not seen, man’s hand is not able to taste, his tongue to conceive, nor his heart to report what my dream was.” Maybe that was Bottom. But I think probably Cleopatra. It was said of her that,

The barge that she sat in, like a burnish’d throne,

Burned on the water.

I think that might be appropriate for the Prime Minister. But I have been told, actually, that it was Lady Macbeth. And then she wrung her hands together not with hand sanitiser but saying, “Out, damned spot! Out!” And yet, Gaurav keeps coming back—he keeps coming back!

What it doesn’t remove is any of the changes that they’ve made: they’ve got Education paying for the Shakespeare festival, but the point is, the Arts Council said that the festival “did not demonstrate the relevance to contemporary art … in Aotearoa.”

Have we become so insular, so small-minded, that our kids can only engage in contemporary, local stuff? Can we not find inspiration from the timeless glories of the past? Aren’t we as a country best when we’re fully engaged with the rest of the world, we’re confident when we take the best of what there is to offer, and enjoy it? The Arts Council seems to have forgotten—it goes on about biculturalism, but forgets that there are two sides to biculturalism, and the British side of history has a lot to offer and a lot to enjoy and a lot to engage in. This attitude that comes from this Government has flowed through to the Arts Council and has ended up with Shakespeare. Well, the only thing I could say is that it will come to a sticky end—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The soliloquy has come to an end, Mr Goldsmith.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I want to thank that Māori—oh no, that’s right, he’s not a Māori—the man, I think he’s from Ngāti Porou? No, the National Party thinks he’s from Ngāti Porou! The poor member doesn’t know where he’s from or who he is, and that was pretty evident in today’s speech.

I want to talk about all the great Māori things that are happening, Māori initiatives, and the great Māori economic development that’s happening out there. You would have heard some of that in question time today, but I want to first of all address Rawiri Waititi and how disappointed I was with his kōrero today. I could not believe he was talking about asking for the resignation of someone who is so committed to a kaupapa, in terms of children and in terms of our people, and I am very disappointed with him given his background—

Nicola Grigg: He’s not here.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —having worked with him. It’s all right, I’ll ring him up afterwards—don’t worry. I’ll message him. I just could not believe it, given the changes that have happened with this Minister. This is a Minister who’s committed to devolving to the community—absolutely committed. Sack the whole board, for goodness sake—sack the whole board? Replace that board with a totally Māori board? Take it from me, too, and others here who’ve worked on the ground, these problems, they’re not solved overnight. They’re terrible. I’ve seen it in my own community. I’ve worked in my own community on the ground. I’ve gone in and taken babies off families.

We have watched families mistreat kids and babies—terrible—through the years. And so you need a strong leadership at Government level—whether that was Labour, National, or whoever. It doesn’t matter if you have a Minister who was committed. That’s what you wanted, and we’ve got that here. And I’m, as I said, really disappointed with the approach from the Māori Party on this given, I thought, they would have seen all the changes and their people—their people—on the very boards that are overseeing this. And we’ve still got problems. So I want to mihi to my mate Kelvin Davis. Well done. Yes, his commitment—I know how taumaha [burdened] he is at the moment—but he will, with the support of people in the House from all sides, get there. Marama Davidson is working closely with us in terms of Te Aorerekura. We know the work going on in that area. She’s just been brilliant. So I mihi to him.

I want to move now, though, to the wonderful things that are happening in terms of Māori economic development; the unemployment rate for Māori down to 3.3 percent. When I was employment Minister, I talked about the day when—sorry, down to 5.5 percent; general rate is 3.3 percent. That’s happened because of the investment in kaupapa Māori initiatives: programmes like Māori trade training, Mana in Mahi, He Poutama Rangatahi, Progressive Procurement. This is about programmes targeting and investing in our people. There have been partnerships with Māori right across the country, so the unemployment numbers are not accidental. They’ve come about because of the investment and the targeting in terms of Māori across the country—partnering with communities, partnering with organisations, working with Pākehā, too, at ground level who have a real investment in communities. We’re not choosy; if we have Pākehā people who have worked alongside Māori all their lives, we will partner up with them too, so they can be involved in Māori trade training, He Poutama Rangatahi, Progressive Procurement. And we have started to turn around some of the terrible statistics. So I’m pleased in terms of Māori economic development.

I’m pleased in terms of Māori housing: $730 million invested in Māori housing has created economic and employment opportunities right across the country. With papa kāinga, we’re building 1,000 new houses. And what’s the National Party’s response? Well, we hear it—we heard it in the last couple of days: they want to privatise welfare by setting up a social investment fund that will allow wealthy New Zealanders to donate to welfare. Someone needs to tell the National Party we already have a social investment fund that their wealthy mates can pay into: it’s called the taxation system. I know that’s hard for them to contemplate, but maybe we would have more of a fund to spend if the National Party didn’t keep trying to lower the top tax rate. That’s the problem. Why is the National Party embarking on this strategy, where they’re sort of rolling out the old economist Milton Friedman? You know, they base everything on these types of economics. There’s a real ideological problem going on. That’s why we have to set up this wonderful TVNZ-RNZ merger, which is going to be the future for all of us. We’ll see ourselves, hear ourselves. What a future we have. Kia ora tātou.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it’s a pleasure to take a call in the general debate. I want to go back to the Hon Damien O’Connor, who spent five minutes trying to back his way out of He Waka Eka Noa and explain it away. He did raise some very good points. The market definitely has great ambition, and no one can actually deny that or actually knock it—that’s fantastic. Unfortunately, the ambition is moving ahead of the technology, and that is the problem with the Government’s response to tax farmers. They are actually ahead of the technology to measure things adequately, and they’re well ahead of our trading partners. And that is an issue that the National Party stands against, but my colleague Nicola Grigg will speak more on that when she gets her call.

I want to bring it back to the energy sector because those points are exactly what has happened in the energy sector, and we only need to look to Europe and the UK. This is such a serious problem that many people will die this winter in Europe and in the UK because of the rising cost of energy. In most places, their energy bills are five times what they were last year. People will have to make the terrible decision between whether to eat or to heat, and that is—in a cold climate that is right around Europe and in the UK—effectively, a life and death decision for some poor families. The reality is that affects low-income people the most.

It is, actually, largely a problem of their own making. They tried to eliminate energy options ahead of the technology to cope without it. So wind and solar were going to be the nirvana, the renewable energy that would be the key to net zero. Unfortunately, they can’t do it on their own. That’s not to say wind and solar aren’t good technologies; they are, but you can’t do it on your own, Mr Speaker—not you, of course. The Europeans and those in the UK are finding out to their cost, now, the folly of their ways. They tried to import their energy—to get someone else to sin for them. In this case, it was the Russians. All of this problem had nothing to do with the Ukrainian situation. That has brought it to a head sooner than many expected, but it was coming anyway, and we are heading down the same track.

We are fortunate that we’re not connected to the international energy markets—particularly gas. We’re isolated here. That has advantages, but it has disadvantages as well. The UK is paying really high energy prices because their interconnectors connect them to the European market. They are paying the European price for their gas, which is largely how they heat their homes. Here in New Zealand, we are isolated. If we ran out of gas, we would have to import liquefied natural gas. We couldn’t do that overnight.

I’ve been out and met with Methanex, which is the largest user of gas in New Zealand. Without that one, single, big customer—either Methanex or someone else—the gas industry will fall over. Unless the gas industry invests in developing their wells continuously, the wells decline quite quickly. They won’t be able to raise money to do that if they don’t have a large customer.

The oil and gas ban had a massively perverse effect on our international reputation. It’s trashed our sovereign risk rating significantly. I also met with Ballance Agri-Nutrients Ltd today who make fertilisers in New Zealand, and they will be out of business in 2030 at the rate of change that we have with our emissions allocations for energy intensive export-trade exposed industries. They will go out of business.

At this stage, we are on track to decarbonise by deindustrialising. That doesn’t just mean losing jobs; that means importing goods into New Zealand with higher emissions. How’s that good for climate change? It’s not. We have to face up to the reality that this is a long pathway and we can’t go out on our own. We have to put New Zealand’s interests ahead of personal ambition and actually face up to the fact that we can’t move ahead of the rest of the world.

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

[Greetings, Mr Speaker, and to all the members of this House, greetings one and all.]

We’ve just returned back from two weeks’ recess. Like many of us, it’s a time to go back into our electorate and I did exactly that. I want to talk on what I saw and who I engaged with in those two weeks, and I want to talk about the many farmers up and down this country who invited me on their farms.

I’ll talk about Quintin Morgan from Nepuroa, Ben Purua from Tapapa, Sophie Hunt from Kihikihi, Richard McIntyre—you might know Richard because he is the president of Federated Farmers (Fed Farmers)—in his farm on Porou Kakouko. I also went to Ngāi Takoto farms in the Far North. I’ve been engaging with Morrinsville young farmers. I’ve been to Ngāi Tahu farms. I’ve been to Parininihi ki Waitotara farms. I’ve also been to the mighty Poverty Bay A&P show.

What I can tell you out there is of course there are challenges in our primary sector, but let’s be real. In this year—the end of June 2022—the primary sector situation return in export earnings hit the $50 billion mark. It hit $52 billion, of which beef and lamb was an increase of 18 percent.

So I’ve heard in this House this week that there’s going to be, with the emissions pricing plan, a decline in beef and sheep when we know 18 percent earnings went up in this year alone.

I’m not saying it’s just the Government, but it is a Government that during two years of challenges have identified our agriculture primary sector as essential workers. It has allowed them to operate as well as support them. But we’ve bought returns because our Minister for Trade and Export Growth has carved two free-trade agreements—in the EU and the UK—all towards supporting our primary industry.

Yes, the emissions pricing proposed by the Government was released last week. Let’s look at all the partners who are on He Waka Eke Noa, who formed in 2019. Let’s name them: Agriculture New Zealand, Beef + Lamb New Zealand, DairyNZ, Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand, Deer Industry New Zealand, Federation of Māori Authorities, Fed Farmers New Zealand, Foundation for Arable Research, Horticulture New Zealand, Irrigation New Zealand, the Meat Industry Association, the Ministry for Primary Industries, and the Ministry for the Environment.

This is the partnership group who presented their proposals, which this Government has endorsed with those areas that we have identified that are out for consultation. If that side haven’t read it, let me help you identify those issues that are out there for consultation. We’re talking about the levy to be set out for consultation, governance arrangements to be consulted, how farmers and growers will report and pay for emissions, and what on-farm actions—including sequestration—will be recognised.

So let’s bring it all back. Let’s remove all the noise, all the slogans, and let’s go back to an industry group full of partners who presented a proposal which the Government on this side has heard. The Government on this side has put it out, and have also identified quite clearly in our proposal launched last week the areas that we want to consult for farmers and I’ve just identified. That is it; it’s not a big issue in the sense of the world’s going to collapse and farmers and the rural community are going to fall down. It’s not about that. This is about us taking our global advantage, as we continue to do, to punch above our weight internationally.

I can say this: in the recent travels to both India and Singapore, they are looking at New Zealand because they realise our primary production is world-leading and they recognise that we can have productivity by also being a sustainable and a very safe producer of food. I have every confidence in all our farmers up and down the country that they will be able to pivot to what is this challenge.

Nicola Grigg: A pivot, don’t tell them that. You won’t get invited back.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Well, it is. It is.

Simeon Brown: It’s a tax.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: It’s not a tax. It’s being competitive in the international and global market like we continue to do. This is an emissions proposal I am very proud to underscore in this House, to recognise all the partners who have done an enormous amount of work.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The ACT Party believes that if New Zealand wants to show the world that we are proud of our liberal democracy, we have to be willing and capable of defending it. It was good to see the Minister of Defence putting the spotlight on the issues that he and the Defence Force are facing, in a recent media interview, especially on the back of comments made publicly by the Chief of Defence Force last month. The most pressing issue, which has been well canvassed in the media—well, to some degree, anyway; I’m trying to help with that—is attrition, particularly with the army. The Minister stated, in his recent interview, “These are some of the worst rates that the Defence Force has seen in its history.” While the army’s overall attrition rate of 17.4 percent, as reported in August, is troubling in and of itself, an even bleaker picture emerges when you drill down into the details.

If we take the Royal New Zealand Armoured Corps as an example, those with the rank of private are leaving at a staggering rate of 51 percent, up from an already high attrition last year of 26 percent. The trades in particular are suffering, and it’s bad wherever you look. Firefighters are as high as 60 percent. For electricians, it’s up to 66 percent, and for electronic warfare operators, which is something that is becoming a bit more important in this theatre, the attrition rate is up to 68 percent—absolutely astonishing. A smoking-hot labour market, as the Minister of Defence put it, is attracting people away from the Defence Force. So the question is: how will the Government respond in terms of remuneration and working conditions for defence personnel? The Minister also noted that Operation Protect was the last straw for many personnel, which was, basically, as we know, posting soldiers to guard hotel rooms. Indeed, figures earlier this year put it at over 600 personnel—I’m sure that number is higher now—of those who were involved in Operation Protect have now left the Defence Force.

That leads me to the issue of remuneration. It was quite something when the Chief of Defence Force said recently that the $90 million over four years, as promised in Budget 2022, just doesn’t cut it. With inflation soaring, it has been wiped out in an instant. I applaud the Minister for being upfront, when asked if we pay the Defence Force personnel enough, and he said, “Me personally, I don’t think we do.” One stat that is incredibly concerning is that there are 2,746 army personnel with a base salary less than $44,096 per year. The reason I asked about such a precise figure is because that’s minimum wage. So the party that is supposedly for the worker is paying a third of its uniformed personnel below the minimum wage just because they can get away with it in the armed forces. That is staggering. No wonder, in the findings from the latest pulse survey—that’s the internal Defence Force survey—63 percent of respondents did not agree with the statement “The pay I receive is fair for the work I do.”

A brief but important note on recruitment—it’s part of the equation—according to the Minister, 62 percent of job types have not met their enlistment targets this year, and that, I’m sure, goes some way to explaining the Chief of Defence Force stating that it could take up to 10 years to get out of this hole that they’re in. One quick point on leadership that is a worry: the latest pulse survey also produced quite a shock result. When personnel were presented with the statement “I trust senior/organisational leadership.” just 19 percent of Defence Force personnel agreed with that statement—in terms of trusting their leadership; 19 percent. It’s astonishing. So what does this all mean for the country and for the Defence Force? Well, capabilities across the board will be severely impacted. New Zealand will not be able to respond to calls for assistance from our friends in the Pacific or confront threats in our backyard. If the situation doesn’t improve, the Defence Force is actually at risk of collapse, as attrition severely outweighs recruitment.

So what would ACT do? Well, New Zealand needs to do its part in protecting our way of life and values. We need to invest in ourselves and strengthen our alliances. By doing so, we make it clear that we are a proud nation that will protect its waters and territories if necessary. We say that we should demonstrate the same commitment as our traditional allies—2 percent of GDP. In dollars, that means we are committing to over $9 billion annually by 2026. That is almost double what Labour would spend. This significant increase in spending would send a message to our defence personnel that we value their service and, to the rest of the world, that we take our defence obligations in our backyard seriously. In Government, ACT will ensure that the Defence Force has the people, the equipment, and the means necessary to defend our nation. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The National Party are treating New Zealanders like fools. They think that they can say one thing to one group and another thing to another group and that no one will notice. They think that they can sign this country up to international climate change agreements, do nothing, and then when this Government does something, they can complain and no one will join the dots. But here we are today, seeing exactly the same thing.

Damien O’Connor stands there today and outlines a pragmatic approach to work with industry to deal with agricultural emissions, and the National Party scream out “We need the technology first.”, as if no one in the country can remember what that party did. When the Helen Clark Government proposed a levy for agricultural research to deal with methane emissions, their leader, Bill English, stood on the forecourt of Parliament and held a sign that said “The mad cow shouldn’t have signed”. The National Party MPs walked around the forecourt of Parliament saying “No fart tax”—a levy that would have paid for research into agriculture emissions and reducing methane emissions—and now they stand up today and say, “We couldn’t possibly do anything to address this.”

They’re ignoring the future-value markets that we could capitalise on, ignoring all the facts that are in front of them, and saying, “We can’t do it until we have the research and technology.”, despite the fact that they have denied and opposed every effort to get there. They signed us up to the Kyoto Protocol and then did nothing, they signed us up to the Paris Agreement, and then did nothing, and every step along the way that this Government has tried to work with industry to reduce emissions, they have whinged, they have moaned, and they have opposed.

They tell the country that they want to meet the targets that this Parliament has agreed to on reducing agricultural emissions by 2030, yet when we have a proposal that has been put together by industry and led by industry initially—under Barbara Kuriger—they come up with a measured response. Then Luxon gets the yips and says, “No, we’re going to reverse it. We’re going to repeal it.” So how on earth are they going to live up to the commitment that they have made to join forces and actually reduce agricultural emissions by 2030, which is what they say to one group, when they say to the other groups, “No, we’re going to reverse it.”? It doesn’t add up, and I don’t think that New Zealanders will fall for it.

Nicola Grigg: They’re all telling you it doesn’t work. Maybe start listening.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: And Nicola Grigg can yell all she likes, like she did during Damien O’Connor’s speech. “We need the technology.”—where was that when we were proposing a levy to put money into agricultural research? They are deliberately ignoring the fact that anything raised through this proposal will go into agricultural research to ensure that farmers can continue to obtain as much value as possible in high-value markets and have a sustainable industry.

They seem to believe that New Zealanders will fall for the idea that if we do nothing, we will magically reach the targets that we’ve committed to and that farmers won’t have to deal with climate change. Now, in my role as emergency management Minister, I see week in, week out the reality of climate change. It is farmers and rural communities that are bearing the brunt, and I think it’s incredibly disingenuous for Nicola Grigg to laugh as I’m outlining the impact on rural communities, the communities that she is supposed to look after and that she is supposed to advocate for. Go to Marlborough and laugh, go to Nelson and laugh, go to Northland and laugh—

Nicola Grigg: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I’d just place for the record that I take offence to that comment that I should “Go to Marlborough, love”—this, coming from one of the biggest-named bullies in this Parliament.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Speaking to the point of order, I think that was unnecessary when it was clear to everybody that I said “laugh”, not “love”. I was talking about her laughing during comments about the impact on rural communities. There is no way that I would ever call another parliamentarian “love”.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I heard the comment, Nicola Grigg, and he did say “laugh’, not “love”. Continue, the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Nevertheless, despite what I think is a genuine misunderstanding there—I’ll put it down to that—I think I did hit a nerve, because there is a track record here.

There’s a track record of saying that there was no housing crisis, and then when this Government comes in and deals with the housing crisis, they criticise and say that there are no houses—and, yet again, they laugh. I’ll give you an example. In Wairarapa in 1999, the National Party sold all the State houses in our region—in Wairarapa and in the Tararua District—and it’s this Government that is bringing social housing back to that region. They can try and hoodwink the country all they like, but no one, I believe, is going to fall for it.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): I was thinking, just earlier, after hearing Damien O’Connor’s contribution to the House followed by Meka Whaitiri’s, that we’d heard two valedictory speeches this evening, and I think I can add a third to that list. Yet another five-minute diatribe just proving nothing but what a tin ear the Ministers of this Crown have. We hear nothing but denial and defence coming out from this Government. They are so, so enthusiastic about rewriting history.

The facts of the matter are the industry, the 11 partnership groups of He Waka Eke Noa (HEWN), took a proposal to the Government. The Government has come back with its response just last week. It has dumped the parts that the farming sector was prepared to sign up to. That is what the so-called “whinging and carping and griping” that Kieran McAnulty talks about is about, because, once again, this industry has been roundly ignored by this Government. And, yes, we do, on this side of the House, stand by the fact that we will not support a pricing mechanism until the science and technology is in place, otherwise it is not a levy; it is a tax. It is a tax on food while our country is in the grip of a cost of living crisis, and this Government is doing nothing but to fan the flames of that crisis.

Nobody on that side of the House is talking about the 20 percent of sheep and beef farms that are going to go out of business. By the Government’s own numbers, one in five sheep and beef farmers in this country will go out of business, and they have the nerve to talk about this side of the House criticising them and not supporting this proposal. We would support this proposal if it was fair and if it was equitable. We have said from the outset that the National Party does support emissions pricing for the agricultural sector if there are fair and reasonable sequestration options in place; if there is the science and technology in place. We will not stand by a proposal that puts one in five of our sheep and beef farmers out of business. We will not stand by a proposal that sees our richest industry, the industry that earns this country some money, sent offshore to high-emitting farming countries. We will not stand by it, we will not support it, and I do not apologise for calling the Government out on it.

If you don’t want to hear it from me, Mr McAnulty, maybe have a look at the latest industry rag out this week. Here we go: “Govt ‘fails fairness test’ on HWEN”. “HWEN has farmers upset over offsets”. “Sector flags ‘immediate concerns’ on HWEN”. There is no balancing of the ledger on the levy; take that from the people in the industry, Mr McAnulty. And while Ms Whaitiri crows away about the farmers inviting her on to their place, I’ll tell you what: it ain’t for tea and tinnies. It is to try, in a desperate, final attempt—in the six weeks they’ve got left, it is to try and educate this Government as to what it is doing to our most productive sector. Fifteen percent of this country earns 50 percent of its revenue, and you lot over that side of the House should pay wise words to that.

Every single one of the industry groups, the 11 groups that signed up to this thing, have reacted angrily and have opposed the Government’s response to it. Once again: you took their advice back in May; perhaps you best start listening to them now. As you keep saying, they are the industry. They are the ones at the coal face. They are the ones who should know what they’re talking about. Well, they’re telling you now: this thing does not work, and the National Party wants to work with those groups and find something that will work. We are committed to reducing carbon emissions. We do agree the primary sector does need to pay its way, and it plays an important part in designing a system, designing its own process for recording and pricing those emissions. It can only happen, though, if farmers are allowed all options of sequestration. That includes shelterbelts; that includes riparian planting; that includes native bush and reserves.

A National Government would invest in driving technology. It wouldn’t just announce $300 million technology incentives and funds and just write a press release and put it out; it would actually invest. Come down to my electorate. Come and visit Lincoln Agritech and all those solutions are right there. They have been developed. They need some sort of system to commercialise them and incentivise them. I would suggest, Mr McAnulty, if you want me up in Marlborough having a look at the flood damage, come down to my electorate, take a look at the technology being developed down there, put your money where your mouth is, and start investing behind them.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Well, National talk a big game—they talk a big game, whether it’s the environment, where they’re non-committal; whether it’s law and order and their lack of delivery; or whether it’s their hollow promises. Underlying all of that is an agenda to cut services—to cut our basic services to provide a tax cut for the top tier and provide nothing for those below.

I often think that the Hutt Valley is a little bit of a snapshot of the world. In fact, I might be a little bit biased, but I think it’s pretty much got everything. When I look at the level of investment in the Hutt Valley—and I shudder to think what we would look like if a National Government got a hold and cut services. What sort of things would people’s lives have to go through if a National Government got into power and actually started to cut those services and reduce those things that people rely on?

Last week, the Lower Hutt area got $98.9 million for infrastructure—much needed; over 200 kilometres of stormwater pipes to free up land and to make way for more housing. We’ll see more housing—up to 3,500 additional homes built through the RiverLink and the Valley Floor project through this additional money made through the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund. It’s been welcomed across the board by all parts, including our Hutt City Council. It’s fantastic news for Lower Hutt, and it means that we will have more ability to build much-needed houses. And that’s exactly what we’re doing, with record consents for housing and social housing being built as well. Epuni: 160 units. Waterloo—and more being built across the board. We are seeing more homes being built and the infrastructure in place to let those houses be built. I question whether that level of investment and development in people’s lives and wellbeing would continue if taxes were cut, if taxes were given to those on the top, and our funding was cut to those critical investment services that we’re providing.

In terms of transport, we’ve got RiverLink funded—a game-changer for the Hutt; a significant interchange—as well as much-needed RiverLink with flood protection across the board. We’re also seeing a full cycle network being developed, with Te Ara Tupua, the shared pathway all the way between the Hutt Valley and Wellington; the Eastern Bays cycleway, right around the bays; and also the Beltway connecting up to give people transport choices in being able to get from A to B safely.

I’ve already spoken about housing, but let’s touch on the schools—all public schools that I’ve seen and visited receiving much-needed funding for their building: leaky roofs fixed, libraries put in place, playgrounds built. All of those schools that lack the funding in their buildings budget to be able to make repairs and put additional classrooms in place for growing roles have now taken place right across the Hutt Valley. That includes the three major high schools: Tawa College, Hutt Valley High School, and Wainuiomata High School all having a significant rebuild from the ground up to make sure we have warm, safe, dry learning areas for our young people.

After that, we see big changes also in trade training. What I’ve enjoyed doing over the last recess is going and visiting some of those businesses that have benefited from the 50,000 apprentices who have got our trade training scheme in place. Not only were young people given the opportunity to learn and earn at the same time, but those employers who might not have otherwise been able to afford to pay for their apprentice in the first or second year were now able to do that. I saw a young Māori business owner who’d worked as a boat builder and was now putting himself through a joinery apprenticeship and making bespoke, beautiful whakairo-inspired carvings—a whole range of joinery—and doing an incredible job at that. The ability to take a trade training boost and get involved had opened that business up to serve more and to boost him and his business and the local economy.

The range of infrastructure projects we see booming in the Hutt Valley is reflective of the wider New Zealand and the detailed plan to put them into place in areas that need that help, and that will stimulate our local economy. All of the projects I’ve mentioned provide not only better amenities for families and better income for our local economy and our local businesses but also job opportunities for our young people. So here’s to keeping on going, keeping the momentum going, and making sure we invest where we need. I don’t want to look at an alternate universe that has cuts to those critical areas and cuts to where people will suffer in the long term, because this is a Government dedicated to progress and dedicated to putting people first.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Fakaalofa lahi atu ki a mutolu oti, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to participate in this debate. I did want to acknowledge the passion of our rural MPs advocating for their constituencies, both on this side and that side of the House. As someone that lives in a rural province as well, in a rural village as well, these are the sorts of issues which come front of mind all the time for me as well.

Climate denial has gone; it has left the building. But what we still have now is climate procrastination. We have climate procrastination where folks, whether willingly or not willingly, or unwittingly, are kicking the can so far down the road that we’re running out of road. The floods in Pakistan just recently were so severe—so severe—that you could see them from outer space. That’s how bad they were. And these erratic weather events are happening all the time. We’re having, you know, 500-year floods every other year. And I’m mindful of all the events that happened in Whakatū, our whānau down in Nelson, all throughout the Tairāwhiti as well. It’s like every other day there’s something that’s happening with the weather. I mean, it was snowing just the other week as well, in the middle of autumn. So it’s important that we, as members of this House, do all that we can to actually—instead of listening to the noise, the white noise, the busyness, that we actually listen to the science. Let’s listen to the science. That’s what’s important. And the science is telling us that we actually need to take action right now. That action needs to happen right now.

I was just reflecting on a report that just came out from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, where they were talking about offsets. It showed in that report that it would take 6,000 square metres of pine forests for us to offset the methane emissions from a single dairy cow, and 4,000 square metres of pine forests to offset the emissions from a single beef animal. For the rugby fans out there, that’s the equivalent of a rugby field of pine trees for just two animals—for just two animals. So that tells me—that should tell us—that we can’t rely on offsets. That’s what the science tells us.

And so this proposal that we’ve been talking about this afternoon—some supporting it, some not supporting it—will go in front for public consultation. But at the end of the day, what we need to happen is for those emissions to come down—those methane emissions to come down. That’s what we should all be aiming for. So there’s a bunch of things that we’ve been advocating for for a while now, as Green MPs: making sure that when we put a price on agricultural emissions, that it actually comes down as well. And we know, because of the Commissioner’s report, that offsets are not going to do it. Let’s look at tradable methane quotas as well; that’s something that our Minister for Climate Change, James Shaw, has been pushing on, that the emissions trading scheme (ETS) is not up to it. Let’s look at something else to see, to make sure that those emissions come down as well. We also want synthetic nitrogen fertiliser brought into the ETS—that causes intensive dairying, which contributes to climate change—so making sure that’s on there as well, we think, would help to actually bring down emissions.

There’s other things as well—for example, palm kernel expeller; making sure that we phase that out, because the optics of that are just terrible. Whether you want to have an argument about whether it’s a product or a by-product or whatever, it is contributing to deforestation in places like Indonesia—it’s just a bad look. It’s a bad look for the industry and a bad look for exports from New Zealand as well. So we need to actually be mindful that we do that as well.

We just don’t have time, and we need more than a groundswell. What we need is a “mindswell”. So I would invite members from across the House, both sides—that’s left side, right side, upside down side—to actually listen to the science and whatever we propose, bring those emissions down.

I did have a bit of a moment of “Back to the Future” when Kieran McAnulty was speaking, because I actually remember being out on the forecourt when Bill English rode up on his tractor. I didn’t know what it was all about, and I found out about it later, and it was protesting against the carbon tax. That was in 2003, I think. Nearly 20 years—20 years. We’re at the endgame here, folks. Whatever we’ve got to do, we’ve got to do it now. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): It’s my pleasure to rise in this House tonight to talk about the economy. Yes, there’s a lot to be done, but it’s worth noting that the size of our economy now is larger than it was pre-COVID and we, as a country, are now in a strong position to face any future global turbulence. I’ll give some examples.

The median earnings growth is at its highest rate since records began in 1998. Unemployment is at its near record low of 3.3 percent, and 100,000 people have moved off the benefit and into work in the past year. Young people are outperforming every other age group in entering the workforce, and filled jobs for people from 15 to 19 are now up 18 percent compared to year on year. And in New Zealand, our inflation rate is below the OECD average and our economy has pulled through the pandemic better than we did during the global financial crisis.

That’s what happens when you have a Government that believes that the economy exists to support people. That’s what happens when you put people first. And like my fantastic colleague the member for Hutt South mentioned in her fantastic speech, in the Waimakariri electorate where I live, there’s been significant growth in the last five years. Building consents are up, houses are getting built, and builders are taking on apprentices. If anyone wants to get into the trades, then we want you in the Waimakariri electorate. Phone my office and we’ll get you in touch with the people that can help you out.

Last week, the Hon Dr Megan Woods announced a massive Government infrastructure spend through the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund (IAF) to allow for thousands of more homes—11,500 in total—for New Zealanders and their families. And a portion of this investment is going into the Waimakariri electorate. Rangiora, specifically, will receive $5.7 million for transport and three waters projects, which is expected to accelerate the delivery of around 1,300 affordable homes, and they’ll be a range of homes in a development in north-east Rangiora.

Last week, the Waimakariri District Council acting chief executive, Jeff Millwood, said that the IAF funding will help bring a greater number of sections to the market much sooner than would otherwise have been possible. Over the weekend, I went and visited where this money has been invested, just down the road from my place, in the Bellgrove Rangiora development. Already that development has excavators clearing ground and drainlayers preparing for three waters infrastructure down Kippenberger Ave. This IAF investment is going to provide a significant boost to the local economy, not just for builders but also for electricians, earthmoving contractors, plumbers, and drainlayers.

Now, there’ll also be another second-order advantage due to an increased patronage of local cafes, initially from tradies working in the area, but then from residents who move into the Bellgrove subdivision and call Rangiora home. This investment will generate work for apprentices to complete the competencies towards their apprenticeships. And because the Bellgrove development area aims to address the housing needs of the community through medium-density housing, it will be affordable. And due to the apprenticeships being free, some of these apprentices, you know, they’ll come out of their time and they may even be able to purchase their first home in that same Bellgrove subdivision, because they’re not burdened with a student loan. So Waimakariri is a fantastic place to be a tradie.

That’s what it looks like when, in the economy, we put people first and investment trickles throughout all of society, not from the top down, like the other side of the House propose, but where the average person gets to see the benefits of the Government investment. I’m proud that we are following two themes with the management of our economy. Firstly, we are looking inwards, investing in our people so that we can have a diverse and resilient workforce as we rebuild post COVID-19 and, secondly, we are looking outwards, because there is an increasing global economic turbulence ahead and to prepare for that turbulence we’ve decided not to take on more debt to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest New Zealanders. We know that that would undermine our position, because that’s what we saw recently in the UK.

We’ve come out of the emergency COVID response in a stronger position than we did after the global financial crisis and we are now the envy of many nations around the world. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. In this place we talk a lot about what we know, or what we’ve experienced. In some people’s cases they also talk about what they know nothing about. I can tell you, though, that I know what it’s like to come home to a mother in tears because she has to choose between paying for power, between paying for the phone, between paying for petrol to get to work or groceries to feed her children. I can tell you that I know what it’s like to have fishcakes for Christmas dinner. I know what it feels like when there’s not enough food in the house for all the children to make lunch for school. I know what it’s like because I have lived it. I get it. Times are tough at the moment, and some of our families are struggling. But that’s why I am proud that on this side of the House, instead of listening to the braying from the Opposition benches, we haven’t cut spending on education or health as they would have done. Instead, we rolled out the cost of living payment to help our families get through.

I know that every little bit counts; every bit helps when you are budgeting down to the last cent. I also know that cutting taxes for the wealthy does not trickle down. It does not give more money to those who are struggling. I know that because during the global financial crisis, when National cut spending and borrowed money to pay for taxes for the wealthy, I left uni. And what did I leave with? Thousands of dollars of debt, two degrees, and no job because nobody was hiring. It took seven months of applying for work before I even got a part-time job. By contrast, our Government has shepherded us through the pandemic by backing Kiwis—backing our businesses.

During the management of this pandemic we’ve seen wages increase, record low levels of unemployment, and jobs aplenty. Instead of the 6.7 percent of unemployment under National, we’ve got it down to 3.3 percent. If the trickle-down effect truly worked, then every one of us would be going out there looking for the biggest, flashest house in the nicest suburb and we’d be giving those homeowners money. Then we would watch as that money trickled down to someone who’s living rough so they could get into their own home. But we don’t do that, because trickle-down theory doesn’t work. Even Liz Truss has cottoned on to that, so why hasn’t National?

There is cause for hope, and there is cause for optimism. I spent a glorious two weeks in my electorate where I held constituent meetings in Whanganui, Hāwera, and Eltham. I attended the blessing of Wai o Rua - Stratford Aquatic Centre and the first birthday of the Stratford bike park. Both of those projects are loved by the Stratford community. Both of those projects receive funding from this Government, which created local jobs.

I popped in to some of our local businesses to check on how they are doing, and I can tell you that they are feeling hopeful and optimistic. I chatted with Russell, a small-business owner who told me he’s been thinking about retiring, but he’s got a problem. The problem is he’s got too much work. He’s got a sign saying he can’t take on new jobs. So instead of retiring, he’s planning to continue on working to meet demand. Then I talked with Libby, a small-business owner who’s just moved and expanded her business, and it’s doing so well even during school holidays which tend to be a bit quiet. She was flat out. Angela Roberts and I hosted a stall at the Women’s Lifestyle Expo in New Plymouth, and even shoppers there were hopeful and optimistic, just like the stallholders.

This Government is building more houses. Just recently we had an announcement from Minister Megan Woods supporting infrastructure in Whanganui; pipes in the ground in Castlecliff to build 340 new homes there. I want to acknowledge the work of Tūpoho and the Whanganui District Council.

Times are challenging, but I can tell you that from out there on the streets, there is hope and there is optimism, thanks to this Government.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Plain Language Bill

Third Reading

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I move, That the Plain Language Bill be now read a third time.

It is a pleasure to take a call, today, on the third reading of my bill, the Plain Language Bill. I want to begin my contribution by acknowledging my colleague and Minister for the Public Service, the Hon Chris Hipkins, who was the original drafter of the bill. Minister Hipkins drafted the bill, back in 2012, based on similar legislation implemented in the United States. The US Plain Writing Act of 2010 requires the Federal Government to write all new publications, forms, and publicly distributed documents in a clear, concise, well-organised manner that follows the best practices of plain language writing.

The purpose of the Plain Language Bill is to improve the effectiveness and accountability of Public Service agencies and Crown agents, and to improve the accessibility of certain documents that they make available to the public by providing for those documents to use language that is appropriate to the intended audience, and clear, concise, and well organised.

New Zealand is at its best when we can all understand and easily participate in our democracy. Every day, Government agencies are engaged in communication with the public. When Government agencies are explaining services, benefits, or how to comply with requirements, they should use plain language and avoid jargon.

As MPs, it is common to provide support to constituents who have had difficulty interpreting letters or Government documents. This is particularly the case for constituents who are migrants or who have English as a second language. When people are seeking information, it’s important that the information is accessible and easy to understand. This bill will help make that happen.

Using plain language and simple words makes sentences easier to scan and makes content more accessible to a wider range of people, including people whose first language is not English. I want to thank everyone who participated in the select committee process, where we made a number of changes to the bill, including defining “document” as anything that sets out text in a visible and tangible form and medium, like print, or in a visible form by electronic means, like a web page on an internet site; replacing the definition of “relevant document” to make clear what documents must use plain language; clarifying that only documents in English must use plain language; making it clear that the Act would not restrict a reporting agency from including te reo Māori in any relevant document; making it clear that a relevant document is one that is intended for public consumption; clarifying who “the public” is, for the purpose of the bill; clarifying that just because a document is made available to the public under the Official Information Act, this does not mean it should be a relevant document for the purposes of the bill; stating that agencies must take reasonable steps to ensure that relevant documents use plain language; clarifying that a Public Service agency’s legal duty is owed to the Public Service Commissioner; making it clear that the bill does not create any legal rights or obligations that are enforceable in a court of law; requiring the commissioner to issue guidance, including accessibility guidance, on how reporting agencies may comply with all requirements under the bill; providing that the commissioner must have regard to international best practice on plain language writing when developing the guidance; making it the responsibility of plain language officers to deal with feedback from the public, rather than complaints or requests; and removing from clause 10(1) the reference to the commissioner making recommendations to the Minister on guidelines and best practice.

Throughout the debate on this bill, both in select committee and the public domain, we’ve had submissions and supportive comments from many in the media, and I want to make note of some of those in particular. There are two particular agencies that I’ve had a lot of contact with, one being Write Ltd. The brand manager for Write Ltd, Penny de Borst, said to the media, about the Plain Language Bill and the use of plain language, “It increases trust and transparency … it supports equity … it works for people with English as an additional language, it works for people who use screen readers … it’s easier to translate. And it also improves efficiency: if every email that came into your in-box was short, crystal clear, how much time would you save every day?” And Shelly Davies, who’s an excellent plain language coach in New Zealand, said this: “Academia, historically, teaches us to use a language to speak to other academics, and that’s the only way most of learn how to write so we come into our jobs and use this overly-formal language … It doesn’t work when we’re communicating to a wider audience.”

We had a number of submissions through the select committee process from submitters in support of the bill. Write Ltd, again, said, “Our work with almost every government agency over many years has given us an in-depth understanding of the colossal waste of money and time that results from un-plain website information, government forms, and explanatory leaflets. Government agencies spend millions of dollars annually on responding to questions, clarifying information, following up on poorly completed forms—and on calming upset members of the public who cannot find what they need or understand the information once they find it.” And they went on to say, “One project we completed several years ago saved an average [of] $1.5 million annually by revising a form that had close to a 100 percent error rate.” They’ve gone on to say, again, that “Appointing a plain language officer creates a formal mechanism to expect and promote plain language, rather than relying on the goodwill and enthusiasm of a few who have no mandate or resources to create change.”

I want to particularly note some comments from Blind Low Vision NZ, who clarified the need to include accessibility guidelines in the bill. They said, “The most obvious reason to use Plain Language writing is to make important information and ideas more accessible to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and others with disabilities affecting reading, comprehension, and other cognitive functions. We know how to replace steps with ramps. We know how to widen doorways and make restrooms larger for wheelchair users. We can accommodate Deaf people with Sign Language and captions on videos. Blind people, deafblind people and those with low vision can use large print, Braille, or audiobooks. We must strive to make information, instructions, and ideas more cognitively accessible, particularly for people with intellectual, developmental, and learning disabilities. Information and communication to the public must be accessible to people with print disabilities at the same time as everyone else.”

Another agency, the National Building Financial Capability Charitable Trust—FinCap—commented about the impact on financial documents. They said, in their submission to the select committee, “A recent survey of financial mentors showed that their client cases have become more complex. This reflects the multiple and compounding challenges that whānau can face. Through ensuring that plain and clear language is used by public services, time can be saved for financial mentors and the whānau they walk alongside.”

I’d like to finish with some positive submissions that we received from members of the public and individuals who were supportive of the bill. Amanda Nally noted that “For the past 18 years [she has run a communications business—focused on writing for clarity for business, science and medical clients.” Before that, she worked as a journalist. Before that, she was a public servant working with Housing New Zealand and the Post Office for seven years. And she said, “It was while working in public service roles I was made keenly aware of the number of clients with low or no literacy—which sadly—in the post office extended to some staff. I quickly learned, to avoid embarrassing the clients who were seeking our help, to always offer to fill out any paper work for them.” She goes on to say, “On a more personal level, for the past seven years I have supported my elderly mother in her interactions with the health service, and WINZ, and as such have assisted her in filling out many, many forms.”

This quote from Richard Self really spoke to me. He said, and I agree, “Everyone who lives and works in Aotearoa gets essential information from the government. We have a democratic right to be able to understand this information. Plain language in government communications means information is easier to understand and act on—it’s written with the reader in mind.”

It has been a privilege overseeing the passage of the Plain Language Bill through Parliament. I thank everyone who has supported the passing of this bill and helped make the improvements to it, especially officials, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, submitters, and my colleagues on the Governance and Administration Committee. This bill will make a positive difference to the lives of New Zealanders, and I commend it to the House.

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

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this bill, which the National Party will be opposing and which the National Party will repeal if we win the next election, because this is a piece of legislation which is a solution looking for a problem. And you know it’s a solution looking for a problem when you hear the member in charge start her speech by blaming her bill on Chris Hipkins. She wasn’t even proud enough to say, “I thought of this great idea; I came to Parliament to make a real difference, to solve the real problems facing our country.” She just said, “Oh well, I got dumped with this bill from Chris Hipkins, who’s had it in the biscuit tin for 10 years and someone had to pick it up, and I’m that someone and here I am.” Well, I do commend her for taking the bill through the House and doing the part of the process—which is a privilege in this Parliament to take legislation through the House and to do the work of a member of Parliament.

But I do say to the member: this is not the type of achievement which she will be remembered for. This is the type of achievement which is simply, I think, a bunch of Labour Party backbenchers looking for work when they lose their seats at the next election. Because when they leave and are kicked out of this Parliament at the next election, they’ll be looking for work and plain language officers will be their new job titles.

They’ll be lining up for all the new plain language officer jobs. I can see Glen Bennett, he’s keen—he’s as keen as beans to be a plain language officer after he loses the New Plymouth seat at the next election. He can’t wait to get a new job working for the Ministry of Social Development or somewhere as a plain language officer. And I know that Steph Lewis, who was speaking in the general debate, she’ll be looking forward to that; the seat of Whanganui will be coming back to the National Party and she’ll be looking for work—and plain language officer, I can see her.

But the sad news for them is National will be repealing this piece of legislation because this is a stupid piece of legislation, it doesn’t actually fix anything, and it’s got no actual requirements on the Public Service departments to actually comply with it. So all it is is—let me count—1,923 words, and that’s not including the explanatory note, by the way; that’s just the legislation. It is 1,923 words, which could be done by just simply the Public Service Commission writing a letter to the Public Service agency saying “Please use plain language in your documents”. Now, that’s not many words. But they’ve used 1,923 words to use what could be made in seven words. Absolute failure. And so it really beggars belief, actually, why we’re here debating this.

And there’s absolutely no evidence that there’s actually a problem. And you hear the member on the other side stand up and say, “Well, you know, we had people say that they couldn’t read documents and it’s costing millions of dollars”. Well, this bill will cost millions of dollars. She’s got no evidence to prove that the current state is costing that money; it’s just some anecdotal “someone said something”. But there’s no costings as to what this will cost, because we know that this bill will have a cost. Because what it does is it requires every single reporting agency—hundreds of agencies—to put in place plain language officers in their agencies.

Plain language police! That’s what they’ll become. The plain language police, who will be having their clipboards and their little white coats, running around, looking over the shoulders of all the public servants, checking to see that they’re using plain language—are they keeping to the guidelines, are they writing with words of less than one syllable? Well, that’s what they’ll be trying to do under the new guidelines, if this bill passes. Because the Public Service Commission will have to hire a whole lot of people to issue guidelines to the Public Service, and the Public Service agencies will need to employ plain language officers who will then read the guidelines. Hopefully, those guidelines are less complicated than the piece of legislation.

Let me read this clause to the House and to those listening; I know there’s lots of people listening. “If a document contains a part that meets the requirements in subsection (1) and a part that does not, section 6 applies only to the part that meets the requirements.” Now, that’s pretty plain, isn’t it? Very plain language! Or what about this one: “The transitional savings, and related provisions set out in Schedule 1 have effect according to their terms”. I have no idea what that means. The Plain Language Bill is not even in plain language itself. How ironic is that? There are 1,923 words to tell us absolutely nothing and to do absolutely nothing.

But this is this Government. All they know what to do is spend, tax, and grow the bureaucracy. They’ve already hired how many thousand? Fourteen thousand new public servants in the core Public Service—14,000—

Angie Warren-Clark: Nurses and teachers.

: SIMEON BROWNAnd they say, “Oh, those are nurses and teachers.” Well, I’m sorry, those numbers don’t include the nurses. They are employed outside. The teachers are employed separately as well. So the members on the other side are completely factually incorrect. These are core public servants working for—

Hon Poto Williams: 1,500 police.

: SIMEON BROWNEven the police are outside those numbers and that’s from a former Minister of Police. I’m not sure whether the members on the other side—they’re clearly not fit for governing this country and clearly not fit for passing this piece of legislation. Numbers are clearly not their strong suit and words are not their strong suit either.

But what I say is 14,000 more core public servants and bureaucrats under this Government, and they don’t even know how many more. It will be hundreds more jobs that will need to be found; millions and millions of dollars in paying the salaries. And we’re already paying $2 billion more in salaries for core public servant bureaucrats than we were when National left office. That’s $2 billion every single year—$2 billion of backroom bureaucrats, not front-line services. That’s the legacy of this Government. That’s the legacy of this Government who are failing to actually deliver on outcomes and delivering on the services New Zealanders expect. All they’re delivering is more bureaucracy, more taxes, more spending, and New Zealanders are sick and tired of it.

So I’d just like to talk about some of the—

: Order! ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa)The time has come for me to leave this chair for the dinner break. Our session will resume at 7 p.m.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. When the House adjourned, we were in the third reading of the Plain Language Bill. Simeon Brown has three minutes and 18 seconds remaining to speak.

SIMEON BROWN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, the National Party not only opposes this bill but will repeal this piece of legislation, because all it will do is increase the amount of bureaucracy in New Zealand, it will cost taxpayers millions and millions of dollars more, and it will not do anything to actually help New Zealanders understand the bureaucratese of the bureaucrats which this Government has hired—14,000 more bureaucrats across the Public Service under their watch, costing taxpayers $2 billion.

As I said, it’s not even necessary. All that’s required, if the Government feels so passionate about this, is for the Minister for the Public Service to write a letter to the Public Service agency saying “Please write your documents in plain language.” And in fact, the submissions said exactly that. The legislation guidelines say legislation should only be made when it is necessary and the most appropriate means of achieving the policy objective. The Office of the Clerk considered the requirements in this bill to be uncertain and without consequence. It suggested that the committee explore whether officials could use non-legislative means. The reality is, this is a bill looking for a problem. It is wasting Parliament’s time, it is going to waste the bureaucracy’s time and the Public Service’s time, it is going to cost New Zealanders millions and millions of dollars, and no one is going to be better off.

But this is where this Government is at. They are the “tax, spend, and grow the bureaucracy” party, and New Zealanders are sick and tired of it. What they want the Public Service to be focused on is making sure our children are at school; making sure the ram raids, which are up 500 percent, stop; making sure that people who need hip operations can get them in a timely fashion; making sure that the Public Service is actually delivering the outcomes that they need. But all this Government puts up is a bill which says, “Let’s have plain language police in the Public Service to try and make sure that things are written in plain English.”, as I said earlier, using a bill with 1,923 words to say what could be said in a letter of seven words. This is a particularly ridiculous piece of legislation, the National Party opposes it, and I say in plain language: “We will repeal it”.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): In plain language, I support this legislation. This is a members’ day, and this is the third reading. Rachel Boyack, congratulations on getting to this point on the third reading of a members’ day of a member’s bill to support the Plain Language Bill, that will come into law, I hope, this evening.

Now, the previous speaker, Simeon Brown, threw out the good old rhetoric around this bill is a bill looking for a problem. Well, I don’t quite see that to be the case. For myself, as someone who appreciates plain language and knows the importance and effectiveness of plain language, I support this piece of legislation. Whether it’s the people who are dealing with ACC or whether it be benefit entitlements, taxation, immigration requirements, compliance issues, or rights in terms of coming to the Family Court and other court situations, I think plain language is plain and simple, that it is important for us as a society.

Now, I’ve spoken in previous speeches about this, and I’ve spoken around how our language evolves and changes, and I just want to let people know tonight: do not be afraid—or be not afraid, as we used to say.

Hon Andrew Little: That’s Shakespeare; that’s Shakespearian.

GLEN BENNETT: That’s very Shakespearean. I don’t want to bring up Shakespeare, but, hey, you’ve gone there. Be not afraid of plain language, because it doesn’t mean that for all of you beautifully educated people, with eloquent spoons in your mouths, under your tongues, you can still speak with that spoon in your mouth, under your tongue. You can still speak your big, wonderful, wonderful, huge words that I don’t have, and I’m OK with that, because this is around accessibility. This is around having language that everyone and anyone can understand. So be not afraid. Be not afraid because you can still continue with your large and big words.

But when it comes to our public sector, when it comes to us in terms of Government agencies, surely we want to make sure that every single person in our society has access—everyone in our society has access. And as I was looking through the submissions, I came to the Citizens Advice Bureau. They made it very clear in terms of the work that they do. They spend a lot of time meeting with clients, meeting with members of the public, explaining complex documents, unpacking what a letter from Work and Income or a letter from Births, Deaths and Marriages actually means when it comes to potentially filling out a form or understanding what their requirement is at the bottom of the document when they sign it. So I agree with the Citizens Advice Bureau in their support for making our language easier and more accessible for all members of our society.

And I come back to what the Plain Language Bill is about. It aims to improve the effectiveness and accountability of the Public Service by requiring communications to be clear and accessible to the public—to make it clear and accessible to the public. Now, why would you not want that? Why would you be resistant to making sure that everyone—the public—has clear access to democracy, clear access to our agencies and our services, clear access to what rightful entitlements they may have through Government policy?

So that’s why I support this piece of legislation. And I don’t want to bang on about my history and my work, but I’ve experienced this time and time again. Now, I have to confess that I do not have a university degree. In fact—

Hon Andrew Little: Confess nothing.

GLEN BENNETT: Confession time: I may have confessed it before because I’m pretty open about it, but I did make it through sixth form certificate. I did pass.

Hon Andrew Little: The second time?

GLEN BENNETT: The second time—it was actually the first time; I made it the first time. I was successful, and then I made it through about a quarter of the way through seventh form. And just because life’s opportunities came along, I was able to move on to a different space and place.

Now, I was nervous, actually, when I was asked to run for Parliament. I was very nervous because I thought, “Well, I ain’t no lawyer. I don’t know all the big words that all the big people use.” I thought, actually, “I’m no accountant, I’m no business studies graduate, and I’m no professor or doctor.” In fact, the only letters I have after my name are—

Marja Lubeck: What are they?

GLEN BENNETT: I have none, actually. As I was thinking, I was trying to think of something funny or something—MP! And I have a friend—he’s an elderly friend—and he has a really bad dad joke every time he sees me. He says, “Oh, listen. Glen, he’s the local MP; he’s a missing person.” Hilarious, eh?

Anyway, it was a dad joke, so I digress. But for me coming into this place, I was very nervous and apprehensive, and, in fact, I said no several times because I didn’t feel I had the words, and I didn’t feel like I had the education and the training to be in this place. But then I realised that this is the House of Representatives—this isn’t the House of lawyers or professors or doctors; it is the House of Representatives. It’s the House of all people in Aotearoa New Zealand. And so that’s why I stand here as the MP for New Plymouth, as someone who uses plain language on the daily, which does not stop people from using educated language, the language of those who know far bigger and more powerful words than I do. Like I say, be not afraid because you can still use those words, but it means that everyone has access to important pieces of information.

It’s been interesting paying attention and following this legislation through the House and how vermently and how—I don’t think that’s the right word. Vermently or vehemently?

Hon Members: Vehement.

GLEN BENNETT: Vehement, see. There we go. Exercise complete—tick. Basically, what I mean, is—I don’t know because I just forgot, but I’ll come back to the bill and mention the submissions as I paid attention as it went through the Governance and Administration Committee.

Thank you to the committee for spending your time on this. But it was a submission from Amanda Nally, who spent the past 18 years running her own communications business. Her focus has been on writing for clarity for business, science, and medical clients. But before that, she worked as a journalist, and before that she had been a public servant—in fact, working for what was Housing New Zealand and the post office back in the day for a number of years. And she stated, “It was while working in public service roles I was made keenly aware of the number of clients with low or no literacy, which sadly in the post office extended to a small staff, and I quickly learnt to avoid embarrassing the clients who are seeking our help to always offer to fill out the paperwork for them.”

And I know this too well as well, because in my work and the community sector, that was always the case. You never assumed to know that someone understood or could read the documents. You never imagined or assumed that a client or a community person you were working with knew how to spell correctly or even know how to write. This bill doesn’t fix that, but this bill makes it more accessible for people. Let us never assume that the person next to you has had the privilege or the opportunity you’ve had. Never assume that the person next to you has been able to have the experiences or the opportunities that your family or whānau gave you in terms of being able to read, write, and speak.

And, sadly, we look at what’s going on in a number of families around our nation, and I’m glad that we have services available to help when it comes to reading and writing and when it comes to speech therapy, because we need to make sure that people have language. We need to make sure that people have language that they can communicate with one another, because language is power. Words are power. And I think maybe that comes to the reason there’s been so much pushback on this legislation, because the second we allow plain language within our places and spaces in our society, those who have and own the language suddenly may lose, or feel like they lose, some of their power. But I can say tonight that you do not lose your power. You just allow others to have power and to step up and to have access to all aspects of our society. And I know, as a society and as a nation, surely that’s what we want. We want those who are educated and those who struggle in education—we want all people—to have access to our services, to our bureaucracies, to our Government, and to contribute in a meaningful way to our society. I commend this bill to the House.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly—because I’m sure it’s the first time I’ve had the opportunity to speak in this House since you’ve been elevated to the Throne—I wanted to congratulate you on that. And I will say I want to hope you’re getting on well with your blue pen; I have a red one and I hope you’ll be completely neutral when it comes to the speech I’m about to make.

I wanted to start tonight with a few comments about Glen Bennett’s speech, because I didn’t think there was a word he said that I can’t agree with, interestingly. Because what he talked about—and what he meant to talk about—really related to the fact that we need, in this Parliament, to create stuff that people can understand. And there’s two challenges with that and Glen raised both of them.

One is the fact that in our education system—or somewhere in our system—we are letting people down. So consequently, through our electorate offices, we’ve all seen a large number of the very people that Glen Bennett was talking about who come into our office, who you don’t know whether they can read or write or not, and who often can’t. So when you get them to fill out a consent form to get you to go and see Minister Little and ask him a couple of questions, you don’t know whether you need to fill it out for them or they can fill it out themselves. And that’s a serious challenge for us.

That, though, I don’t think really relates to this bill. I think the issue that I have with this bill is not that it’s not a good principle; I think everybody needs to be able to understand what we’re trying to tell them, and one of the challenges we have in politics, of course, is that we don’t get our message out there very clearly. So from that perspective, I think Glen Bennett was absolutely right. A lot of what we need to get people to understand, we need to put it in language that they can understand.

I think our argument with this bill is that there probably was a different way of doing that. But having said that, I want to get on and talk about what I thought was an extraordinary job that Rachel Boyack did of shepherding this bill through the select committee. She didn’t have a lot of help from the other side of the House, but none the less she did an awful lot of work—a lot of work. I’ve never seen, I don’t think, in my time—other than perhaps with the euthanasia bill or one or two of those big ones—a member who has done as much work as she did to get this bill into some sort of order to come back to the House, and I’ll talk about some of those issues later.

So I think that Rachel Boyack did a very good job, and irrespective of whether you agree with the bill or not—as I think Glen Bennett again said—this is a members’ day and members can do what they like in this place within reason, provided the Speaker lets them, and if they can get those bills through the House, that’s their prerogative and good luck to them.

So I think from that perspective, we’ve got to respect the fact that members bring things to the House in good faith. I think, ironically, this bill was in the name of Michael Wood at one stage before. And it’s quite interesting that he’s putting the Fair Pay Agreements Bill through the House at the moment. This bill, of course, will create quite a few more people that might be eligible for a fair pay agreement. But none the less, that’s how it will work. You know, you could end up with 40 or 50 of them in this thing that would qualify, of course, for a fair pay agreement.

But, you know, I think it is interesting that some of these bills sit on the ballot for years—for a long, long time—they come out, and they might not be relevant when they come out of the ballot. But Rachel did do a lot of work to make sure that she got this bill into some sort of, I guess, order that will no doubt pass tonight.

The other interesting factor about this bill is that there’s a number of definitions in it that I think are really quite interesting. We had to almost go to the point of defining “plain language”. Now, that is extraordinarily complicated.

Again, if I go back to Glen Bennett’s speech, plain language to you and plain language to me—being Irish and Scottish—will be different. Those sort of things are different for different people. So to get a standard for the commissioner—whose job it is to actively set the standard in this bill—is going to be very, very difficult and very complicated. So I don’t think it’s an easy thing to do.

I go back to Glen Bennett again because he spent quite a bit of time talking about lawyers. Well, I’ve had a great deal of difficulty in my life understanding what lawyers are talking about. And, of course, they write almost every piece of legislation that comes and goes from this House. So, really, that’s the profession we should be getting at with respect to trying to create what this bill terms as “plain language”, which I’d term perhaps as more something that everyone can understand. Because, in fact, we need to create that environment.

The other interesting thing about this bill is it doesn’t deal with any other languages. Of course, in New Zealand we have two other official languages and numerous—as we’ve shown in the Parliament this week with the number of different prayers we’ve had—other languages used frequently in New Zealand. All of this bill relates, effectively, to the English language and the way it’s written. Because, of course, most of the other languages that evolve and are used in New Zealand come from the written English language. That’s just how you translate them that’ll be the interesting piece.

So the bill had the job of, first of all, defining “plain language”. But then it had to define a “relevant document”. Because, effectively, this bill applies to what’s termed “relevant documents”, which are documents from reporting agencies, public entities, and Crown agencies, basically. So those are the only people affected by this bill.

This bill doesn’t spread its wings right across New Zealand; it spreads its wings primarily through the Government agencies and the Crown agencies associated with them. But none the less, that does create quite a lot of extra jobs. And depending on how they interpret the bill—and, of course, that’s the challenge we have in New Zealand if you go right back to the Resource Management Act when it was first implemented, it’s the interpretation of the Act that’s caused the problem, not the Act itself at the time.

So a lot of this happens through this House where we put a bill—in good faith, I guess—in place. The interpretation of it then hugely complicates it and we end up with something quite different than we anticipated might happen in the course of that bill going through the House. I think, from that perspective, the commentary that goes with the bill is hugely important to getting a result at the other end.

One of the other things we do—and it’s come up in the course of a select committee discussion today—is we set a bill in place and we leave it to the ministries or the people behind the wall to set the regulations. And then we’ve got no idea when we’ve passed the bill what those regulations are going to look like. In my view, that’s something that really needs to change in our lawmaking processes. Because people submit in good faith, but they submit in good faith not knowing what’s going to come out the other end.

This bill itself had quite a number of submissions in favour of it; it had a few submissions equally as strongly opposed to it. But the submissions that were in favour of it were really in favour of, I guess, writing things in a sense, as Glen Bennett said, that people could understand—didn’t necessarily need a police force to, I don’t think, enforce that. I think it just needed an acceptance amongst our agencies that they should write things and put things in a manner that—again to quote Glen Bennett; he’s not a lawyer, he’s just an average person—an average person could understand, and we don’t always achieve that.

The other things we defined in this bill were, effectively, the job of the commissioner. And that, again, is quite a complicated one because we tried to define what the commissioner needed to do as he set what he interpreted—or she interpreted—as “plain language”. Quite a complicated issue. So it’s really quite interesting just defining the issues in this bill.

Then the reporting process is also quite interesting because the reporting agency must report annually to the commissioner on how the agency is complying with the bill. The commissioner must then report to the Minister, who in turn reports to the House. So it’s actually not as simple a process as people might believe it is.

So the bill has created a whole lot of reporting requirements for ministries and Crown agencies that will inevitably cost money, and I think that’s the issue that we take with the bill primarily: not the fact that we don’t want things to be written in plain language that everyone can understand, not the fact that we don’t want to have a system that makes life easier for all of those people, but the fact this is quite a complicated way of going about what probably could have been achieved in another way.

The other irony of this bill is that the Act does not comply a legal right or impose legal obligation on any person that’s enforceable in a court of law. So if one of our ministries, for example, decide they’re not going to do it, I don’t really think there’s any way of enforcing it. So it, effectively, becomes a goodwill issue, and I think I’ve never seen that before in legislation—it might well be there but I don’t think I’ve ever seen it before. It’s a bit of irony in the fact that it’s virtually unenforceable, certainly unenforceable from a court of law perspective.

So that pretty much covers our position on it. We did submit a different view on the bill, for most of the reasons I outlined in my speech. But I have to reiterate the fact that we’re not all opposed to plain language in our written documents that we use. I’d encourage it, in fact.

Also, as I’ll say again, thank you to the select committee that put this through, but also thank you to Rachel Boyack—whether we agree with the bill or not—for the work she did to get to where she got to, because she did do a lot of work on it. So thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for letting my red pen go. See you later.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of the Plain Language Bill. I would like to start my contribution by echoing the words of Mr Ian McKelvie, in congratulating Rachel Boyack on shepherding this bill through the House and for her work on the select committee, which has obviously earned her respect from across the select committee table, which is really good to hear. I would like to reaffirm my support for this bill, and I will endeavour to do that in the next few minutes in plain language.

The Plain Language Bill obviously promotes the use of plain language in official documents and websites, and what it does is actually require the Government to lead by example and to start making that happen. Mr McKelvie outlined that there are several Government organisations that are already having this requirement, but we need to lead by example to make sure that, in practice, this is also taking place. It has been said before, but I would like to repeat it because I think it’s a really important statement, that New Zealand is at its best when we all can understand and easily participate in our democracy. Every day, Government agencies are engaged in communication with the public, and when Government agencies are explaining services and benefits, or how to comply with requirements, if they don’t use plain language and if they go back into using more convoluted language and jargon, you disempower people from participating in that process.

Mr McKelvie spoke about constituents approaching him. And likewise, when people come to our office in Warkworth, they sometimes bring documentation with them that they may have received from Government agencies and ask us—sometimes in quite frank wording—what the “something” this letter actually means. So we have to go through it with them line by line and explain what it actually says, and sometimes that takes quite a bit of reading ourselves. There was one recently that I was in the office for. Someone had a letter from the Ministry of Justice on outstanding fines, but the next action that needed to be taken was kind of hidden in between all the other sentences, and it wasn’t that easy to get to it. So, again, using plain language and simple words to make those sentences easier to understand makes it easier to scan, makes the information more accessible to people.

I wasn’t part of the select committee that dealt with this particular bill, but I had the pleasure of reading through quite a few of the submissions, and there were some really valid submissions made that dealt specifically with accessibility. For example, Margaret Stefanitsis mentioned that “Clear and straightforward writing will make it easier for those who do business with the government to have faith in government agencies and build a reputation for reliability and trustworthiness.” And, on accessibility, she said that “Plain language supports accessibility because it works well with assistive devices and is easier to translate.” So here is actually a really practical issue: that using plain language makes it much easier for translation devices and assistive devices to support people.

Parents of Vision Impaired (NZ) Inc said, “We have noticed that many communications require a very high level of English language comprehension, and this language is a barrier for families. Families who are dealing with a disabled child, and particularly during the process of diagnosis and grappling with what that means, are under pressure, in distress, and/or feeling anxious and worried.” What the organisation said was that “Using clear, plain language would assist families and alleviate some of the stressors that they are under.” I haven’t heard much about this aspect of accessibility, but I think it is a really valid one, and thank you to those who came to the select committee and made that particular point. I thought it was really helpful.

On some of the bill’s history, the Plain Language Bill has, in fact, been long awaited, rather than its being an answer looking for a problem, as Mr Simeon Brown called it. I like to think of it more in line with the balanced contribution from Mr McKelvie, in that there is a need for this bill. The bill was originally drafted by the Hon Chris Hipkins in 2012, and he did that after similar legislation was passed in the United States in 2010. The US Congress passed the Plain Writing Act of 2010 on 13 October that year. It required the US Federal Government to write all new publications, forms, and publicly distributed documents in a clear, concise, well organised manner that follows the best practices of plain language writing. The purpose of the Plain Writing Act of 2010 is “to improve the effectiveness and accountability of Federal agencies … by promoting clear Government communication that the public can understand and use.”

I’d like also to reiterate again the stellar job that the select committee did in general, but in particular the role of Rachel Boyack in that process, because, looking through the commentary to the bill, there were a lot of changes and improvements and practical recommendations made to make this a better bill that is being brought back to the House. Now, I won’t be able to run through all of those changes. Other colleagues may want to pick that up, because there are some really interesting aspects to it, but I fear I may run out of time, since I’m only allocated 10 minutes and I see I’m already quite far into that time line. So I will give that part a miss.

Just a little bit back on the history, then: the bill was first introduced on 23 September 2021—a very special date in fact, because it was the day that my son had his 20th birthday, and three years prior, I think, I got into this job, on 23 September. It was referred to the Governance and Administration Committee on 15 February 2022, and on 6 April evidence was heard from the member in charge of the bill, Rachel Boyack. Submissions were called and closed on 31 March 2022 and, from what I understand, there were 68 submissions received and considered from various groups and individuals. And, again, I think it’s not an insignificant number. So that would indicate to me that there was quite a bit of interest in this particular topic. The select committee heard oral evidence from 20 submitters on this particular bill.

Now, just on the second language aspect of this bill, I think, being an immigrant myself, I have quite often been in situations where—and I won’t even go into slang, because I could tell you a whole lot of other stories, but they’re probably not very suitable for here in the House. But I have plenty of stories of where the difficulty of words made it much harder to participate in certain processes in the country. In fact, I started a law degree when I was in my mid-forties and the amount of words that you have to use in that kind of study would blow you away. It shouldn’t be impossible for other people to be able to do it, but in fact it clearly is. So I feel that plain language clearly is a matter of social justice and a democratic right, and a healthy democracy rests upon clear speaking and writing—ideas that are expressed in a way that everybody can understand.

There was a submission, in fact, from Andreea Calude, Senior Lecturer in Linguistics at the University of Waikato, and she expressed the following about the bill, talking about that linguistic equality: “Minority, migrant, and marginalised communities have more difficulty understanding complex and jargon-laden documents, which tips the scales even further against them.” I think this was the point that my colleague Glen Bennett, in his excellent contribution, made previously: there already is inequality in society and having non - plain language that people have to use just basically tips those scales of inequality further against people. Not everybody has the privilege to grow up in New Zealand, so speaking a second language, and not everybody has the privilege to attend university or participate in further education to learn to use the type of complicated, bureaucratic language.

So I think this bill, as opposed to what has been said before, is a really important bill. It’ll make Government and democracy more accessible to everyone. I thank Rachel Boyack for her work on it, the select committee for their work on it, and I commend it to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Holy thesaurus, it’s the Plain Language Bill. I’m not usually the person that speaks on behalf of the Plain Language Bill, but I’m what you’ve got tonight. I also wanted to acknowledge that people started talking about Shakespeare earlier in the debate, but I was disappointed in the delivery, because no one came up with any of the quotes. The thing about a debate is that the world is a stage, and we all must play our parts. There are entrances and there are exits, and that’s what makes the debate so fruitful.

I feel that this bill will pass tonight. To be or not to be, that is the big question, but on the “be” side they have got 65 votes, and so that’s probably going to happen.

Simon Court: 64.

TEANAU TUIONO: 64—oh, sorry. Plain language; I need plain maths. Thank you very much, the guy in the corner here.

We will be supporting this bill, because what I see in this bill is that it creates transparency around guidelines around plain language. There will be reporting to the Minister and reporting to Parliament around progress that makes it far more transparent and inclusive as well, so that’s a good thing. We think that’s a good thing, and as much as I love a good word salad, it is not the vernacular diet which will actually get what we need to communicate over the line.

That’s the job of the House, of members in the House, as well. I don’t know how many meetings I’ve been to where people have waffled on with big, long words—“jargony” words that just don’t land at all. It’s actually, in my view, very easy to be long-winded and complicated, and to drag it out with all the big words, and so on and so forth, but it’s a lot more complex, actually, to get things down concisely and for them to land with people, and that’s really important. So the principle of that is very important.

I wanted to acknowledge comments from Mr Ian McKelvie. He spoke to the hard work of the member that brought this bill to the House, Rachel Boyack—that she has engaged in a good way to actually make this bill fit for purpose, to get it in such a way for it to do the things that we need it to do.

So, plainly and not so plainly, the Greens will be supporting this bill. Thank you very much.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): First, let me congratulate Rachel Boyack. It’s quite a thing as a backbencher to have a bill that you have been shepherding and nannying through the process come to fruition, as we all hope on this side of the House that it will do tonight. I also want to acknowledge, as she did, her predecessors, because it is relevant when you have a bill that has been a project worked upon by many members to acknowledge those, and so I acknowledge them for their work and their previous championing of this very worthy little bill. Finally, I also thank the Governance and Administration Committee, who put in a lot of work to making a bill about simplifying language much more simple, and the submitters, who helped them in their work to identify the issues and to craft this piece of legislation.

Briefly—if you’ve just tuned in, audience members—this bill promotes plain language in official documents by Government departments. It does two things: it requires the Public Service Commissioner to give some guidance around how to speak plainly in official documents to Government agencies; and then it gets the Government agencies to take some responsibility for how they’re going to make sure language is simple and straightforward to understand for the members of the public who are its intended audience, by appointing a person in each agency who will be a plain language officer, and it’s that person’s responsibility to marshal the training and see that standards are actually met.

Now, why is it necessary? A couple of speakers across the aisle in this debate but also in previous debates have disputed the necessity, and some of them quite ungraciously, if I may say so, and some of them quite repetitively. I was quite amused to have just read Mr Simeon Brown’s speech from across the aisle in the second reading debate and to then hear phrases and paragraphs and then pages roll off his lips that I had read only moments before—but we can’t all be original, Mr Speaker.

Now, it is interesting also to hear that derision rolling across the aisle, derision that suggests that this is a pointless exercise and that plain language and simple speaking can be enforced as simply as Ministers just vaguely telling their staff, “I need you to calm it down, people. I need you to simplify it.”—no need for a bill, no need for ongoing monitoring, apparently, and no need for training. The problem with that proposition is that I come from a career of working with people, aka lawyers—who are still people—who also believed that they could speak plainly and that speaking plainly was a simple matter. Like the late—not the late; like the previous President of the United States Mr Trump, lawyers believe that we have all the words, we have the best words, and we know best how to use them.

I have spent, in fact, an adult lifetime interviewing judges and senior barristers in the criminal courts about how they understand and how they go about simplifying language in courtroom contexts when they need to deal with people who are not cognitively developmentally normal adult witnesses and defendants, when they’re dealing with child witnesses, when they’re dealing with people with communication impairments—as, in fact, they very often are, because, as we know, often defendants and witnesses in criminal cases are people with communication or with intellectual disabilities. Now, I have spent this lifetime interviewing these judges and these senior barristers, and I have spent a lifetime, as a result, being told, just as Mr Brown across the aisle told us, just how simple—just how simple—that exercise is.

When it came to simplifying your language for children, for example, I have been told so many times over the years that my judges and my lawyers knew how to communicate with children; they had no problem simplifying their language; many of them had children of their own, and many of them, even those who did not have children of their own, knew of children; and, in some rare and very special cases, some of them had actually been children in the past themselves. The problem with their comments was that what they didn’t know, but I did, was that there’s 30 or more years of hard, solid, empirical research from linguists, from developmental experts, and from people who are experts in the language of people with intellectual disability to show that lawyers are, in fact—to use the technical term—completely crap when it comes to simplifying our language. We are notoriously incapable of speaking plainly and we have an appalling tendency to reach for the $10 words and the difficult syntax.

Hon Member: I don’t.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: There is, in fact, a tendency—there are, of course, in this House some notable, notable exceptions to that rule. But they are exceptions, and we all know what exceptions do: they prove the rule. In fact, there is even a really rather lovely study that shows that the better you are at using language and the more highly educated you are as a speaker, the worse you are at simplifying your language or, for that matter, at noticing whether or not you have simplified your language. We are not only people who are highly educated people—lawyers, if they can be called highly educated—and we are not only bad at simplifying our language, but we are also bad at recognising when we’re not simplifying our language. It’s a terrible catch-22.

So when we look at this bill, we instantly see the point, I would hope, of having a system where we monitor, we train, we go back, we check, we research, and we look at whether we are achieving the standard. Just telling people to do it ain’t never going to work, because we’ve been telling lawyers and judges to simplify their language around children and people with intellectual disabilities for the last 40 years, and it doesn’t work unless you have training and accountability.

That’s what we’ve been doing, and these are very much the people that we are talking to here, aren’t they? As has been commented upon several times during the course of this debate, many of the people who write the laws are high-end language users—lawyers—many of the people who staff the Government departments that are writing the communications are high-end language users and lawyers, and many, many of the people who are going to need to be able to decipher their documents are, in fact, those with far lesser language competence.

So this is from my perspective, as someone who has worked in the courts for many, many years, a really important process, and it’s not just the communication-impaired that it goes for, because there is a considerable body of research on what happens to a cognitively normal adult’s language comprehension when they are under stress. The technical term for what happens to a person whose language is under stress—let’s say they are being arrested, being pulled over by the police for their driving, or being interviewed by a police officer and trying to find their way through a courtroom. These people, who are relying on summonses, on charging documents, on bail conditions—their language, typically, goes to pot.

There are remarkable studies that show that when a cognitively normal, competent adult is under cross-examination from a lawyer, they go back to childhood levels of language comprehension and usage. Stress takes away your ability to understand language and it takes away your ability to use language. These are the situations where we are hoping that agencies are going to be designing documents for the people in these stressful situations.

This bill is a really necessary piece, and I say that because recently, a friend came to me—a very, very competent woman. Her son, a young man in his early 20s, who is also a perfectly normal, competent boy, had been pulled over for bad driving and was off to court, and she said to me, “I just want you to check out this summons to court. I’m pretty sure it says that he doesn’t have to turn up.” I looked at this document, which was in about six-point type on some sort of paper that you could see through if you held it up and was full of $10, $20 words, and it absolutely was necessary for this young man to turn up in court. Had he not turned up in court, we would have had a warrant to arrest.

It’s a simple example, but I think it does point to a problem that I think does exist: without plain language, we have courts full of people who don’t understand where they’re going. We need this bill. I commend it to the House.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, that was an interesting speech about lawyers, and I think Emily Henderson might get a letter from the Law Society and perhaps they’ll disbar her for bringing the profession into disrepute, but in any case.

There’s always an opportunity cost with Parliament’s time, so it could be worse. Maybe it’s a good thing that we’re doing this and spending time on this instead of watching the Labour Party create laws that New Zealanders don’t like and will very likely punish them for in the next general election. This bill has no teeth, no particular enforcement—which is a good thing—but it is going to be enormously costly up to the point at which we get rid of it next year. This bill epitomises the Government’s insatiable appetite for creating bureaucrats that the public sector simply just does not need and in fact, I think, they’d have a very hard time actually hiring for. I think the recruitment people are probably quite worried about this.

Again, the experiences of migrants dealing with, presumably, the immigration system, but perhaps other aspects of our law, has been talked about; those with English as a second language. For sure, there are some difficulties there, though I think I’ll just repeat what I said in a previous reading of this bill—can’t remember if it was the first or the second—look, if the Government particularly wants to help migrants in that space, in that context, just remove English language requirements from the immigration system. I’d totally support that. I know they won’t, but, you know, actions speak louder than words.

There was some seriously dubious commentary about cost savings in the first speech of this reading, and it just sounds like a—something to do with printing material or revisiting material, I think; a dollar amount in the millions was mentioned as one example. This just sounds like a hilariously bad attempt to justify the cost that will be imposed on the taxpayer for this bill.

This bill is totally unnecessary. It is probably going to create a myriad of problems rather than solve problems. It is a total waste of time, and I’m not going to spend any more time on it. We’re going to get rid of it, we’re going to repeal it, and if the plain language officers want to put a jihad on us, then so be it. We’re opposed. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this Plain Language Bill, brought by my friend and colleague Rachel Boyack. I’d like to join others around the House in commending Rachel Boyack for being successful in getting a member’s bill drawn from the ballot and seeing this bill through to its third reading today where it will undoubtedly, I think, pass, and be a great credit to our legislative scheme.

So there are a few things I wanted to mention about the Plain Language Bill, some of which have been touched on by other members of the House and some of which are observations that I’ve made looking at this bill. I haven’t had an opportunity to speak on this bill yet and I wasn’t part of the Governance and Administration Committee that examined it. But I did read their commentary, and I can agree with other members around the House who have praised the work of the Governance and Administration Committee and their extensive examination of this bill, and in the myriad of sensible changes that they have put forward to make this a functioning and useful piece of legislation which will, I believe, improve equity and accessibility for people using documents produced by Crown agencies and other Public Service agencies.

So what else do we want to say about this Plain Language Bill? Well, the thing that I most wanted to emphasise is how I think that this is important and a good thing and a thing that we should be very proud of introducing in this House today. And that is because we know—as MPs who have to deal with a lot of paperwork, we know as people who have to read a lot of emails coming in from constituents around the country, we know as people who work with legislation on a daily basis, we know as people who read annual reports—that there is a very, very clear difference between something that is clearly written in plain language and something which is written in a complicated manner.

Yes, there are issues to do with literacy in this country. We do have goals to improve our literacy rates. But I don’t think we need to delve that deep into the reasons for this particular bill to say that the need for it is literacy. I think if we looked at, for example, Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales, written in English, and some of the documentation clearly written during the COVID response in order to make sure that people could receive and understand information very clearly, we will see that we have two languages that look very different despite the fact that they are both English. Those are extreme examples, but there are so many other examples within our Public Service, within our legislation, that could be improved upon if there’s a real focus. And that is why I think that this is really important. Just to go back to the goal of this bill, it’s really simple, and I find it difficult to understand why someone would disagree with this: improve the effectiveness and accountability of the Public Service by requiring communications to be clear and accessible to the public. Surely this is something we can all agree is vitally important and will help people understand the very important information that our Public Service organisations want to convey to them.

Another point that I wanted to raise is the issue of enforcement. Some other members of the House have criticised this bill by saying it lacks teeth or it lacks strength because there isn’t legal enforcement. I want to reflect on how we work as a society, and look at some other things that perhaps we don’t necessarily do because we think that we’re going to get caught and we’re going to face a penalty or there’s going to be legal repercussions; we do them because they’re the right thing to do. For example, most of us would try and keep to the speed limit. That’s not necessarily because we think that we’re going to get pulled over or we’re going to get a fine or we’re going to get taken to court because of it; it’s because it’s the right thing to do and it’s the safe thing to do. It’s a sensible thing to do as a member of—

Simon Court: No, it’s not.

CAMILLA BELICH: It’s not? I hear members on the other side saying keeping to the speed limit is not a sensible thing to do. I beg to differ. On this side of the House we like to keep to the speed limit.

Another example: we don’t defame people just because there is legal repercussion for that. We do it because, generally, we don’t like to make up untrue things about other people and say them publicly, because that’s not the right thing to do. So there are lots of things within our society that we do that are outlined in law that won’t necessarily always, in every situation—in fact, the vast majority of situations—result in legal repercussions. However, we follow them. This bill clearly states—I think it’s clause 10A—that there isn’t the ability to take legal action. I actually think, if we tease that out, that most members of the House would agree with that, because we don’t necessarily want cases going to court about failure to write in plain English. We don’t necessarily want that. It would be preferable for people to write in plain English; however, we don’t necessarily want legal action taken about it. So it’s a sensible measure, and I understand from talking to Rachel Boyack, the member in charge of this bill, that the reason that was determined was on the basis of advice that there could be, for example, legal cases taken if that particular section was not inserted in the bill. So it’s a sensible, pragmatic change that actually means that there’s clear guidance and a responsibility to follow the law, because we must follow the law even when there isn’t adverse outcomes for us if we don’t.

So we follow the law and we don’t necessarily have the legal repercussions if we don’t. I think that this is the right balance for this type of legislation. I think it’s a really good balance; I commend the member and the committee for reaching that conclusion.

Another thing I just wanted to add, finally, was the inclusion of te reo Māori. This bill specifically applies to English; however, I think the committee has recommended a very good balance with saying that whilst it applies to English, there is still no direction, or there should be no indication for anyone looking at this Hansard in the future, to say that you should not use te reo Māori if you wish when you are creating documents that should be read by the public. I think that is also correct. I think it’s admirable that we’ve had an increased use of te reo Māori within a lot of the publications that we’ve seen produced by our Public Service agencies. So I think this is something we all want to see continue, and I think this is the right balance met by this bill.

So in conclusion, this is a very sensible bill which will result in actual pragmatic changes to increase accessibility and equity for New Zealanders, and I commend it to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Todd McClay—this is a split call, five minutes each.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Speaker, thank you very much. Listening to the last intervention from the Labour Party, it reminds me of their approach to crime: penalties are not important; people will just do what is best.

The problem is for the last speaker, every example she gave as to why there was no need for consequence in this legislation—actually, driving your car too fast has a consequence; whether you choose to do it or not, it has a consequence. Each of those examples has a consequence.

Very few members in this House have the privilege of having a bill drawn out of the member’s ballot. It’s a great, great shame that this member for Nelson, in the only short three years she’ll be a member of this Parliament, has chosen this piece of legislation which is well-meaning at best—well-meaning at best—but actually achieves nothing at all. When she jumps on the plane tomorrow to fly back to Nelson and says to those people, “Ah ha! In the last two years as your representative, I have achieved the following for you: all plain language has arrived—well no, it really hasn’t and I could have done that with a press release.” What an absolute waste of time of this House and hundreds of thousands of dollars. That member had an opportunity to actually make a difference, to do something important, and she’s chosen not to; she’s come up with something that could just have been a press release that says, “Don’t use complicated language if you don’t want to, but if you do, it’s OK.”—a complete and utter waste of time.

In an essence, we don’t have an issue in this country of people not understanding the law—at least not for the majority of members of Parliament or the majority of our constituents. When it comes to plain language, this member has it partly right: this is a very plain bill—that will achieve absolutely zero, nothing at all. It won’t be remembered. It won’t have to be repealed because it’s going to sit on a shelf somewhere gathering dust. The so-called plain language officers that will be appointed are not likely to take much notice of it because, hopefully, sitting in their ministries, they have much, much more important things to do.

I feel for this member. She’s going to be known for this piece of legislation. It does nothing for a single one of her constituents. It would never have been raised by a constituent with her. She won’t be getting letters about it. It’s not going to help her, come the election next year. We’ve already seen one change in her city: a move away from silly ideas to sensible ideas in her council. I fear this will be one of the last things she does and she will be known for it for ever.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a short call on the Plain Language Bill. I, too, want to start by thanking Rachel Boyack for her hard work in bringing this important bill into the House.

Plain language is easy for everyone to understand. Obviously, as someone who comes from a migrant and refugee background, I understand how it feels to struggle with complicated language in legislation and documents. As a member of a couple of select committees, I see, every day, people who very passionately feel about specific issues. They want to submit, they want to understand the issue, they want to discuss it, but there is a barrier, and that’s because all the documents and legislation are written in a language that they can’t understand or they find difficult to understand.

Obviously, the bill went through the select committee. It’s been scrutinised, and the select committee couldn’t find the middle ground, and we thank them for their diligent work. Quite a few people submitted in support of this bill and they expressed very strong support for this bill. It’s very surprising that none of the Opposition MPs who actually spoke on this bill recognised those who submitted on this bill.

I’ve just come back from the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference, which was a global conference, where about 1,500 members of Parliaments from all over the world, with their supporting staff, gathered with different levels of English, obviously. Some came from English speaking countries and some came with very limited English. Because of the level of English, because of the plain language that was used to facilitate the conference, everyone could understand each other and the conference was at the end a full success.

It’s no different in New Zealand as well, because about 20 percent of the New Zealand population are from migrant backgrounds. We are increasingly getting diverse; we’re a multicultural nation and we have to be accommodating. We have to be inclusive and we cannot stop people from participating in democracy on things that affect their lives. Obviously, this bill is a very good bill. It’s going to change a lot of lives. It’s going to give people clear access and participation.

Once again I want to thank Rachel Boyack for her hard work. She’s someone who works hard for her community. She comes from a very diverse community. I’ve been in Nelson quite a few times and in her community there are a lot of newly arrived refugees and immigrants who struggle with the English language, and this is going to help a lot of them. I thank you, Rachel, on behalf of those people for the good work that you have done. This is a good bill. I commend it to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I’m as excited as a thaumaturgist in an apoth—I’m going to start again. I’m actually tongue-tied already; this is bad. I’m as excited as a thaumaturgist in an apothecary. I am eudemonic—in fact, I am ebullient, although I will admit, I am also just a little bit esurient. Just for the sake of the Labour Party, I want to repeat what I said at the start: I’m as excited as a thaumaturgist in an apothecary.

Now, those who know me know that that’s me speaking quite plainly, actually. People who know me as someone who likes to use the English language to its full extent—that’s rather plain for me. I use that because, of course, the first thing is the Labour Party have no idea what I’ve just said, because they really don’t understand the English language. Part of that, of course, is that the Labour Party’s been very happy up to recent days to see the end of Shakespeare. So in that vein, and to offer them a little, I’ll buy Stuart Nash or the likes a beer if they can quote where this came from in Shakespeare: “Prithee, nuncle, be contented; ‘tis a naughty night to [be swimming].” So you have about eight minutes and 47 seconds to quickly google that and tell me which of the wonderful Shakespearean plays.

But long and short, the thing about language is it’s varied and it’s subjective—it’s varied and it’s subjective. This is one of the most problematic elements we have here coming through this bill. I don’t take away from the intentions of Rachel Boyack, who is putting it forward, but there’s a fatal misconception that there is something called plain language, that there’s just this amazing, singular amount of language which somehow everyone from all distinctive cultures and ages is going to understand, and that’s a false premise. Thaumaturgist, apothecary—it’s perfectly plain to me; it’s probably not to others. It’s not complex. “Apothecary” is just as simple to me as the word “chemist”, OK?

The problem that you may have, or someone else may have, is just illustrating the point: it’s very subjective. That’s the nature of language. There are degrees of understanding. Language is contextual. We’ve heard some from the other side complain about jargon. Well, actually, if you’re in any profession—let’s take the medical profession. I much prefer they use complicated jargon to get the message across quickly than trying to explain in plain English that someone I love is having a major heart issue, OK? I’d much prefer they just get straight to it and say, “It’s a pulmonary aneurysm.”, rather than, “Well, actually, in plain English, the heart which is pumping is having just a slight problem moving in and out.”, while my friend is now dead on the floor.

Same with military things—when you’re coming under heavy fire, I’d much prefer you got to the point quickly in jargon than in plain English, other than “Duck!”, and “Shit, I’m about to die.” Granted, it’s not English, but to enable the House, we should say it in Latin: “Stercus, stercus, stercus, moriturus sum.” Granted, not English. All right. Look, it’s important, though. Language is contextual.

The other thing is I’ve worked to try and develop plain English documents, believe it or not—believe it or not. It was a great project at the start. It was in the insurance and legal space. But what we realised really swiftly is it’s hard. It’s really, really hard. All the best intentions, in fact, are illustrated again through Shakespeare, through what Creative New Zealand was doing, or trying to do in recent days—actually, there comes a moment where there are distinctions and the need for precise language. Creative New Zealand was saying that—you know, they were arguing that there is a difference between funding and investment. As they were being challenged in recent days around investment applications, they were really keen to tell people in plain English, “No, it’s not about investment; it’s about funding.” Actually, they are right; there is a subtle distinction, and that’s the nature, again, of language.

I want to just illustrate it even further. Emily Henderson and other lawyers will know we often use—and, actually, in insurance too—the term “force majeure”. Now, granted, not all English. “Force” is; “majeure” not so much. But it talks about these events which are beyond our control. It’s just a standard—

Simon Court: C’est français, Monsieur O’Connor.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Très bien. C’est vrai. It’s true; “force majeure”. But it’s a term now very common in English, and it gets just straight to the point. It means, in two words, “That which is bringing something outside of our control.” Now, in plain English, we could simply have said—of course, it would take a long time—you know, catastrophic events which are beyond your control; things like war, strikes, riots, epidemics, an asteroid strike, Australia winning the Rugby World Cup, or, of course, Labour winning the 2023 election would be catastrophic. I’m just parodying this, because actually the whole idea of what is and is not plain is not clear.

I do want to put it to the other side too: New Zealand is becoming a blended language in some ways. We are integrating te reo into English. I actually can see some benefits in that, but others would suggest we’re developing a pidgin language or over time that’s what will develop. I have to say, having been overseas recently, and as someone who has studied Māori at university, they don’t understand—the Germans, the French, the Africans, the Nigerians—“Oh yeah, there’s a smart-arse over there who, of course, has done”—excuse me; smart-arse is actually sort of a plain colloquialism isn’t it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr O’Connor, for a man who is standing, sort of showing off his command of the English language, you have reverted to some very bad potty language twice now, so can I just keep your language above the waist, please.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Thank you very much. Of course, I would like to make the argument that it is plain language and colloquial language that people use. But what we are seeing is, as I say, a development of language in New Zealand which is not plain to other English speakers in the world. So I can talk about pūtea to my French colleagues; they’ve got no idea that I’m talking about money. I can talk happily about rangatahi and tamariki and they know I’m talking about young people—well, a New Zealander might know I’m talking about young adults and children, but of course my Nigerian colleagues have no idea. Is that a good or a bad thing? I don’t know; that’s subjective. But where is plain language going to go, and where’s that bill going to fit in with this, as we develop this, as I say, blended, if not sometimes pidgin language?

Look, the other elements we need to consider, just on the practical side: who gets to decide what is plain English? OK, we’re going to have these, what, 14,000 or so plain English officers in each Government department—costs about $1.8 billion—telling people how to write. Are they expert grammarians? Can they sense solipsism at pace? I mean, who’s defining this? It’s one of Lenin’s great desires from way back, to control language, to control what it means. I’m a great free speech advocate. I am very nervous about who gets to control what is defined as free speech.

Joseph Mooney: The kid that can’t read and write properly.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Well, you’ve even got that. I mean, there actually was one thing—I think it was Glen Bennett who raised it earlier in terms of this debate, was actually the notion of education. So instead of passing a law in Parliament to define that we have to have some plain language officers, what about trying to actually get the young people to learn better English, to actually understand grammar, structure, linguistics? Get them to learn a second language. I think the Minister who tried to interrupt earlier around Māori could probably have done a few lessons or two in that language. It’s a good thing. This is where we should be putting our investment. In fact, I would have really liked to see and be very supportive of a second language bill. I personally think a compulsory second language in New Zealand is a good idea. I don’t particularly care what that language is, because actually all the research tells you that it’s good for cognitive development, and it’s actually good for understanding, certainly, the primary language of this country, which is English.

Look, fundamentally, I do have that, as I say, philosophical problem with who gets to define what is plain English. You know, to slightly illustrate the point again, are you an Oxford—sorry, I can’t use the “you” term. Does the member supporting this bill—is she a supporter of the Oxford comma or not? It’s a small question—

Hon Member: Oh!

SIMON O’CONNOR: —and someone sighs. “Oh no; it’s just too hard to think about.” Actually, for those of us who enjoy English, who revel in grammar, we know that actually the placement of something so simple and plain as a comma can change the entire meaning—the entire meaning—of a sentence. So are we going to have Oxford comma sort of, I don’t know, dictates or not? Again, some at home might think that sounds silly, but this is about plain English. Do you want to understand what’s actually been said or not? I can’t think of the particular laws, but we in this House, and while I’ve been in this Parliament, have literally passed laws where the wrong placement of a comma or an “and”, or—I believe, actually, it was to do with police oaths; we had to come back under urgency because the simplest mistake in legislation meant that we had to change the whole meaning.

So this is just well intentioned, but as with all intentions, it comes with a major set of problems, and I just think we should not be doing this. If there was any way we wanted to do this, educate the children better, perhaps by ministerial dictate, encourage people to produce better English, but fundamentally, understand that English, as with any language, is deeply subjective, and what might be plain to some can be more difficult to others, and what may be difficult to others may be plain to some. It’s highly subjective and I do not support this bill.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): It’s a little bit sad to hear such a—

Marja Lubeck: Diatribe.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —diatribe. Because this is actually a really good and serious bill, and yet some members around the House have taken it as an opportunity to show how much they know about Shakespeare or Oxford commas. I’d much rather have a discussion about the merits of the bill, because it is a really good bill. I guess it’s all very nice for the members on the other side to say “Oh, well, what we should do is make people speak and understand better English.”, but the fact of the matter is that we have a really diverse population, and if we want to include others, we need to communicate at an appropriate level. It’s not good enough to look out at the masses, as Simon O’Connor would, and say “Well, if you’re not good enough to lift yourself up to my level of education, then you don’t deserve to understand.” This is a bill that says the law and Government is for everyone, and it’s the job of Government to come to the people, not for the people to expect to understand complex language. So this is actually about real democracy.

We’ve got people throughout our Public Service now who work hard to make sure that they are accessible and understandable to members of the public. This is a further and welcome step down that road because we absolutely need a legislative solution to this problem, because it is a problem. And whilst it’s fair to say that a Government of the day or a department or a ministry could direct by executive action better English and plain English, the fact of the matter is that that remains optional. We as a Parliament want to say “Plain English isn’t optional.” Plain English isn’t a decision for the executive, plain English is a dictate of this House. We require our public servants in our Public Service to take into account who is expected—and the example of the warrant of arrest is a really good example, because we know that the people who are subject to a summons are often people with poor education and poor literacy. And so it’s entirely appropriate that if we are going to put out a summons, that it should say in clear letters at the outset: “You must turn up to court on this day.”—that’s pretty plain, that’s an example—not: “You are hereby summoned to attend.” That’s not plain English.

We want plain English in all of our documents. The more important the documents are, the plainer it should be; the more widely circulated the documents are, the plainer it should be. So that’s what this is about; it’s about saying, “These documents take into account who they’re aimed at. Write these documents so that those people will understand.” It’s said that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and it’s true. But it should certainly not be the case that we use that in some perverse way so that people don’t understand and, by accident or by some perverse trickery, find themselves on the wrong side of the law. This is about enabling people to be on the right side of the law. It’s a great bill. It’s been far too long in coming, and I cannot believe that there’s any members on the other side of the House who seem to think in some way it’s a good idea not to aim for the highest—because that’s what we do on this side of the House. That’s what this member has done, and today we’re improving the law, we’re making it better, and it’s just as plain as that.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Plain Language Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 76

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

Noes 42

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 9.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): I move, That the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I mentioned earlier in the House today that in this place, members often talk about what they know, about what they’ve experienced, and in relation to this bill, I shared and previously spoke about my own experiences of what I know—that is, growing up on a 486-hectare sheep and beef hill country block in the back of Waverley. Waverley is a small rural town in South Taranaki—predominantly a farming town.

Hon Member: It’s got a great racetrack.

STEPH LEWIS: It does have a great racetrack. It’s from having lived and knowing the reality of communities like Waverley that I know the significance of an impact that a biosecurity incursion would have on our food and fibre sector.

As New Zealand recovers from COVID-19, it’s our primary sector that’s been at the forefront of our export-led recovery. At a time when our agriculture exports have hit a record $53 billion and will only continue to grow under this Government’s Fit for a Better World Strategy, we must take very precaution to protect our food and fibre sector from biosecurity threats. A robust biosecurity system will keep out unwanted pests and diseases, protecting our natural environment, delicate ecosystem, and our economy.

During the course of this debate, I’ve spent a bit less time talking about how this bill protects our natural environment, so tonight I’d like to spend a few moments on that. I came into this House wanting to create a better future for the people in the Whanganui electorate, and I’m still 110 percent committed to that goal, but in addition to that, I find myself reflecting more and more on what kind of world I want to leave for my children, Scarlett and Flynn, who is six months old today. Are we going to leave them and their peers a world where they fear winters because they’re so cold that thousands die of hypothermia every year? Are we going to leave them with a world where they fear summers because thousands die of heat stroke every year? Will they inherit a world where there is less space to accommodate people because of rising sea levels?

Now, I acknowledge that this bill does not solve or answer all of those big questions. But by taking small steps to further protect what we have, it does make a small contribution. And it does this by asking that everyone operating a commercial craft—be that ship or plane—provides information about our unique biosecurity arrangements here in Aotearoa New Zealand. And that’s important because here we think about biosecurity a little bit different to those who come from countries with shared land borders. For example, when coming into New Zealand, if we’ve been overseas and been on a hike through a bush or on a farm, we know that before walking through our own native forests or walking on a farm, we need to make sure that we’ve cleaned our shoes and boots. So we also need to make sure that visitors to our shores know to do the same. This bill guarantees that everyone arriving in New Zealand will be given information about how to help us protect our natural environments. This small step adds a layer of protection to our native trees, grasses, lizards, frogs, eels, wētā, birds, and so on.

In today’s global environment, we all know firsthand about the potential of diseases to spread rapidly. Air travel has increased the number of people crossing our borders every day, and that increases the potential risk to our biosecurity. We’ve previously seen how foreign insects, bacteria, viruses, and fungi can sneak in and get a foothold, and the significant physical and economic impacts they have. The last thing any of us wants to see is a virus or a fungus sneak in on someone’s snack or sneakers and decimate our native trees, insects, birds, or aquatic life. As I said, I want to ensure that we take every step possible to protect our unique natural environment, and that includes making sure we do our bit to stop preventable biosecurity threats from entering Aotearoa New Zealand. We want to stop them from hitching a ride in with people visiting who want to come here to share the beauty of our country. We absolutely should share our taonga, but let’s do it safely. Let’s not do it in a way that puts our taonga at risk. Let’s take this small step to protect our natural environment so that it’s there for my children and others like them.

This is the third reading of the bill, so I want to take this last opportunity to acknowledge some of those whose hard work has helped to get the bill to this stage. I will be the first to admit that just after the second anniversary of my election to this House, I didn’t expect to have had a bill pulled from the biscuit tin—let alone be standing here and participating in the third reading. So I am grateful for all of the mahi of the drafters, the officials, and the hard-working members of the Primary Production Committee. They’ve all helped to shape this bill so that it’s even better now than it was at the first reading. Thank you again to the submitters who took the time to give feedback on this bill. I hope that they can see how their contributions have led to improvements in the bill. When enacted, this bill would add another layer of defence to our existing biosecurity system. That’s the system that helps to protect our outdoor environment where we fish, where we farm, where we grow food, and where we hunt and explore our beautiful country. The passing of this bill will contribute to the protection of our food and fibre sectors and to the protection of our natural environments. It is with great pleasure that I stand for one final time to commend the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill to this House.

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

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, this piece of legislation, the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill, is ultimately not too bad. We’re going to support it. The intent is good. Like most pieces of legislation, though, that we’re seeing coming though this Government, there’s a bit more to it than intent that really matters. And, in this instance, again there are a number of concerns that we did have with it. Fortunately, we’ve seen a lot of change come through the select committee process, to the point where, as I said, we will support it at this final stage.

Biosecurity, as the sponsor of this bill, Steph Lewis, has stated, is absolutely critical for New Zealand, and, as our spokesperson for horticulture, I know that the industry would be absolutely devastated if we had further incursions. Look, we are constantly facing that battle; we’ll see that start to ramp up again now that the borders are finally reopened and we’re starting to see some more travellers returning to New Zealand. We will see an increased risk of biosecurity incursions as well. We’ve seen that over the last few years with a number of key ones that listeners will be aware of in the media—Mycoplasma bovis, the brown marmorated stink bug, the Queensland fruit fly, and, of course, myrtle rust; just four of the more notable ones that have been in the media over the last few years. So of course we want to do what we can to minimise the risk of those sorts of incursions. So, on the face of it, this bill supports the work in that area.

But there were some concerns, and I do just want to highlight that, because we’ve seen this time and time again coming through from this Government with pieces of legislation. I appreciate this is a member’s bill, but, of course, it is supported by the Government—a Government member putting it forward—and it just has, on the face of it, too many unworkable pieces as it was originally presented. That was around being so prescriptive that it took away flexibility for how some of these commercial operators might need to operate, depending on their particular craft type or their process in managing their passengers and the likes. So we’ve seen the change now that has shifted this away from being any craft entering the country, which would have captured medical flights and defence personnel as well as the commercial operators that we’re looking at here.

So that’s now been tightened up around that commercial aspect, but specifically large commercial vessels, which is defined in this piece of legislation as having 20 or more passengers—not crew—on board. So, on that basis, then, they need to go through this series of processes. And again, fortunately, changes were made through the select committee that have seen it now in the position where those regulations “may require” a raft of aspects rather than “must include”, which allows greater flexibility, depending on the situation on those vessels, in terms of the form or manner in which that information might be presented, such as in different languages to allow full understanding based on where the visitors are from, and the type of medium—whether it’s written correspondence around the biosecurity rules or some audiovisual aspect. So there’s just a bit more flexibility there, which is good to see.

These are the sorts of reasons why it’s important to go through our robust select committee process, and, unfortunately, we’ve seen time after time the Government have truncated that process for no good reason other than, presumably, because they think they know it all and don’t need to consult the public. Fortunately, this is a great example of where that process has worked reasonably well. We’ve got some good changes in place. We’re comfortable now, on the balance, that it presents more benefits than issues, and so we are supporting it, but, of course, I just want to make the point, actually, as well that these larger commercial vessels are generally the ones that already have reasonable processes in place. Actually, my concern would be with some of the smaller vessels entering New Zealand from other countries, that are personally owned with maybe only a handful of people on them—people sailing around the world, for example—some of these ones who may not be aware of our strict biosecurity rules that are not now part of this legislation because of the large commercial craft definition that has been built into it. Actually, in the situation for those large commercial operators; it’s in their absolute benefit and their own best interest to ensure that they are strictly following our biosecurity practices, because otherwise that impacts on their own commercial operation into the future.

So I do just want to highlight that there’s potentially a missed opportunity there in terms of really helping to minimise some of those other risk avenues for us in the biosecurity space. But, on that basis, we do support it at this final reading, and I commend the member on having a bill passing through within two years—or just over two years—of her time as a member in this House. Thank you.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on members’ day on the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill.

I have to say that this is the first time that I’ve had an opportunity to speak on this bill, and I’m really excited. I think everyone’s excited when it comes to members’ day, because who knows! It’s often luck of the draw where it starts and it’s often luck of the draw where it ends. But I’m excited to be able to make a contribution on this bill in the House this evening.

I want to acknowledge my good colleague, the member for Whanganui, Steph Lewis, who has shepherded this bill through the parliamentary process. I know another colleague that has just had her bill go through, Rachel Boyack, and myself—I’ve had the privilege of being able to shepherd a bill through this House and I know what it’s like to be able to clear all of those hurdles, and so I want to acknowledge the work that Steph Lewis has done in bringing this to the House. I think that Steph Lewis may actually have been on track to have been the first of the class of 2020 Labour but for maternity leave; it meant that we are going to, hopefully, to pass the bill this evening.

I know that she is a hard-working member of Parliament for the mighty Whanganui. And she has seen a gap, she has seen an issue, and she has decided that she is going to do something about it, and that’s what constituents in the fine city and area of Whanganui expect of their hard-working MP. I know this is just the beginning for her, because there will be more bills that the member for Whanganui, Steph Lewis, will bring to this House upon consecutive three-year, consecutive three-year, consecutive-and-then-some—as the wonderful member for Whanganui.

This particular bill is one that will amend the Biosecurity Act of 1993. It’s an Act that has kept this country safe for nearly 30 years in terms of protecting our natural environment and what is so special and particular about Aotearoa New Zealand.

It applies specifically to large commercial craft, as Mr van de Molen has already identified this evening, and it also will ensure that there is a level of information about the, I guess, dynamic nature of New Zealand’s biodiversity needs to the craft’s passengers. I note that the Primary Production Committee throughout this process had looked at the issue of changing the definition. So it wasn’t just everyone who was on-board the craft, but it was actually going to be specified to passengers rather than crew being included in that, but also that the responsibility lies with the person who, effectively, is in charge of the craft. That makes sense; if we think about it, many of us, if not all, who fly around from A to B from time to time all know that it’s the captain who gives instructions about putting on the seatbelts, the captain who gives instructions about the flight about to land, and all of those sorts of things. So it’s appropriate that the responsibility does lie with the person who is in charge of the craft.

I have to say that I think, actually, many people around New Zealand would have thought that this was already a law, that this was something that was expected of all craft that were entering New Zealand. So I certainly was surprised to learn that it wasn’t, that perhaps, actually, the approach up to now has been one that has been optional rather than one that’s required by law. So I do thank the member for bringing this to the Parliament.

There are a number of changes that the select committee did suggest, and it’s pleasing to see that that has come to third reading, having survived the committee of the whole House process. I think I join with others in acknowledging that those suggested changes are obviously designed to make the bill more workable, which is certainly important. But I also note that the recommendations were also recommended by the Primary Production Committee in a unanimous fashion. I think it’s a real credit to the committee and, no doubt, the leadership of our colleague Jo Luxton, but also a credit to the member who is responsible for this bill, that she has been able to work extremely hard to ensure that there is cross-party support for this and to iron out some of those issues that have cropped up along the way. That’s certainly what we all expect of successful approaches to select committees.

One of the changes that is evident in the bill as it stands currently is the change to the date within which the bill would come into force. I understand previously it was suggested that it would be the day after Royal assent, but clearly the bill as it stands currently includes something quite different, and that is that it would be either on the date that’s specified in an Order in Council or 12 months after the bill receives Royal assent, whichever comes first. So the latest that this bill could come into play is, effectively, a 12-month period. That is obviously going to be welcomed. And the rationale, as I understand, for that is it gives officials, it gives the ministry, it gives stakeholders and others that are involved—whether it be airlines, whether it be cruise liners, whether it be other craft operators; but also those that are potentially enforcing this—to have a bit of time to ensure that the issues can be worked through. And the bill and what is expected—or the Act, as it will be—is able to be implemented in a way that is able to ensure that it is successful. So I think members, certainly on this side of the House, would agree, I’m sure, that that’s a sensible suggestion that the select committee have put forward.

The other interesting thing is the way in which this information related to New Zealand’s biodiversity is provided to passengers is going to be left to secondary legislation or to the director-general and others to work through as part of regulations rather than specified in the Act proper. I think, in the current environment and context, it’s really important to ensure that there is some flexibility and agility to provide different opportunities for craft operators to be able to provide that. So the bill itself is able to deliver on that by ensuring that there is some flexibility and that things can change, and it’s much easier, as we know, to be able to do that through regulations than it is to put it in primary legislation, because that would require a further passage through this House to change.

The interesting thing, and Mr van de Molen did touch on this, is the nature of some of the craft that come into New Zealand is quite different. The list that I’ve seen are things like private planes, air ambulances, cargo ships, fishing vessels, defence force aircraft, the list can go on. So the ability to tie, within the definition of the Act, a specific definition so that it captures those that are of a suitable size—so it won’t capture all craft or vessels or aircraft that come into New Zealand, but it will capture a significant number for whom the risk would be, it’s suggested I think, much higher. Where there is a higher volume of passengers, then clearly the risk is much higher to the country; whereas if it’s a smaller number of passengers the level of engagement with border officials is at a level where there is still a risk, but the risk can be mitigated by mere numbers. It is much lower as I understand it.

Just to conclude, I again want to acknowledge the hard work of my colleague Steph Lewis in bringing this bill to the House. I think many of us watch Border Security and “Border Control” and all of those sorts of things—

Steph Lewis: Border Patrol.

TANGI UTIKERE: —Border Patrol, thank you. And we often see the decisions that some people make, and I’m sure many of us think, “Is that really possible? Is it really that you can get to the point at New Zealand’s border and you don’t realise what is in your bag or your luggage?” What this member’s bill does is it provides some certainty that the information, the level of information that will be provided to those who are travelling to New Zealand, before they arrive in New Zealand—so not at the point of arrival, but before they arrive in New Zealand—is at a level that nobody can have excuses as to not knowing what is acceptable and what is not. So I again congratulate the member, and I commend this bill to the House.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise just to make a few short comments on the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill, and to add further congratulations to the member Steph Lewis for having this drawn and having it passed through into law this evening—well done.

Like many have observed, we do understand that biosecurity information is already provided to inbound passengers that enter New Zealand through those—some might say God-awful—Air New Zealand videos; others may call them communications systems. There are various ways and means to communicate the very important laws that we have to protect our borders, and our biosecurity border more specifically—those are generally run by the Ministry for Primary Industries. But this bill, as we’ve heard, seeks to further strengthen that protection against any threats of incursion by making provision of this information a requirement. So I’m sorry, to read into that, that those Air New Zealand videos look like they are here to stay.

But National does support this bill for many reasons. We do think that biosecurity is of critical importance to this country, primarily due to our really special, really unique island-based ecosystem and, of course, our economic reliance on the primary sectors and the tourism sectors, which we hope very much will be coming back to their former glory sometime soon.

New Zealand has a very unique island ecology, very different to other island ecologies around parts of the world, in that ours is in some parts tropical and other parts alpine. Because of that, we enjoy such an enormous diverse range of flora and fauna. I understand that about 80 percent of the 2,500 species of native conifers, flowering plants, and ferns, of course, aren’t found anywhere else in the world, so that does give us even more reason to protect and preserve, where at all possible.

With climate change, of course, our country is warming, our waters are warming. I understand from listening to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment quite recently that what they’re noticing is foreign pests and diseases in plants are moving from the North further south, and, equally, they’re moving from the flat lands and foothills up higher into the mountain ranges as those climates warm. Of course, we must do our absolute best to protect those that are native to New Zealand by preventing the incursion of those imported species—that is the best way that we can do that.

But, of course, as much as we are pleased to have our borders open and we welcome those tourists coming back into New Zealand, they do bring an increased threat of a biosecurity incursion. It’s those incursions that I think are particularly making our primary industry sector very vulnerable at the moment. We’ve talked a lot, actually, in the Chamber this afternoon and this evening, about the importance of our primary industry sector, and we’ve all talked about the $52 billion that its exports are bringing to our economy. That is 60 percent of this country’s total export earnings, so, to that end, we must protect those export earnings, and that means we must do everything humanely possible to prevent any further diseases coming here. We’ve seen the devastating impact that the Mycoplasma bovis incursions have been causing for at least five, if not six, years now, at a cost of well over a quarter of a billion dollars and to enormous heartbreak for so many farmers and landowners involved. We’ve seen the Psa outbreak cost New Zealand $800 million, and it’s estimated that if we were, God forbid, to have a foot-and-mouth outbreak here, it would cost our economy well over $15 billion.

So, as we all know, biosecurity outbreaks can result in New Zealand losing access to really important markets, and that’s why that foot-and-mouth threat is so, so terrifying, really, and must be dealt with by all means necessary.

So this bill, of course, is a very common-sense way to deal with these things by all means necessary. It just adds a further layer of protection, a further layer of education to those travellers coming into this country; it’s why we support this, really, because it’s just one more measure to cover off all possible avenues. It will pull us in line with Australia, which I understand has a similar law. We like these sorts of solutions; it is a low-cost way to enhance our biosecurity system and reduce the risk of further incursions. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to speak on this bill. Like those before me, I’d like to congratulate colleague Steph Lewis for bringing the bill to this point and also acknowledge another colleague, the Hon Kiritapu Allan for her role in making this bill happen.

I didn’t sit on the select committee that heard the submissions, but I do understand the real significance of the primary industries to our economy and so making sure that we’ve got effective biosecurity systems in place. I think as a country we’ve got real natural advantages, because we don’t have many of the pests and diseases that other countries have. That puts our growers and our farmers at a distinct advantage, gives it that competitive edge in the international markets because they’re not having to manage a lot of the other conditions and pests that people have to overseas. As a child, I spent a couple of years overseas in a country where they did have significant issues with fruit flies. We’d often go to the markets, and you learnt very, very quickly that you needed to check the fruit, especially if it’s gone a bit brown, for fruit flies before you actually bit into your banana or your apple, otherwise you would regret it.

I think many people coming to New Zealand for the first time may not fully understand our unique situation and the fact that we don’t have many of those pests that there are overseas and so may not actually understand the need for many of those biosecurity measures. I think it’s very easy for somebody just not thinking to have that apple in their bag and then not quite understand why they need to declare it—get it back to the motel or somewhere else, find it’s a bit brown and throw it in the rubbish. Then it ends up in the landfill where potentially the fruit fly larvae emerge.

Looking at 2019, they found 11 Queensland fruit flies in Auckland. What that cost to actually eradicate that outbreak was $12 million. What they needed to do there was they had over 2,000 traps being deployed across Auckland, they had to put out about over 1,000 biosecurity disposable bins around the city, 1.5 tonnes of fruit chopped to look for the larvae, and they basically had to restrict fruit and vegetable movements. The issue was that if that was not successful, the cost would have been so much higher. So every layer of protection that we’ve got—whether that’s pre-border, at the border, after the border—is incredibly important to make sure that our country’s protected from imported pests and diseases.

So what this bill does—it’s a relatively short bill, but it’s relatively important one. Even though the select committee recommended a whole range of very detailed changes, the essential element of the bill remained intact. That was making sure that information is provided to people coming into New Zealand right at the point where they need it the most.

Just going through some of the changes that the select committee made—and many of them really just related to the practicality around the implementation. The first one was the commencement. When the bill was introduced, commencement was from the day after Royal assent. As a select committee, they recommended that that should actually be delayed and the commencement should be made by Order in Council or no later than 12 months after Royal assent. That was to give time for officials to work with the airline industry, with the cruise line industry, and to make sure that they had all the technical aspects in place so all the information required in this bill could be delivered.

Some of the other changes looked at narrowing the scope of the bill a little bit. So, basically, thinking about somebody coming in on an aircraft and the bill as introduced suggested that everybody on that aircraft needed to be provided with information, whereas the select committee recommended that that got narrowed down so that it was only passengers, because the crew would be really, really familiar with the rules of what they could bring in.

Similarly, thinking about the craft coming in, narrowing that down to commercial passenger craft with 20 or more passengers. So what that did is it meant that a range of small crafts could then be excluded from that. Things like air ambulances, fishing vessels, and the defence force aircraft because they’d be very familiar with the biosecurity rules—so making sure that it really was only focusing where that needed to be focused.

One of the other core changes made was the reflection that the financial penalties in the bill as introduced were actually disproportionate to what we were trying to achieve. What the recommendation was was maintaining that strict liability offence but reducing the penalty down to $1,000 for an individual and up to $5,000 for a body corporate to make it more proportional to the fact that somebody hadn’t provided that biosecurity information.

Just coming back, the essence of the bill is to make sure that what we’re getting is the information that people need right in front of them at the very point when they need it. Coming back to why this is important, I think just having a look tonight, I didn’t have the pleasure of listening to the submitters, but I did take some time to go through and read some of the submissions.

I think the one from Horticulture New Zealand highlights what’s at stake here. In their submission they said, basically, “The horticulture industry is valued at $6.73 billion” and that’s “$4.55 billion in exports annually.”—so a huge contribution to our economy. “Employs over 60,000 people, occupies 80,000 ha of land”, and thinking about the crucial impact it has in terms of regional development. They also highlighted in their submission that, “New Zealand growers supply the majority of fresh and processed fruit and vegetables to the domestic [market] as well as exporting … overseas.” So this is basically about food security and making sure that our producers and growers can produce high-quality food without additional cost. In their submission they said, “Biosecurity is essential to support production, secure market access, and provide confidence for investment—all critical to ensure the horticulture industry continues to prosper.” So incredibly important for many, many regions around the country.

Similarly, Federated Farmers, in their submission, actually noted how easy it was for somebody to find themselves in breach of the biosecurity measures inadvertently. Basically, they said they’d received anecdotes from another members finding themselves in that situation. Just reading one of their quotes from the submission, “Our members are fully alive to the importance of biosecurity and the impact this could have on their growing and farming operations. Our members note that it is all too easy for passengers to forget the piece of fruit they were given on the aircraft and only be reminded once they were in front of New Zealand border staff.”

What we’re doing here is we’re protecting our farming communities, we’re protecting our horticulture industry from the incursions from pests and disease. Certainly, thinking through, while this is only a small aspect that we’re strengthening here, what we learnt in the health system and when we’re thinking about how we protect from risks with accidents potentially occurring, it’s about a multi-layer approach, where you put one barrier and prevention followed by another followed by another so that, as a system, you’ve got multiple barriers for protection in terms of something getting through.

I think what this does is it means that if you’re there, in the plane, and you’re basically thinking about “have I got something that I need to declare?”, having a video, having it clearly explained what our biosecurity rules are, and making sure that’s consistent in every aircraft and cruise liner that meets this criteria will mean that we’ve got that added level of protection. What we’re protecting here, as my colleague Steph Lewis was talking about, is our biodiversity as well as our industries, and our huge primary industries’ export value to our country.

I think other things you often forget until you’re in the plane thinking “have I been out on farm in another country?”, “What are the state of my boots?”, “What have I got that I’ve picked up and might be in the bottom of my bag?”—so making sure that that information is there and that people are reminded. This is an important bill, adds an extra layer of protection, and I’m very happy to commend it to the House.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Fakaalofa lahi atu ki a mutolu oti. It’s Niuean Language Week, so I just wanted to greet the House in that good way. I rise on behalf of the Greens to take a call on the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill. I would like to, like everyone else around the House, congratulate the member Steph Lewis, the member for Whanganui, for shepherding this through the House.

As I was sitting here, I was thinking about a really well-known whakataukī from the Whanganui region, from our relatives Te Āti Haunui-a-Pāpārangi whānau and the people of the river, where they say, “Ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au.”—I am the river, and the river is me. It’s such a wonderful way to think about that connection between people and the environment, between community and the climate. A few of us have actually touched on that tonight as well—the need to be able to protect things for the future, for our tamariki, for our mokopuna, for our children, and for those to come after us. That’s so important—that’s so important—because there is nothing but wins, that I can see, with this bill. It provides those extra layers of protection. It builds on all those biosecurity measures that are there already, acknowledging what that will mean for our children, for our children’s children, and making sure that, for the things that are there, we are protecting nature—that we’re protecting those species in the best way possible. And having this on top of all the other biosecurity measures is so, so important, and it’s awesome to see that being reflected in the House tonight.

The purpose of this bill—it’s a simple bill—is to amend the Biosecurity Act 1993 to require that all craft coming to Aotearoa are required to provide biosecurity information. So those Air New Zealand ads—yeah, they’re always a bit hit and miss! Maybe more miss than hit, but good on them for trying and letting people know. Actually, when we first started debating this bill, some time ago now, I just honestly thought it was actually part of the infrastructure, and so knowing that it wasn’t and knowing that we needed to actually embed this stuff in is really important. This bill will require all craft coming to New Zealand to provide biosecurity information to the persons on board by means of an audiovisual recording and writing. The main provisions of the bill are to insert a new section into the Biosecurity Act that applies to craft that are en route to Aotearoa and require the person in charge of the craft to provide approved audiovisual and written information about New Zealand’s biosecurity requirements. So important, so basic, but so necessary.

I don’t sit on the Primary Production Committee, but I did read through some of the notes and through some of the submissions, and there were some real common-sense changes made. That has been reflected tonight as well—so, for example, craft that are of a hospital nature, or those sorts of craft with small numbers of people, where they’re going back and forth anyway. They’ll be well versed with the requirements, so making sure they’re not included in this is, I think, a good way to make sure we don’t waste resources.

The other part of this as well—and a very, very important part of this—is the protection of nature in and of its own self: protection of indigenous species, native species, our flora, our fauna, and the connections we have with that. But, then, also, the other part as well about protecting our food and fibre sector—protecting our food and fibre sector is so important, as many people around the House have said tonight. Our regions feed the country. Our regions—the provinces—feed the country. They feed the cities, and so it is so important to make sure that we put stuff in place, and this builds on that. Thinking about all those biosecurity threats that have come into the country, and people have talked about the impact of Psa on kiwifruit, Mycoplasma bovis as well, the impact that that has had on farmers, making sure we have what we can to put in place, to make sure that those are protected, is so important as well. And also mentioning foot and mouth disease as well—we don’t want that here in Aotearoa New Zealand, even though this is politics and a lot of politicians have been putting their foot in their mouth this week, I’ve noticed! I’m not sure if you’ve noticed that, Madam Speaker, but I have. It’s not a biosecurity threat, but it’s something to think about. So it’s so important that we build up on the layers of biosecurity regulations and protections that are there as well.

I noticed—and I think maybe everyone noticed as well—there is support around the House for this very common-sense law. So, again, I would like to acknowledge the member from the mighty Whanganui for shepherding this very common-sense bill through this House—this very common-sense bill through the House—adding that protection for our tamariki and our mokopuna, to enjoy nature, to enjoy the environment, making sure that nature itself is protected, and also making sure that we protect the food and fibre sector that feeds the cities, and rejuvenate and revitalise the regions as well, and making sure that we put that stuff in place. So, on that, the Greens are happy to support this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Fakaaue lahi.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m delighted to take a call on the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill. And, like everybody else, I think, who’s spoken so far, I congratulate Steph Lewis for getting her bill to this third reading. In her two years of being a parliamentarian, she has also had that baby, so two major achievements.

What this bill does is it amends the Biosecurity Act 1993. That Act is under review and has been for some time. It’s very important legislation, and it’s important because it does two things to protect us here in Aotearoa. It’s interested in both biosecurity and pests, and that is to protect both our biodiversity and our food production—so our environment and also what we eat. We’ve heard a number of speakers talk about that already this evening, and I’m delighted to say I agree with so much of what Nicola Grigg said earlier—she’s looking slightly surprised. I also reflect that just recently, on another members’ day, we were talking about the Hon Jacqui Dean’s bill, also related to biosecurity. In that set of speeches, as well as tonight, there were quite a few references to Border Patrol, and I did say last time I was speaking on biosecurity that I would have to start watching it. I still have not done that, but I do intend to.

Food production is very important. Obviously, it’s for our own food security—we want to be able to eat the food that we grow in New Zealand, as well as feeding the extra 40 million or so people that we do. Of course, that relates to our export earnings of, as Nicola Grigg was just saying, $52 billion. So this is very important for our wellbeing and for our economy.

But so too is biodiversity, and you heard the last speaker talk about the importance of nature. We’ve had a huge focus in recent years on pest control with Jobs for Nature and Predator Free 2050. Why we’re doing that is because—again, I keep referring to Nicola Grigg. She was making the good point about our precious ecosystems and our indigenous biodiversity. This provides help with our water catchments—obviously there is some food in that habitat, as well, for other things that we might eat. There are many things that we probably don’t know about yet that our biodiversity can provide for us, and, of course, there is all the knowledge in mātauranga Māori as well.

Then we have the other benefits of our beautiful biodiversity and environment, including the wellbeing that we get from being outside in it; the international visitors that we have to places like Piopiotahi; and, of course, we have tourism well and truly back on. So that is why both food production and biodiversity are important, and our biosecurity regime is to keep away those pests and biosecurity risks.

This bill is focused on people. It’s not focused on containers; it’s focused on people visiting New Zealand. It’s not quite everyone that it applies to; you have to be on a craft. This is defined in the Biosecurity Act and includes both boats and planes. As Tim van de Molen mentioned, the craft has to be a large commercial craft—that’s defined in the Immigration Act 2009—and means a craft that travels for a commercial purpose or as part of a commercial operation. The bill, in addition to that, requires at least 20 passengers. I understand that there was some discussion at select committee about that, and I commend the select committee on working constructively to make this bill work. But what those definitions mean is that the jets that we might fly to New Zealand—and if we’re lucky enough to go overseas—and cruise liners definitely apply.

What happens is that the person in charge of the craft must provide information, as required by regulation, and new section 17AA in clause 4 says what those regulations may do. We’ve heard from other speakers about how they can include specified content and the form or manner that they can be in, including with translations—and I understand there are a number of submissions about accessibility of this information, criteria, and some other issues in the regulations as well.

Like the other speakers, I do really want to commend this bill to the House. It’s very important that we don’t get those nasties like stink bugs and various different ants that we don’t want in New Zealand. We remember, of course, outbreaks around the Queensland fruit fly, and many other issues that have been mentioned in various readings of this bill in this House. It’s easy to forget if you’ve got fruit with you, particularly if you have small children and you’ve been an ambitious mother and decided that it’d be good for your children to eat fruit—and, of course, they don’t eat it. You don’t want to be landed with that when you arrive in front of the biosecurity officers. So I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The ACT Party supports this bill and we like the idea of providing more information to people so that they can do the right thing. When they’re arriving in New Zealand—many, many of them—they will be able to get the information they need about the things that are important to New Zealand as a primary producer of great food and great products grown from the soil.

I’ll just give you a few stats. In the year to March 2020, the last year that we felt normal, there were 169 ship visits to New Zealand, carrying between, say, 1,500, some as many as 5,000, passengers each. Now, if you took the bottom end of the range, say it was 1,500 passengers per ship, that would be around 250,000 people arriving by ship in New Zealand every year—we’re talking cruise liners primarily—making 901 port calls. A very large number of opportunities for people to make a mistake and potentially bring something into New Zealand like a banana in the bottom of the backpack that they’d forgotten to remove.

In terms of air travel, I’m just going to pick one month. December 2019: 528,000 people arrived by aircraft in New Zealand. In fact, Statistics New Zealand—the most recent data available for 2018—indicates that there were 77,000 international flights arriving in New Zealand.

So if this bill leads to more people arriving in New Zealand having a better understanding about how important biosecurity is to New Zealand, what are the rules, and what they must know in order to make good decisions when they arrive in our country, then that’s a good thing.

But there’s a few problems that this bill doesn’t address. I had a recent experience coming back across the border as an international arrival, and I was shocked because I hadn’t been through this experience for some years. I was given a small blue trifold form with a number of questions on it—in the early hours of the morning—and asked to fill it out and make an accurate declaration about a whole lot of information that if I got wrong, I was going to be subject to many, many fines. Potentially imprisonment; I don’t know. Loss of things.

When I arrived in New Zealand and picked up my bag, I queued for about half an hour in a queue with five flights’ worth of people, all holding their blue forms to hand them over to a long-suffering Ministry for Primary Industries officer who had been there for many hours in the night, receiving these forms from passengers. I asked him, “How come we have to wait so long to hand you this form?” And he said, “Oh, it’s just because we don’t want everybody queueing for the X-ray machines all at once, so we make you queue here to hand the form over.” I thought to myself, “I’m not entirely sure if this is helping biosecurity. I don’t know if this is making New Zealand’s primary producers safer.”, that, in order to control the number of people going to the X-ray machine, they have to run a filter.

Then there was a 20-minute queue for the X-ray machine, where every passenger arriving in New Zealand—some with three or four pieces of luggage—had to queue to put their baggage through an X-ray machine, no doubt looking for the apple or the banana or, I don’t know, some packet of hipster barbecue products that someone had forgotten they needed to declare. But what was really shocking was that none of the flights arriving at that time came from a destination that you’d say is high-risk. And, yet, every single passenger was subject to the same, essentially, risk treatment as if they’d arrived from the highest-risk origin.

When you think about how many people are arriving in New Zealand—528,000, say, on flights in the month of December 2019—to create a system that subjects people arriving in New Zealand to that kind of intervention without actually having any due regard for the risk, then you think about the actual risk to New Zealand of a disease like foot-and-mouth arriving, and yet it doesn’t seem to be any extra special treatment, any extra special risk assessment or risk mitigation, for those arriving from high-risk destinations, places where diseases like foot-and-mouth are always present in the soils.

So while ACT supports this bill, it certainly does point to, potentially, a lack of focus in the way that biosecurity is managed in New Zealand, and that’s just for international arrivals; that’s just for passengers, let alone all of those vessels that arrive in New Zealand from destinations where they might have marine pests on them—for example, organisms which are really damaging to our natural environment, to our fisheries. So while ACT will support this bill, because we believe it’s important that people arriving in New Zealand have access to better information, there is much, much more work this Government should do and could do to streamline the biosecurity risk assessment process and the movement of passengers through our international waters.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Fakaalofa lahi atu, Madam Speaker. I rise to make a contribution to the third reading of this bill, and I would like to congratulate my colleague Stephanie Lewis for bringing this and shepherding it into the House. I’m really pleased to be able to do so, because I was not a member of the select committee or involved in the previous readings. But I would like to acknowledge the members of the Primary Production Committee, specifically for their collegiality and the constructive feedback that has been provided by the process, but also to the officials for their guidance to the select committee process, and those who took the time to submit to the bill because of its importance.

I’m really proud to make a contribution to this bill in the third reading and to highlight as to, in my view, the purpose, the why, and the amendments of the bill that focuses on, and the Government’s support and focus for biosecurity and biodiversity. In the bill, it does talk specifically about crafts coming to New Zealand, bringing travellers, and that the borders have opened up to allow Kiwis, New Zealanders, to travel back and forth. So, whilst there is some information, what the bill does do is it provides a very clear framework of what to do for individuals, for people travelling to the border and utilising new technologies such as apps, and not just focusing on written information. Because the borders are now open, the risk is increased in terms of protecting biosecurity and biodiversity within Aotearoa. Because whilst we do want people to travel back and forth to Aotearoa, we’re not so sure about the understanding and the clarity—and listening to the bill previously, it is important that the language that is used is actually understood by those coming in and out, whatever their background, age, and ethnicity.

What the bill does is it provides the stricter clarity of the liability of operators, and more certainty around the information. The current biosecurity information that is already provided to passengers—you come through the system that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has, and I do want to acknowledge the officials, but the bill does seek to further strengthen our protection from any threats that we could be open to. I do want to remind the House that just recently we did have the fruit fly that really threatened produce in New Zealand, and mainly in Auckland, in particular parts of, I think it was, Devonport and the CBD, but the funding that was provided to strengthen and take immediate action for those communities was well over $10 million.

The proposed amendments that are recommended and introduced in this bill do require commercial craft en route to New Zealand. I actually want to talk about the risks or the uncertainty. I actually was involved in two live cases, as a staffer in Auckland, where there were two grandmothers that travelled to two different countries and didn’t fully understand (a) because of their age; (b) because of their Pacific background; and (c) because they were travelling with a family member. What they had forgotten to declare was one piece of fruit each, and because one in particular had dementia they got stung quite badly. The scenario that was described was coming through MPI officials through Auckland International Airport at 4 a.m. from Qatar, which was really challenging for the caregiver. I talk about that scenario because sometimes we assume that when people read important information about our laws, don’t fully understand, and there was quite a breakdown of communication between the traveller and the family member. Then getting to our borders, whilst they were empathetic, the officials had a job to do. So I describe that scenario because it’s quite easy to assume, post-COVID, that people coming into New Zealand understand our laws when, actually, plain, clear language and even visual aids will help provide that information to travellers.

In the bill, as it is introduced, it talks about the commencement date and we are aware that the ministry and industry representatives are really serious, particularly because our primary sector is really helping with exports as we, in a post-COVID environment, continue to support that. And the Government is really serious, and, in this bill, provides the contribution in asking, in putting the onus back on not just people coming on those crafts, but the travellers need to understand the biosecurity and the threats to our biodiversity.

Just in terms of the protection of the strengthening through this bill for Aotearoa at our borders and travel gates, it’s a common-sense bill. We want to take the guesswork for officials because, further to the scenario described earlier, just very quickly, there was quite a breakdown of communication, even with the officials at MPI at the border, where one was quite lenient to the two travellers and the family members and one actually wanted to operate the law. We need that certainty. We need to take the guesswork and the risks so that our people at the borders don’t just assume, that they fully understand the compliance that must protect at the borders.

So the bill guarantees the protection of our natural environment for those that are travelling, and it also will ensure what travellers must do—not should do but must do—in strengthening the amendment in this bill and for the protection at the border. I do want to go back and congratulate Stephanie and the Primary Production Committee and congratulate everyone that’s been involved. I commend this bill to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the third reading of the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill, and I commend the member Stephanie Lewis, who is about to see this passed into law. Well done.

This is a relatively simple bill. The purpose of it is to amend the Biosecurity Act 1993 to require that all craft coming into New Zealand are required to provide biosecurity information to the person on board by means of an audiovisual recording and writing. The main provisions are to insert a new section into the Biosecurity Act that applies to craft that are en route to New Zealand and requires the person in charge of the craft to provide approved audiovisual and written information about New Zealand’s biosecurity requirements. It also requires the director-general of the Ministry for Primary Industries to approve the material to be provided on board. So it’s a simple bill, but it is an important one because biosecurity is an issue of critical importance to New Zealand due to our unique ecosystems and our economic reliance, in particular, on the primary sectors. The primary sector is worth—on our most recent accounts—$52 billion to the New Zealand economy. That’s $10,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. It’s a lot of money, and our economy cannot operate without that, so this is critical to that.

Not only that, though. We also have 38 percent of New Zealand covered in forestry. That’s eight million hectares of native forest, and 2.1 million hectares of plantation forests—1.7 million of that is in production forests, ranges, and reserves, etc. So there’s also a very significant ecosystem that we need to protect in our country. We also have a really important fishing sector in New Zealand, which is worth about $2 billion to the New Zealand economy, and we need to protect that as well.

Certainly, if I think of my electorate, I have the great Fiordland National Park, which covers two of these things. It covers one of the World Heritage Forest areas, which is one of the great treasures of the world and of New Zealand, and we also have the crayfishing sector, which operates off the Fiordland coast and is one of the biggest contributors, certainly, in the Te Ānau region to the local economy but is also significant in New Zealand. Then across the rest of my electorate through various parts of Central Otago, West Otago, South Otago, and Southland, which are all parts of my electorate as well as parts of the Queenstown Lakes District, there’s also a big reliance on the primary sector. So it’s very important for part of my region as well as, obviously, for New Zealand more generally.

As well as that, there is the value of the biosecurity in terms of the native forestry, which I was speaking about and which is also a really important part of my region. I spoke briefly about Fiordland, where I have Milford Sound and Dusky Sound as part of my region, which attracts people from all over the world and is one of the iconic features of this country, which I’m lucky enough to be the representative for in this House. I also have Queenstown Lakes, where we have Queenstown, we have Kingston, and we have Glenorchy—all iconic features of the tourism industry, which draws people to this country. We need to protect that unique ecosystem, which is an integral part of this region and attracts people to this country.

Then, if I think about wineries, we have some exceptional wines in my region, in both the Queenstown Lakes region, right through into Central Otago, from Clyde, Alexandra, down through Roxburgh, etc. We have some exceptional wineries in that area. It’s critically important we protect those, which the biosecurity is particularly important for as well. So this is incredibly important for them.

Then I also have, in the Central Otago part of my region, the horticultural industry, which is apples, pears, peaches, cherries, etc. Well, this is the fruit-growing bowl of the South Island, which I share with my colleague next door in the Waitaki electorate in Cromwell, but that Central Otago region is critically important for fruit production. Again, biosecurity is of enormous importance for that region and, of course, more generally across the country. So this is a simple bill. It is a good bill. I commend Stephanie Lewis for bringing it to the House. I congratulate her on this shortly being passed into law. And, with that, I’ll commend the bill to the House.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Malo ‘aupito, and Fakaalofa lahi atu, Madam Speaker. It’s always an honour and a privilege to take a call in this House of change, not only as the member of Parliament for the beautiful Ōtaki electorate but also on this the members’ day, and, of course, to speak on the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill. This member’s bill that was introduced in the name of my friend and my colleague Steph Lewis, the member of Parliament for the Whanganui electorate, and amazing mama of Flynn and Miss Scarlett. So congratulations, e hoa, on your bill, the third reading.

As we’ve already heard tonight, the bill amends the Biosecurity Act 1993, which requires that aircrafts coming to Aotearoa, before they land and before the passengers disembark, are very clear about their responsibilities to help us protect our natural environment and our biosecurity by reading and understanding and signing up to the information provided, and knowing that, though they’re visitors, it is also their responsibility to help us to maintain our tight biosecurity measures. So we know that this bill strengthens those biosecurity systems and protects our primary industries and environments.

In the Ōtaki electorate, we have businesses and industries that rely on Aotearoa having those tight and secure processes around our biosecurity and making sure that we are protecting Aotearoa and keeping those pests out. In the Ōtaki electorate, we have Woodhaven just down the road. Woodhaven and the Clarke whānau—Madam Speaker, I believe you visited there with me as well—supply Aotearoa with about 15 to 20 percent of our leafy greens, so, chances are, when you pick up spring onions or lettuce, that comes from the mighty and beautiful Ōtaki electorate and from Woodhaven.

But, Madam Speaker, when we did visit, you saw that Woodhaven aren’t just a horticulture business; they’re more than that. In the Ōtaki electorate, the Clarke whānau are really supportive of single parent whānau, so they have created single parent hours for a lot of their staff, which means, you know, 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. so that people can drop off and pick up their children. The Clarke’s, or Woodhaven, also support a lot of our community with fresh fruit and vegetables—another example, during the COVID lockdown, they had their staff and used their vans and their trucks to go to some of the more vulnerable areas in Levin and Ōhau and delivered to the letterboxes fresh fruit and vegetables, including amazing big green watermelons. So, yes, chances are, if you have a good green watermelon, that’s probably from my area, too. And they filled up our pātaka and so much more. They’re also massive supporters of the Pasifika community, and have been long-time, great employers of Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) workers from both Tonga and Samoa, and now also Kiribati.

If pests got into their crops, the ramifications of that are so much more far-reaching than not only our biosecurity; it also affects their business, their livelihood, and then, of course, their staff’s livelihood, and then the work they’re able to do and support in our communities. So that’s the crux of it, right. So it’s about our biosecurity, but it also is about protecting our people as well.

We have many more amazing businesses—I don’t like to name them all because I’m scared I’m going to miss some out, but they do rely on places like Shirley’s Strawberries, Lewis Farms, Manakau Market, Waikawa Blueberries, Te Horo Gardens, Ōhau Wines, and so much more.

Iwi also rely on us making sure that we get it right so they can continue to be good kaitiaki for their whenua. Actually, we should all be good kaitiaki for our whenua. Places like Lake Horowhenua, Punahau; Waikawa Beach; Lake Papaitonga; Te Horo Beach; Waikanae Estuary; Kāpiti Island, which has some of our indigenous plants; Ngā Manu is another place in Waikanae who has some of our indigenous plants—we want to make sure that our tamariki and our mokopuna to come can still enjoy those things. So this is such an important bill; ka pai, you, Steph Lewis, for bringing it through, for protecting not only our biosecurity but our livelihoods for many of our people, and somewhere our mokopuna and tamariki get to enjoy. Kia ora.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Fakaaue lahi.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Fakaalofa lahi atu, and a big hello particularly to my former intern, Salote, who taught me much about Niue, including that I need to get to Matapa. I’m told it’s one of the most amazing places indeed.

Harking back to a previous bill, I am still as excited as a thaumaturgist in an apothecary. It is really quite a night like that, and I’m now doing that, sorry, for the benefit of Dr Emily Henderson. I know she loves the intensity and breadth of the English language. I’m also still mildly esurient, but that’s all right as well.

Also, I am slightly the richer tonight. I had offered in a previous speech that I would pay for a beer for any Labour member who could have told me my quote, “Prithee, nuncle, be contented. ‘Tis a naughty night to be swimming.” Unfortunately, no one on the Labour side has said that. It’s King Lear, Act 3, Scene 4. Well known, of course. I have saved myself a lot of money: it’s about $24 for a beer in Auckland, and by the time I’ve said this it’s now $26 due to inflation.

I am delighted to support Steph Lewis’ bill; she was probably wondering what’s going on at this point. But, no, I am pleased, our side’s pleased, to support it, the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill. Look, it’s a good bill. It’s a classic member’s bill and I think it’s rightly being discussed in the House tonight.

What I love about it, harking back to the previous bill, is, of course, it is relatively plain language. It’s a wonderful example of a bill in this Parliament that actually articulates what it does—that it’s biosecurity-focused and it’s information for incoming passengers. As many have touched on, it’s been a little gap in the law. What this bill is simply and easily doing is inserting a new section, as the member knows. So, at one level, why am I telling the member this? But, anyway, welcome to Parliament.

Yeah, a new element to the Biosecurity Act to make sure that craft coming into New Zealand—so we’re primarily talking aircraft; not exclusively, but aircraft—use audiovisual and written information that is presented to those people entering the country.

Look, conceptually it makes perfect sense. The more information, the better. I would make the distinction—just because I have to—there is always a difference between information and knowledge, and something we’re going to have to, as a country, deal with. What I mean by that is we can obviously furnish all the information in the world to people, but unless they—if you will—acknowledge it and process it, they could still ignore it. But that’s not the concern, per se, of the member. She’s doing the right thing through this bill to make it a legal requirement.

Look, we’re in the third reading, but I will just echo a couple of things that I mentioned in the committee stage. I am still a little bit concerned about the clarity of the Act around who is specifically responsible; I think the wording’s just a little loose for me. But, granted, I am no lawyer and, again, I have absolute confidence the member—in replying to my questions at the time, through her officials—will be clear on that.

But, long and short, it says in the moment in the bill—and knowing my luck, I can’t find it as I am about to try and speak here. But who is the person who is responsible to provide this information? Is it the likes of the company itself? Is it the captain? Is it the purser? Who is meant to be responsible?

The other side of it is I’m a little—again, concerned is probably too strong a word. Is ultimately whether or not we’ve got enough penalties—or, sorry, let’s be more specific, clear, and plain: we do have two penalties in this bill. We’re saying that an individual person can be fined no more than $1,000, and, my understanding from the member, the corporation or company is $5,000. I think, for me personally, that’s still a little bit low, particularly that a conviction’s required. Again, that’s where the bill has gone. Perhaps it’s for a future Parliament to re-look at.

Again, I really want to stress to the member: concept’s great. We’ll obviously see how this embeds, how this works. But there is a question to me of—well, I suppose I’m OK with $1,000; I’d personally like to see it as an instant fine. But that’s one thing. But for a company, $5,000 is nothing. But, again, really want to stress, that’s a moot and a debating point.

So, look, a good bill. It’ll be good to see this come into play relatively quickly. I think the member’s—I think it’s Order in Council but then there’s—

Steph Lewis: 12 months.

SIMON O’CONNOR: In 12 months, excellent. So the member’s confirming that in 12 months, it comes into being, which probably gives enough time for the Ministry for Primary Industries primarily but also the various craft holders—aircraft or otherwise—to get some new forms.

Actually, speaking of that, can I put my customs hat on briefly? Absolutely marvellous that the New Zealand Traveller Declaration has gone.

Simeon Brown: “Gone-burger”.

SIMON O’CONNOR: “Gone-burger”—didn’t need it; never needed it. The information’s not being used. Better be clear: Customs were amazing; they were just following what they had to do. But absolutely, completely unnecessary.

I have now recognised the irony that as one set of paper goes out the door, we are bringing a new set in, but it is for a good cause and it is to protect our environment. Actually, the former speaker—the member for Ōtaki, I think—articulated very well, listing through the amazing places and flora and fauna that need to be protected in this country that we love.

So to somewhat bookend this and to finish. Seeing that we have—well, it’s 9.30 at night. I will end for the benefit of my Shakespearean friend once again, Paul Goldsmith: “Prithee, nuncle, be contented. ‘Tis a naughty night to be swimming.”

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Fakaalofa lahi atu ki a mutolu oti.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Fakaalofa lahi atu, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to rise as the MP for the beautiful Takanini, and speak as the last caller for the Biosecurity (Information for Incoming Passengers) Amendment Bill third reading. I haven’t had the pleasure of speaking in the first two readings of the bill, nor sitting in the select committee that worked on this, but I would like to thank again, like my colleagues, the member Steph Lewis for bringing this bill to the House, and also the Primary Production Committee for working on this important bill.

Being the last speaker and wrapping up, I just want to look back at what the bill does and definitely how it strengthens New Zealand’s biodiversity system—

Glen Bennett: I’d love to know.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA: —thank you, sir—and also protects the primary industries, environment, and also our way of life. It amends the Biosecurity Act 1993, requiring the large commercial craft en route to New Zealand that arrive, and provide information to craft passengers about the law relevant to arrival in New Zealand.

Just looking at how this will provide a robust biosecurity system, we speak about the pests and diseases and keeping them out, protecting our environment as well as the livelihoods and wellbeing of New Zealanders. Madam Speaker, I just want to look at my beautiful electorate of Takanini—I know that’s adjacent to yours as well, Panmure-Ōtāhuhu, and it’s also beautiful.

I look at Barry Curtis Park in the northern end and the Botanic Gardens and Totara Park centrally. I know Manukau Sports Bowl is in my electorate now, being one of the newest. We have Puhinui Stream running in the middle of the electorate, and that’s one of the areas where our streams are trying to provide more life in protecting that stream, because it goes through many of the other electorates. I know that mana whenua and Auckland Council have made a commitment to make sure that we clean up that stream, because I know that back in the day, tamariki used to swim in there, and that’s part of our health and wellbeing. Hopefully soon we can get back to that, with our whānau using that stream once again.

I always try to connect things back to health. I look at the different models of care, and the Whare Tapawhā, or the Fonofale model of health looks at the whare, when we look at the pillars, but also where the whare sits, and environment is a huge thing that impacts on our health and wellbeing. So we need to protect and strengthen our environment, which will also strengthen the health and wellbeing of our whānau, and, as mentioned before, our tamariki and future generations to enjoy the green spaces, the waterways, and for our animals to enjoy and thrive in those ecosystems.

New Zealand has a good brand globally—clean and green; it’s one of our foundations in the global market place. It draws a lot of visitors and also adds to our exports and shapes how the world sees us. The biosecurity system will make this more resilient, and I know it is our taonga; it’s our treasure. Just reading some of the documents and seeing when this Government came into place in 2017 and seeing what they came into, and seeing where the biodiversity was at at that point, and reading that New Zealand was one of the countries with the highest proportion of threatened species in the world, with declining biodiversity at the point. More than 3,000 of the native species were in serious trouble—142 species were more at risk in 2008; three quarters of the native fish and a third of both invertebrates and plants were threatened with extinction. So, again, having to strengthen our biodiversity will definitely help in that space, and also trying not to endanger our native species and upset ecosystems.

I recently arrived back from Latin America, going on a Speaker’s delegation. We travelled to four countries—yes, we had Ian McKelvie from our National counterpart, we had Ricardo Menéndez March, we had Naisi Chen join us, and, obviously, with the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe on that trip. We travelled to Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, and Mexico, and we met with our counterparts in Parliaments on that end.

There were three things that I picked out to the things that they were discussing. Number one was the All Blacks; number two was our COVID response; and number three was how beautiful Aotearoa New Zealand is. In Argentina we met a person who’s been here—one of our parliamentarians’ counterparts—seven times. They’ve been to Aotearoa seven times because of how beautiful our country is. I think that’s, you know, when we’re discussing exports and trading, why one of those big things of our brand “clean and green” is kept up there.

I want to acknowledge the biosecurity officers on our return back. We had been on a farm in Uruguay—and I just want to say Uruguay is beautiful, almost on par with some of our green spaces here. We went to a dairy farm just to see how things are managed there. In the back of our minds, we were always thinking “Got to have clean shoes; make sure that we’re cleaning everything that we’ve been to.”, in terms of the farm. When we got here, we had cleaned everything, but our biosecurity officers made sure, they double-checked, and they actually double-cleaned some of our shoes as well. So, again, I want to acknowledge the important work that they do protecting our border.

The select committee have done many amendments to the bill. Again, like my colleagues have said, unanimously across the House have agreed to it. Commencement date, general duty of providing biosecurity information, moving detailed duties from primary to secondary legislation, looking at the powers of the director-general, also changing the duty to providing information to passengers rather than all the people on the board—those are just some of the clauses that were looked at and changed during that select committee process.

It’s all about trying to manage risk. It’s about trying to protect our environment—again, tying that to the health and wellbeing of our whānau, our tamariki, and our communities. We don’t want unwanted pests and disease to change things. I think some may take our freedoms for granted. We don’t want those pest diseases causing travel restrictions of people moving across Aotearoa; destroying some of our wilderness areas; spoiling our waterways—again I mention Puhinui Stream; we don’t want that to further degrade—reducing our animal, plant, and fishing stocks; trying to make sure that our exports are pretty good across the globe as well and benefiting our economy. We definitely don’t want pests attacking many of our community members, and diseases carrying and transferring to people, as well.

As the last speaker on this bill, again I want to acknowledge Steph Lewis—well done for her bill to go through the House tonight. I don’t want to take up too much time, but wrapping I commend this bill to the House. Fa’afetai lava.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): I move, That the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is about the rights of children; it’s about protecting their wellbeing. The sexual grooming of children is not something we like to think or talk about, but the truth is that the more we think and talk about it, the less opportunity there is in our community for it to happen.

This bill started as focused on online grooming. As a mother, with other parents around, seeing the prevalence of children being online and exposed to harm inspired me to draft a bill that created a law similar to what was generated in Australia. But, through the process of understanding how our laws work here, it’s changed a lot. It has changed to include both online and real-life grooming activities. Before, this bill legislation was parked in two different spaces: we had harmful digital communications, which covered online activity; and it had grooming, which was quite antiquated. To make a long story short, for grooming you have to drive to a park or you have to travel to the site where the activity is created, which is antiquated and doesn’t reflect the fact that grooming, today, combines both real-life and online activities which culminate in sexual offences. What this bill does is bring together those two acts into one space. It condenses our legislation, it modernises our law to reflect the reality that our children live in, and, hopefully, it makes it easier to prosecute those perpetrators that prey upon our children.

The new offence creates that someone who is over 18 years, if they communicate by words or conduct—so it’s not online or real life; it’s just words or conduct—with a person who is under 16, with the intent to facilitate the young person in engaging with or being involved in conduct that is a sexual offence. Those offences are listed already in the Crimes Act, and my bill refers to those specific offences.

I’d like to acknowledge submitters. I’d like to acknowledge all of those coalface NGOs who came and spoke about the reality of dealing with sexual grooming, and how we can try and strengthen our legislation to prevent it from happening. In particular, I would like to acknowledge Willow Duffy from Safeguarding Children, who I ended up, after her submitting, speaking with, in order to help craft this bill to make our laws work better for New Zealanders. I learnt a lot in the process. I learnt how grooming works, and, I think, as part of introducing and talking about the changes that were made at select committee regarding this bill and about how my thoughts came across—instead of going through all of the submissions we’ve received, I think it’s probably more appropriate to summarise the learning that I undertook, which is how grooming occurs.

So grooming is a process by which an adult prepares a child, significant others in their environment, to enable sexual abuse to occur. It’s, essentially, creating a web of deceit. There’s a lot of premeditation, and it does happen. It’s important that we know about it so we can identify it and point it out before it gets to the point of sexual offending occurring. Grooming can involve a range of behaviours that seek to build trust, increase access to a child. They cement authority of the perpetrator, and compliance of a child to sexual abuse. It’s important to recognise that grooming targets not only the child but also other individuals around the child, and those who have access to minding and looking after them, and often a whole community can be affected.

Behaviours associated with grooming are not necessarily sexual or directly abusive or even illegal. They can co-exist with regular behaviours—behaviours that build trust and increase access, use power, authority, and compliance. Many acts—and this is important to note, which is the difficulty in crafting this legislation—on their own may not be criminal or abusive in their own right, but they do lead to criminal activity. They can be distinguished by motivation to facilitate and/or conceal sexual abuse.

There are six stages in grooming, and I’ll go through them as quickly as I can. Targeting a child: it’s important to note that offenders or perpetrators will target and identify a child because they are perceived as being vulnerable. These vulnerabilities may be emotional neediness, isolation, neglect, or even a chaotic home life or a lack of parental oversight.

Second, they gain trust. Perpetrators work to gain the trust of parents or caregivers to lower suspicion and gain access to a child by providing warm yet calculated attention and support. The perpetrator gains a child’s trust by gathering information about the child, getting to know their needs, and finding a way to fulfil those needs.

Once the perpetrators begins to fill those child’s needs, they get more important within that child’s life. They utilise tactics such as gift-giving, flattery, money, and meeting other basic needs. They can also look after them and take them off the parents’ hands to help out if they’re busy already. Tactics may also include increased attention and affection as well.

Once this has been established, the child is isolated. A perpetrator will reinforce their relationship with the child by creating situations to be alone together. They can include babysitting, coaching, special trips—a whole range of things. Using this time, they will cultivate a sense that they love or even understand a child in a way that others cannot, including their parents. These are the isolation tactics that we should know in order to learn and identify them within our communities. They remove children from their natural protective factors of having caring people around them. At this point, a child is vulnerable.

Once emotional dependence and trust has been built, the perpetrator progressively sexualises the relationship. This occurs through talking, taking pictures, and creating situations where sexual activity can take place. This stage can often move quicker than you and I would ever expect, especially with the online availability of exchanging photographs.

Finally, maintaining control: once sexual abuse is occurring, perpetrators commonly use secrecy, blame, and threats to maintain the child’s participation and continued silence. In order to maintain control, perpetrators use emotional manipulation, and the child may feel that the loss of the relationship or the consequences of exposing it would be more damaging and humiliating than continuing the unhealthy relationship—for example, the fear of losing a place in a team or selection, or having parents finding out.

There is a lot of thought, planning, and actions that go into the grooming process. However, through changes in legislation and training to recognise and respond to grooming, we have the ability to interrupt this behaviour and prevent sexual offending from occurring.

I’ll be honest: I’m no big fan of the theory of deterrence. It’s no secret that I am not a fan of the idea that just harsher penalties and a bigger stick have an impact on someone’s inclination to commit a crime, but this is one area where the literature says that there is a case that it may work, and I’d like to acknowledge my learned colleague Dr Emily Henderson, who is also on the Justice Committee, who has done a lot of research in this space.

The premeditation and planning that goes into child grooming is immense, so it’s really important that we acknowledge that having an offence in this space that may enable an earlier intervention is worth it. I really hope that this law will make it easier, if possible, for police to bring a prosecution before the courts. I also hope that it means that more intervention takes place before sexual offending occurs.

Changes in legislation will not be enough to bring this. We should also potentially have, in New Zealand, child protection and safeguarding training for anyone working with or providing services for children or young people. We could be a whole lot better in that space.

The more connected we are as a community, the more likely we’ll be able to see the vulnerable who are being preyed upon. The more we take notice of each other and are connected to each other, this will strengthen the ability to intervene as early as possible. Bills like this make small changes, but I really hope that they will make a big difference. Thank you.

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

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and it’s my pleasure to speak on this bill and to acknowledge that we in the National Party will be supporting Ginny Andersen and the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill, which seeks to do—[Interruption] thank you, Mr Shaw; nice to hear from you—some reasonable things to focus on what it is a worrying offence for many parents, in particular, and young people, of grooming of young people. And, as it was introduced by this member, it included potential prison terms of between seven and I think 10 years originally for the more serious offence “with the intention of causing harm”.

I suppose the point I want to make in the very short time I have before the House rises is the clashing dissonance that many people will have in their minds when they consider here is Parliament, it’s passing legislation to put people into prison for grooming young people through the internet and phones—not actually doing anything but grooming; preparing them to do something—with the news that we got today that a male who raped four young women ended up with nine months’ home detention.

So here we are in Parliament. We pass legislation. We’re tough. We’re saying “We’re not going to stand for any of this nonsense. We’re going to bring in these prison terms for people who are grooming, doing stuff, sending texts and emails to young women.” And I agree. Society should send a powerful message that that is not appropriate and they should be sent to prison if caught for the things in this Act. But we’ve got to face the reality that a young man who raped, was convicted of raping four girls, doesn’t go to prison at all and ends up with nine months’ home detention. And so there’s a clashing dissonance between what Parliament is trying to do to send a message.

What is the justice system about? It’s not just about looking after the needs of the perpetrators of crime; it’s actually about denouncing the act, whether it’s grooming young people for potential crimes or raping people. It’s denouncing the act, it’s about providing justice to victims, and it’s also about making clear that there are serious consequences for serious crimes. And we haven’t got the balance right, it seems to me, at the moment.

I agree with the High Court judge who pointed out that that case, in that instance of the young man raping four girls and getting nine months’ home detention, was manifestly inadequate and yet it hasn’t been changed—it hasn’t been changed. So I think we’ve got some real issues as a country where Parliament passes laws with serious prison terms for serious crimes and we’re not seeing them actually in reality. And here we are in Parliament passing another law or talking about another law identifying another crime, and this one is grooming young children, and indicating penalties. The member introduced it with very substantial penalties. It’s now been wound back, because, actually, they didn’t tie up with existing penalties on the law code, down to a period of three years of imprisonment. But I just wonder if anybody was actually ever caught under this, would they serve three years? I doubt it very much.

So that’s something we need as a country to think about quite seriously so that our justice system does those things which I outlined. Not just look after the needs of the perpetrator of the crime but also denounce the act, send a clear message that serious crime has serious consequences, and provide justice to the victims.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House is suspended and I’ll resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for an extended sitting to consider the Government’s orders of the day. Pō mārie.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2022

(continued on Thursday, 20 October 2022)

SPEAKER: Atamārie i runga i te tukunga iho o rātou mā te wāhi ngaro. [Good morning everyone under the guidance from above.]

The House is resumed for the extended sitting. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill.

Bills

Fair Pay Agreements Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Fair Pay Agreements Bill. We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 8, “Preliminary provisions”; and Schedule 1, “Traditional, savings, and related provisions”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I’m very pleased to be here for the committee stage of this important piece of legislation, the Fair Pay Agreements Bill. The House enjoyed a good, robust debate on the second reading of the bill earlier this week, which canvassed the general principles of the bill and enabled members of the House to put down in general terms their views about the bill and the reasons for it and against it, and I thought that was a good, robust debate. Obviously, the committee stage, which we’ll be making our way through over the next little while, focuses on the particular details of the bill on a part by part basis and especially those changes that are recommended by the select committee in its report back.

At the outset I do want to thank all members of the Education and Workforce Committee, who did consider the bill and did report back. It was a very considerable report back, and I encourage all members who are interested in this bill to fully acquaint themselves with the report back from the select committee and also with the full departmental report from officials on the bill. It’s a document of, gosh, about 250 pages or so, which provides a really detailed account of the submissions process, the arguments and issues that were put forward, and the responses from officials to those points.

It’s notable and worth the attention of the committee of the whole House that the report back from the select committee includes quite a number of changes to the bill, and that is consistent with the approach that I wished to see at the beginning of this process. The Government is extremely committed to this bill and the positive changes it will make to our employment relations system. But we always said that we wanted there to be a good, robust select committee process and that we expected there would be changes to improve the bill in response to submissions. And if one looks at the changes that are proposed by the select committee in the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 264 that I have tabled, I think the committee can see that the Government has followed through with that approach.

In respect of Part 1, this is a part which is narrowly focused on the preliminary provisions and includes key terms that are used throughout the rest of the bill. So it’s important but a fairly narrow part of the legislation. There were some changes that were recommended by the select committee and I think probably the most substantial in this was in response to a range of submissions actually from both sides of the debate, from employers and from unions, from those who felt strongly in favour and perhaps those who were not, who said that it was really important that there was real clarity around coverage of fair pay agreements (FPAs) so that workers and employers knew who was in and knew what the rules were for ensuring when a fair pay agreement will cover the work of an employee. And so changes have been made to make that as clear as possible.

There’s what one might term a 25 percent test which is now in the legislation. So in terms of the work being performed by a worker, 25 percent of that work has to be covered by an FPA for the FPA to set terms and conditions for that worker, and in the event that any individual worker does work covered by more than one FPA, it will simply be the FPA that covers the most work that is done by that worker. So there won’t be any confusing situations where a range of FPAs will apply to an individual.

I think that was a really useful clarification that the select committee has recommended and there were changes in response to those submissions. In the SOP I have tabled, there are a range of relatively technical wording changes which are around terms like “standard hours”, “overtime rates”, etc., to make sure that those terms are defined as consistently and as accurately in the bill as possible for the purposes of those issues being included in fair pay agreements. So that is what this part is about, and some of the key changes that are proposed for the consideration of the committee, and I’ll be very happy to answer any questions focused on Part 1 now.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to start what will no doubt be a lengthy debate on the committee stage of this bill, which is what we on this side of the House regard as the misnamed Fair Pay Agreements Bill, and I hope the Chair will indulge me a few opening remarks. When it comes to this legislation and what we’re dealing with here, our proposition is that we’re dealing with mandatory union deals passed by legislation. Once this legislation brings us back to sector-wide or occupation-wide agreements that cover the entire country—and we’re thinking in the context of shopworkers or supermarket workers, from the largest Pak ’N Save in central Auckland to the smallest corner superette in the Hokianga Harbour or Invercargill—it’s applying similar rules and requirements and details right across the board, and also very significantly lifting the role of unions in that.

So when we come to this, our fundamental proposition is that this legislation will make our workforces less flexible and less agile at a time when they need to be both those things to be competitive in a modern, competitive global workforce. It will certainly add costs to the fundamental structure of our workplace—that’s the purpose of it, of course; to have higher wages and higher costs—and our proposition is that that will certainly not be helpful to the fight against inflation, which the Government is losing at the moment, very much to the detriment of the many households up and down the country who are struggling to make ends meet in the face of higher costs.

When we come to this part—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Yes. Now, you have been well indulged, Mr Goldsmith—

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yeah, thank you—thank you. Well, I think it’s only appropriate—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): —so you now may—I’ll just indicate to other speakers that that indulgement won’t be forthcoming. We now will be required to speak to the parts of the Act that we are discussing.

Chris Penk: The bill, rather than the Act.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The bill—I’m sorry. Thank you for that correction.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you, Mr Chair. So one of the most interesting things that we find when we come to Part 1 of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill—misnamed—is that right at the start, the Minister has changed the purpose of the bill, which is quite interesting. You would think that when you introduced legislation into the House, you’d be reasonably clear on the purpose of it and that you wouldn’t sort of change your mind after you had introduced it and change the purpose of the bill. But, indeed, they have, and so I suppose my first question to the Minister is: why didn’t he and his Government have a clear view of what the purpose of the legislation was when they introduced it?

They started off with a purpose clause which said that “The purpose of this Act is to provide a framework for collective bargaining for fair pay agreements that specify industry-wide or occupation-wide minimum employment terms.” This, it appears, proved inadequate, and I think this has something to do with the fact that the Minister came to this House with a large piece of legislation, and then, on the very same day that he introduced the legislation, he introduced a very significant amendment to the legislation, fundamentally changing—

Hon Michael Wood: A parliamentary paper.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —significant parts of it—a parliamentary paper. So having spent a number of years preparing the legislation, he found himself in the position of introducing legislation that clearly wasn’t going to work and he had to introduce another big chunk of a parliamentary paper to bring it back into shape.

So I presume that the change of the purpose is to accommodate that, because the new purpose says that “The purpose of the Act is to enable employment terms to be improved for all employees by providing—(a) a framework for bargaining for fair pay agreements that specify industry or occupation-wide minimum employment terms; or (b) in certain circumstances, for the Authority to determine those minimum employment terms.” That seems to me to be a rather fundamental shift.

Originally, the purpose of the bill was just to introduce collective, occupation-wide minimum employment terms and fair pay agreements. Now, the purpose is twofold: it’s to do that, and also to provide for the Employment Relations Authority to determine such things and minimum terms. So I suppose the first question is why did the Minister not have his thinking straight when he first introduced the bill, and he is now changing the purpose; and, second, what gives the Minister such confidence that the Employment Relations Authority, which, of course, amongst the employment organisations and businesses around the country, including Auckland, is a byword for very slow determinations and the very slow, grinding wheels of justice in that part of the area, where it takes months or sometimes years to hear anything back from the Employment Relations Authority—what gives him great confidence that this institution has the expertise and the administrative ability to take on this very substantial, totally new task and to find the wisdom within itself to figure out what best suits the needs of businesses large and small, up and down the country, in terms of their arrangements, so much so that they are better than the thousands of individual businesses and employees having conversations between themselves and figuring out for themselves what works best when it comes to hours of work, when they’re going to have breaks, when they’re going to have holidays, and whether or not the pay and conditions are appropriate for them and their businesses?

These are the sorts of issues that will be dealt with by this bill. So the fundamental question is: where does this confidence lie and come from for the Minister to put such a heavy burden on the Employment Relations Authority?

If we sit back and think about the consequences of all this, what the Minister is saying, fundamentally, is that he doesn’t have confidence in the ability of the tens of thousands of small businesses, and large—but, particularly, small businesses—across the country. If we take, for example, the checkout operating area such as in small little superettes up and down the country in places like Hokianga and places like Eketāhuna, and things like that, where you’ve got a little business. They know their community, they might have a relatively small turnover, they might only have one or maybe two staff working at any given time, and they know what they can pay—and, of course, we’re all living in a country where there is a minimum wage and there are certain minimum entitlements in terms of sick leave, and the Government has been very active in increasing all of those things.

So they’ve got this floor there already, but they’re working out what else they can do in relation to what their business can afford, and, if they’ve only got one or two employees, what they can manage in terms of rules around breaks and rules around holidays and all those sorts of things. The Minister is, fundamentally, saying that he doesn’t trust them to make those decisions. What he would prefer and what this Government would prefer is that the industry—which, let’s be honest, will be guided and driven by the big players—will meet and decide collectively with the unions what the rules should be, and they will apply regardless, and if they can’t make an agreement, fundamentally, it will be the Employment Relations Authority that decides.

So there will be a few people, probably in Auckland, sitting around a desk who possibly have never run a business in their lives and who are making a decision about these realities on the ground. Where does he get the confidence?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In amongst all of that there are a couple of particular questions about the purpose statement in Part 1 which I am happy to address. The member accurately points to the fact that there are changes before the Education and Workforce Committee in the purpose statement. It’s important to note that those are changes which have been recommended by the select committee, who have examined the legislation and the parliamentary paper and heard submissions from those people who have spoken with the select committee. The main change there, as the member does accurately point out, is that the purpose statement now does explicitly refer to the fact that fair pay agreements might set those sector-wide terms and conditions, either through bargaining or through a determination process which the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) will undertake. It is worth noting, of course, that in the initial version of the bill the ERA did actually have a determination process in the event that bargaining broke down, so that in itself wasn’t a new addition to the bill.

The additional pathway which is described through the parliamentary paper—now incorporated into the bill that is before the committee—effectively ensures that if one of the bargaining sides is not able to bargain or not willing to bargain, and if a default bargaining party is not able or not willing to bargain, then the Employment Relations Authority will then have a role. Ultimately, that is important. The purpose of the bill, clearly, is to establish fair pay agreements in certain sectors, and there can’t be a situation where one or the other side, for whatever reason, just says, “Well, we’re not going to engage and therefore you can’t have them”. That is why the role of the Employment Relations Authority in issuing determinations in the event that occurs is important. I think what the select committee was getting at is that it is simply accurate and appropriate for that to be reflected in the purpose statement given that that will happen some of the time. My expectation is that it will be a minority of occasions, because I think parties will by and large want to work through that bargaining process for themselves.

The second part of the member’s question goes to operational stuff a little bit outside of this bill and this part, but it’s effectively about the capacity of the ERA to undertake that function. It’s worth noting, of course, that the ERA—I’m sure the member’s aware of this—under the existing Employment Relations Act does already have a determination function for the settling of collective agreements, where necessary. And in respect of their capacity and resourcing, the Government has through Budgets 2020 and 2021 provided specific resourcing to the ERA to be able to fulfil these functions in an efficient way.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It’s a great pleasure to be joining the debate within this committee on the Fair Pay Agreements Bill—so-called. Like my colleague Paul Goldsmith, and, indeed, the Minister, I will be focusing on Part 1. In particular, I wanted to have some advice and guidance from the Minister in relation to various definitions within that.

The first is the phrase “bargaining side”, which is defined within Part 1 to mean an employee bargaining side or an employer bargaining side, and I just wonder if the Minister can speak a bit about the language chosen there—if there is a particular reason that the word “side” was used. I know oftentimes it has an adversarial tone: one might be on different sides of an argument, different sides of a battle, and so forth. I would love to suggest to the Minister some appropriate synonyms that could, perhaps, be used in its place, but following the passage of the Plain Language Bill last night, I would be in danger of being convicted under that, so I don’t dare get out the thesaurus to suggest any alternative language. So I wonder if the Minister can speak about the choice of language there: “bargaining side”, as opposed to some other way of denoting that there might be different perspectives. If the spirit of the legislation is to ensure that there is a discussion reaching a mutually agreeable outcome, either the parties themselves doing so or, failing that, by heading off to the authority, then I wonder if he might contemplate different language to be used in relation to that meaning of what is now “bargaining side”.

I’ve got a couple of other questions, still, within this section, so unless the Minister’s indicating that he wants to leap to his feet immediately and put me right on that, I’ll continue. One is a slightly more substantive point, which goes to the definition—and indeed, the role—of eligible employer associations. The significance of that type of entity is that these are representative bodies that can speak for one side or the other, and there are various criteria set out in Part 1 to say what an eligible employer association is. Of course, there are types of employers that are not generally covered by a business association, and I note that that’s the starting point of the legislation—actually, I think, the finishing point, too, in terms of groups that can be representative bodies representing the interests of employers.

I note that charities and NGOs would often not already be members of a business association in a chamber of commerce kind of way, and yet they are no less affected by employment law and labour relations, and oftentimes they’re operating in a very constrained economic set of circumstances. Indeed, they’ve made a choice, in becoming a charity—almost invariably; I don’t want to open another can of worms in terms of charities law and the anomalies within that. But, roughly speaking, we’re talking about enterprises that are not-for-profit, so I wonder if it’s reasonable to expect the employment interests of those kinds of groups to be represented by a definition that contemplates—indeed, requires—that business associations are to be the representatives for such employers.

One can think, too, of sole traders who might employ, from time to time—I know that might sound like a contradiction in terms, that a sole trader might be joined by others who are doing the work, and they’re not necessarily a pure sole trader in that sense. But in terms of the type of legal entity, someone who is in private practice—for example, a lawyer—might not be represented by an employer association; they might be part of a bar association or some other professional group. So I wonder if the Minister can speak a little bit about types of employment situations that aren’t covered by the standard conception of an employer who is a person or a group making widgets, who goes along to their chamber of commerce and says, “I want you to go in to bat for me, to play for my side of the argument, my team”—indeed.

I have a couple more points that I’ll leave for now, but I look forward to the opportunity to cover, if I may. But, for now, I’ll put those two different points in front of the Minister and look forward to any response he can give us.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m interested to hear from the Minister. Part 1 includes a very long list of interpretation words in terms of what means what. A lot of these details flow through to later parts of the legislation, but a very important definition relates to a “covered employee” and how that’s defined. In the process of the select committee, the select committee majority—which, you know, fundamentally we did not support—changed that definition from “A covered employee means an employee who is within the coverage of a proposed FPA, a proposed variation, a proposed renewal, or a proposed replacement … of a fair pay agreement”,—which is a pretty short definition meaning an employee who is within the coverage, to now the proposal being in three parts: “(a) in relation to the proposed agreement, performs work that is within the coverage of the proposed agreement; or (b) in relation to a proposed variation, … [a person who is covered who is] in relation to the fair pay agreement that is proposed…; or (c) in relation to a fair pay agreement, meets the threshold”. And that points to another change, which is how to deal with people who may be covered by multiple fair pay agreements.

I just thought: if we were to take the example of a salesperson, how would that work if we had the definition that “covered employee” is somebody who performs work that is within the coverage of the proposed agreement? You know, I think to myself, “Just about every person engaged in just about any business enterprise has an element of salesmanship in their work.” Well, not just about everybody; I suppose a lot who don’t. But a lot do.

I think even of what I used to do before Parliament, which was, you know, writing books. There was a period every now and again where I had to persuade somebody that it was a good idea to write a book about them, which was, effectively, salesmanship. So would I be included in this? You can think of it from whatever—just about every enterprise there is involves an element of sale.

So if the definition is “in relation to a proposed agreement”—say that agreement is salespeople—“performs work that is within the coverage of the proposed agreement”, that’s a very broad definition. It says “or”, so further on there are thresholds specified where you have to be spending a percentage of your time in that particular work, which makes a certain sense. But under this definition in paragraph (a), you don’t have to go down that threshold route; you can be included if you perform work that is within the coverage of the proposed agreement.

So is he confident that a large number of people wouldn’t wake up one day, surprised to find that they are part of a fair pay agreement because they do some work that is within the coverage of the proposed agreement? I’d be interested in getting some clarity from him around that.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just rise to ask a few questions of the Minister in the chair, Michael Wood, while we’re in the committee stage of Part 1. I just would like to note that the part we’re looking at, at the moment, is the purpose clause and that I have a question around the purpose clause, which is, notably, that, as has already been traversed in the committee, the Education and Workforce Committee has changed the definition of purpose to look at the benefits provided by the Fair Pay Agreements Bill. So I wondered if the Minister could elaborate on the benefit of that. I note it’s improving the terms of employees by providing a framework for industry- or occupation-wide minimum employment terms, so I wondered if the Minister could expand on that. Obviously, Part 1 is quite limited to the purpose and the definitional clauses, and the main definitional clauses that I noted that were of immense importance, I think, and significance in terms of this bill were the duty of good faith and the principles of freedom of association.

So I just wondered, on this quite short part of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill, which is quite extensive, if the Minister had any thoughts on, really, the purpose in terms of the changes that it is noted the select committee did make by majority, and also those two notable parts in clause 4(3), which notes the duty of good faith, which was inserted by the select committee, and also the existing note on the principles of freedom of association.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair. And I do thank and acknowledge the members for their questions that relate to Part 1. If I can address them in order, starting with Mr Penk’s questions around bargaining sides and the definition and language that is used here.

So, for the benefit of the committee, there are effectively two bargaining sides who will be involved in the negotiation of a fair pay agreement (FPA): one representing employers and one representing employees. Each bargaining side will be made up of bargain parties. On the employee’s side, bargaining parties will be eligible unions; on the employer’s side, bargaining parties will be eligible employer associations. The requirements to be eligible are set up relatively clearly in the in the Employment Relations Act (ERA)—those organisations must represent the interests of those parties. They must have, within their constitutions, a purpose that relates to the bargaining or fair pay agreements as well.

On each of those sides, those bargaining sides will have a good-faith obligation that goes back to everyone that they represent for the purposes of that bargaining. Mr Penk raises the question around the language of “bargaining side”. It simply reflects the relatively well-known and used language that would be used in collective bargaining generally at the moment, that there will one side representing employees and one side representing employers. From my point of view, it’s reasonably clear language and I don’t think it particularly denotes anything especially conflictual. If the member’s got particular suggestions there, I’m open to hearing them.

In respect to his question about different kinds of organisations—for example, charities and NGOs—the member was right in his comments, of course, that very often these organisations by definition do need to engage in the employment system and, in fact, many of them already do engage in collective bargaining processes, so they’re relatively familiar. Much of the funded sector, for example, is covered by collective bargaining arrangements. It would be a much higher proportion, for example, than other parts of the private sector.

So I don’t think there will necessarily be a great lack of familiarity with collective bargaining processes there. Those organisations often do have organisations that currently represent their collective interests, that they draw advice and support from around employment relations matters, and they will be free to continue to be represented by those organisations through the FPA process or to be represented by other associations who partake in that process. It will be up to those individual employers which organisation they choose to be associated with. But a really, really important point here is that whoever is the organisation at the table, whoever is the bargaining party on a bargaining side, that bargaining side has a fundamental duty of good faith back to all of the organisations, be it the businesses or the employees that they represent. So whoever is at the table has to act in the good-faith interests of whoever they’re representing—be it a private business, be it a Government agency, be it an NGO.

That links into a couple of the questions from Camilla Belich, who I know worked very hard on this in the Education and Workforce Committee. It is really important to note that quite a few of the key concepts, which are reflected here in the definitions in the bill, are concepts which come directly over from our broader employment relations system framework in the Employment Relations Act itself. So really important to note—because, frankly, there has been disinformation about this in the public arena at times—that the core provisions around freedom of association that are inherent in an Employment Relations Act and the rest of our system just copy over to the fair pay agreements legislation, and that is reflected in plain black-and-white wording in Part 1.

It’s the same around good faith, and, in fact, there’ve been some minor changes made here to ensure, effectively, that the way in which a “duty of good faith” is described is basically consistent with the way that it is described in the Employment Relations Act. So all of those duties of good faith between parties and from parties to those that they represent will apply in a broadly consistent way to what everyone is familiar with now in the existing Employment Relations Act and its regime, which has been in place now for 21 years—so quite well-understood concepts will come over and continue to play out there.

Camilla Belich also asked another question around the purpose statement. I do think that the recommendations from the select committee are helpful there, both in respect of the clarification around the ERA playing a role, sometimes, in determining FPAs—that just reflects the reality. So it’s important that the purpose statement does do that. And, secondly, that there is clarification here that the purpose of fair pay agreements is to improve conditions. Look, that is the Government’s policy objective here; it is not a policy-neutral piece of legislation—the intention of the legislation right throughout. I think this will be reflected in every statement that I and other representatives of the Government have made: the purpose of fair pay agreements is to improve conditions for workers where we think that should happen. So I think it is appropriate, and just, frankly, transparent for that to be reflected in the purpose statement.

Mr Goldsmith had a number of questions around interpretation as well, primarily focusing around the definitions of “covered employee”. Again, here, I think the changes that have been made are just quite helpful, just in terms of clarity. These are changes that have come through from the select committee in response to, as I say, submissions actually from all sides of the debate. And I do acknowledge submitters, even those who didn’t agree with the bill, quite often provided helpful submissions around how the bill can be as workable and practical as possible. And I think this is one of those areas. So the definitions of “covered employee” make it really clear that it is about the work that is done.

And we then do have the real clarity around the 25 percent test, and that’s about avoiding, for example, an absurdity where, let’s say, you know, I once worked in Hugh Wright’s men’s clothing stores—great job in the early part of my working life—and we’d spend 10 minutes in the morning sweeping or vacuuming the floors. Now, it would be an absurdity if a person in that situation ended up being covered by an FPA that was for cleaners. And so the 25 percent test is about having a rational threshold that focuses on what is really the focus of people’s work. And again, where there were multiple FPAs, it will be the FPA that covers the most work that that person does. So it’s really about clarity in this area. In respect to Mr Goldsmith’s particular example, I imagine that as a writer he wasn’t—well, I don’t know, but I’m not sure if he was an employee of anyone, so I wouldn’t necessarily relate to that example that he gave.

The other key bit of specification that the select committee has brought in here, which, again, is really helpful, is around how coverage will be defined as crisply as possible. And that recommendation is to make use of the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) and the Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC) codes which are well known by employers, which are effectively the standard way in which different types of employment are defined. And so, in the coverage that a union puts forward when a fair pay agreement is initiated, coverage will need to be described using ANZSCO or ANZSIC codes unless there is a really good reason not to—perhaps there is a very peculiar type of occupation that doesn’t quite fit into those. But the starting point will be using ANZSCO and ANZSIC codes, which I think will provide significant clarity. So I hope that’s helpful in answering the questions of members.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you very much, Minister Wood, for that detailed explanation then. I had a couple of questions as well around the bargaining side, and you did outline that just then to some degree, so thank you for that. But it does look like it is quite simplistic in the sense that it’s the employee and the employer, and, obviously, there are definitions that extend from that. But I look at the example of if, you know, you’ve got a small business, say a cafe; you’ve got one in Westport where wages and cost of living are going to be considerably less than what they may be if you’re a cafe in Remuera, for instance. I think binding everyone to that one piece is going to be somewhat problematic for the counterparts in the smaller regional sections of society, and I was curious as to how much thought or consideration had been given to that.

Also, when you’ve got businesses—I mean, people don’t always just pay a salary; there are other factors as well, over and above the minimum conditions that someone would give. You know, people don’t always go into a workplace because of the salary. There may be other things—a friendly environment, close to home, or perhaps they are looked after by their employer in other ways. This will be the case for a lot of small businesses as well. They probably have very close relationships with their employees. I own and direct a small business myself, and we have a couple of employees, but we are very close with them. So what I’m trying to get at here is that they may give them payment not through the traditional means of big employer paying worker X amount of dollars, but it may be they look after their kids or they help pick them up or drop them off, or perhaps there’s some exchange otherwise that would happen. I fear that with the bargaining side defined as it is here, there may be an ability for that to be potentially overlooked.

I also look at the covered employee piece, and where it’s got one covered employee. Does this account for when you’ve got your mum and dad takeaway place somewhere, and they’ve got a son or they’ve got a young neighbour who comes along and helps all the time, for instance, a child. So often you will see it; you go into a fish and chip store or you go into a local takeaway or you go into a dairy and quite often they will have a family member in there working. Now, obviously, they’re giving that family member a lot of support in a number of other ways. Are they then captured by some blanket, wide agreement that that is imposed on them, which is negotiated industry- or sector-wide?

You also did talk about the good faith, and, you know, obviously, that’s a fundamental underpinning of all employment relations. So looking to extend that—I commend you on wanting to extend that. But you did mention in there that they would have to go back to all parties and make sure that they are negotiating in good faith with all of them. But when you’ve got some significantly big sectors in there, I’m curious as to how practical it is for them to go back and work with them on it or even have an understanding of what a small mum and dad business may want or need. I can see this being somewhat overtaken by the much larger players in society, and I’m sure you’ll recognise that. They’ll have a lot more clout at the table, and I would imagine that their voices will probably drown out the voices of the numerous, numerous small players throughout the country. Are we then going to end up in a situation where the big players have got significantly more ability to do stuff, as in to pay wages and meet conditions, as opposed to some of those smaller businesses that I’ve already outlined? So those are the questions that I would put forward to you, Minister. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to take the Minister in the chair to Part 1, clause 5: the interpretation subclause (3), where the Education and Workforce Committee in its wisdom recommended changes in relation to “Before recommending regulations that specify the employee default bargaining party, or [the] employer default bargaining party, the Minister must be satisfied that—(a) in the case of the employee … that [it] is the most representative organisation of unions”, and similarly, “in the case of the employer default bargaining party … [that it] is the most representative organisation of employers in New Zealand.”

Some people would read that and conclude that, pretty much in all cases, the most representative organisation of unions in New Zealand will be the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (CTU), which is the biggest union and covers that phrase “most representative”, which is a phrase picked up from the International Labour Organization to determine who can represent constituencies. And similarly the most representative organisation of employers would always be Business New Zealand—and I can’t think of too many other circumstances, and maybe I’m misunderstanding that. And if that was the case, if the Minister had to be satisfied that on the employee side it was the most representative organisation of unions in New Zealand, which I’d have thought would always be the CTU, which is the biggest union, the most representative, and in the case of employers it would always be Business New Zealand, which is the biggest and most representative organisation of employees—then that would sort of appear to lock both of those in. And of course elsewhere in the bill, it specifies that the role is voluntary, so they don’t have to do it. So then you’d be sort of left in the situation that in every case, if Business New Zealand for example decided not to engage, then automatically the whole thing would go to the Employment Relations Authority for determination without bargaining.

I’m sure that’s not the purpose or intention of the Minister or the way that it’s being defined; but I’d like to hear from the Minister as to how he can assure us that that wouldn’t be the logical flow when reading those words—because the words say that the Minister must be satisfied in the case of the employer default bargaining party that it is the most representative organisation of employers in New Zealand. So how does that work?

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and thanks to the Minister for engaging with my previous questions. I have a couple more questions, obviously also in Part 1 and also still within the definition or interpretation section.

The meaning of “court” is defined to be the Employment Court, and, in a separate but related point to that made by my colleague and friend the Hon Paul Goldsmith in terms of the difficulty of accessing justice—my point’s a slightly different one. I wonder if the definition is intended to include by implication, if not explicitly, that other courts that are hearing the same matters are, effectively, included in the way that the “court” is able to operate—so if there are appeal courts that are able to hear matters on appeal from the Employment Relations Authority or the Employment Court and if decisions made under this regime would be subject to judicial review by the High Court.

The Minister may or may not know the answer, but if he does, then I think it would be helpful just for the sake of clarity. I’m not going to suggest that the legislation be amended explicitly in that way at this stage of the game, but nevertheless an important function, of course, of the committee of the whole House stage is to ensure that for those charged with administering the legislation—either they’re sort of actively involved or, of course, those adjudicating in some way or other its actions flowing from it—that can be helpful.

I will just go back briefly, if I may, to a point that the Minister made in response to the question I have made about employers or those affected by employment arrangements who aren’t necessarily businesses in that typical sense. I think, with respect, the Minister may have missed my point when he’s pointed out that a lot of these NGOs are already bound by collective agreements or arrangements. Well, that may be so, of course, but it’s not all of them and, of course, that’s part of the issue at play substantively between the different philosophies that underpin parties’ approach to the bill. The fact that there may be a large proportion of the charitable sector that’s engaged in collective arrangements implies all the more strongly that those who’ve chosen not to have made a conscious choice not to. And to remove that choice from them seems to me a strange thing and the pointing out by the Minister that there’s a degree of familiarity of NGOs with this kind of arrangement or approach isn’t really the point. It’s not about familiarity so much as voluntary participation that’s at issue in a philosophical or policy kind of way.

Other questions that I had go again to the idea of these associations or representative bodies, and we’ve got a definition of an eligible employer association. It talks about a constitution enabling the association to reflect the collective interests of its covered members. And I wonder if the Minister contemplates that the constitution would have to explicitly enable such representation for the purposes of bargaining and so forth or if it would be enough that that would be implicit in an existing constitution. The significance, of course, is that for incorporated societies that don’t currently have a constitution that says that its members agree to be bound by its actions for the purpose of the Fair Pay Agreements Act 2022—and of course they don’t yet, because such a thing does not exist. I wonder if the Minister’s considered the implication that there’s going to be a lot of constitutions and rules that are going to need to be changed internally by special general meeting, and uploaded to the incorporated society’s register and so on. And if that’s the case, if that’s merely the price of doing this business, in the Minister’s mind, then fair enough as far as it goes, but I think it would be good for everyone who’s sitting around one of those tables to know exactly what is involved. And if the Minister happens to know, for a bonus point, how many such associations there are in New Zealand, just sort of to get a scale of the amount of additional administration that’s going to be required in that regard, that would be good, but I don’t expect that.

Then my final point, which I’ll make within this five-minute call—and again it’s a question and an invitation to the Minister to explain anything he can in this space—is that the contact details, again as defined within Part 1 in relation to an employee, means certain things about them and the way they can be contacted. I wonder if the Minister has considered how this interacts with the Privacy Act and the information privacy principles within that. Is it possible, for example, for an employee to opt out of having some of those contact details—for example, their phone number—not used for this purpose? I think that would be a reasonable expectation, albeit that the legislation does make clear that the regime as a whole cannot be contracted out of.

So the Minister’s thoughts on those points would be much appreciated.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you to members for particular questions that they have asked, I’m happy to now respond to those. In respect of Mr Uffindell’s questions about employers in different regions, I think there are two important points to make here. The first is that it’s generally accepted by all but the most extreme voices that it is appropriate to have minimum terms and conditions that cover everyone—a minimum wage, our minimum sick leave, our minimum annual leave. And you might have legitimate political debate about where those levels should be set. The general acceptance is that you should have a floor that applies to everyone regardless of where they work or what part of the country they’re in. Then, of course, individual employers and employees and unions, depending on particular circumstances, can negotiate above that to suit the particular conditions that they face in their particular aspirations.

The principle is, effectively, no different with fair pay agreements (FPAs). Fair pay agreements are about establishing a minimum set of terms and conditions across an industry or an occupation, as Parliament and the Government will set minimum terms and conditions through statute, and then different employers, unions, and employees can bargain different conditions, over and above that, if they wish.

It’s also important to note that, later on in the legislation, there is a specific capacity for regional variations to be agreed within fair pay agreements, and that might go to some of the examples that the member identified there.

When it comes to family members working in businesses, I think the most important point to make here is that just because you employ someone in your family, it doesn’t mean you can contract out of employment law, in respect of the rights of that person. That’s not just a point about fair pay agreements as proposed to the committee; that’s a point about any employment law that is the law of the land. And, actually, it’s a very, very important and fundamental protection that we have in place there.

In respect of good faith being extended, as I say, it’s a fundamental tenet of our employment law. The obligations around good faith have pretty established jurisprudence and understandings built up around them. I don’t foresee that those things will be particularly difficult for parties to comply with. They rest around honesty, transparency, good communication, listening to what the other side or what your own constituents have to say to you, and taking that into account.

Mr Goldsmith asked some questions around “the most representative body”. As he rightly pointed out, this is a well understood term in terms of our relationship with the International Labour Organization, but also the engagement that Governments historically have with peak bodies. In terms of our relationship with the International Labour Organization, the member is correct that the peak bodies are understood to be the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, as the most representative body of workers—they’re not a union themselves, but they are the most representative body—and Business New Zealand, as the most representative body of businesses. I will have to, under the regulations, determine that that is appropriate for the purposes of fair pay agreements, but there is no particular reason to think that they will be any different for the purposes of this legislation.

The member’s also right that in respect of the backstop role, the default bargaining party role—it is a voluntary role, and that is specifically in response to the views of Business New Zealand as we have developed this legislation. They identified that they did not want that to be a required role; we respected that. But they identified that they were willing for that to be a voluntary role that they stepped into, so that is what is reflected in the legislation that we have here. And the member is then also right that if you go through those two stages—that if employers for whom an FPA is initiated are unwilling or unable to form a bargaining party, and then the default bargaining party, being the most representative body, is unwilling or unable to take on that role, then it does go to through to the Employment Relations Authority for determination.

Fundamentally, it would be absurd to set up a regime like fair pay agreements and then just say, “Well, if one party just chooses not to participate, that won’t happen.” So you have to have a pathway to make sure that they do happen. And, again, I’ll just repeat that I actually think, in good faith, you’ll generally have two parties who will want to come to the table to put their views and have a decent negotiation to try and settle fair terms and conditions.

And Mr Penk appropriately asked a number of questions around the courts, and he is correct that, you know, the court that is referred to in the legislation here is the Employment Court. Judicial review, where it occurs, will be heard in the Employment Court in the first instance, and parties will then be able to access the higher courts in terms of appeal, right through, of course, to the Supreme Court.

In terms of the charitable sector, I mean, again, the member is right. As is the case with other sectors, you will have some employers who are currently familiar with collective bargaining regimes and some who are not so familiar. My point was that I think that degree of familiarity will be higher in the NGO and charitable sector. And, in fact, some of the most supportive conversations I have with employers come from that NGO and charitable sector. They’re often part of what we call the funded sector, where funding flows down to the Government—you can think about a lot of the care work that happens in our communities. And they’re a classic example of the race to the bottom that we’re trying to fix here. Often, those sectors have very low pay and poor conditions. They compete for contracts, effectively, to keep on going, and that has often ended up with some of the people doing incredibly important work in our society with pretty poor pay and conditions. And that’s what fair pay agreements are about. The whole point is that, by establishing a minimum floor, you stop that race to the bottom and you stop competition for contracts and business based on the lowest wages. So it is inherent here—that’s what we’re trying to fix. And I think—and, again, many employers in the sector reflect this back to me—that will actually be a helpful addition to the landscape for many NGOs and charities. Ultimately, the funders—sometimes local government and sometimes central government—will need to participate in that to make sure that appropriate funding is there to meet those objectives.

In terms of contact details as defined in the legislation—yes, there’s been substantial work that has been done with the Privacy Commissioner as the legislation has been developed here. These are very clear and we’ll get to this later on, and I can’t quite remember which part it’s in, but there are very clear procedures for employees to be able to opt out of providing their details if they do not wish their details to be passed on.

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

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I just wanted to pick up on a couple of the points that the Minister was making there, and I think, in particular, his comment that having the floor will stop any race to the bottom—well, actually, I totally disagree with that, fundamentally, because you set something like that and that then becomes the target—right?—the accepted standard or the level. So rather than allowing free-market decisions to decide on that, basically it’s saying, well, this is the standard and therefore you must comply with that. So I just wanted to touch on that.

What I’ve been picking up on through this debate so far is that it just reflects a lack of practical understanding and the ability to allow for people to just get on and make things happen. In most instances—and in any sector, there will be some challenges—people are prepared to negotiate in good faith and come up with situations that work for them as an employer and for them as an employee, depending on which side of the table they sit on. What we’re seeing here is that it lacks practical flexibility.

The Minister spoke earlier about the intent being to improve conditions—the policy intent, he said, was to improve conditions. You can’t contract out of this. Actually, the ability to improve conditions comes back to, I think, as well, that fundamental tenet of acting in good faith, where both parties genuinely want to make a situation work, they want a best outcome for everyone in that situation, and on that basis are prepared to come up with agreements that work for them. Now, having something like this takes away the ability to have nuanced differences based on particular situations. Mr Uffindell referred to some of that in his contribution, as well, where, actually, across the breadth of New Zealand, we have so many amazing businesses and all sorts of different industries with all sorts of different situations, and this just lacks the practical flexibility to allow for those people to determine what is best for them to improve conditions, which, as the Minister has stated, is the policy intent.

So taking away that ability, and forcing them to come around the table in this really clunky and adversarial-type approach can actually impact on that goodwill and the good faith that is typically present in some of those areas. I’m referring to mainly the smaller industries—not necessarily the big ones, of course, that the Minister might be thinking of more broadly, but, actually the little ones that underpin the economic productivity of the New Zealand business sector. Those ones that are, typically, small businesses owned by individual Kiwis with maybe a few employees and some of the situations that now will not be able to be worked through there where they have to have these “bargaining parties”, as he’s defined.

I’d be interested, actually, in whether the Minister can share his views on any instances or any industries where he’s not aware of employer associations being in place to represent the employer bargaining party and, therefore, having to fall back on the most appropriate. If he could give us an example of that—I’d be interested in whether he can actually do that.

Also, I’m interested in this comment that he just made around the allowance for regional variations—and this was his justification that there was flexibility within it because you could have some regional variation. But, again, that’s a relatively clunky aspect—because how do you then define the “regions” in that instance? You can look at the Auckland example, do it by the territorial authority, the council boundary, but then you end up with situations where hundreds or thousands, tens of thousands, of commuters every day travel into Auckland for their role but they live outside of Auckland—Tuakau, Pōkeno, Te Kauwhata, North Waikato areas—and so, on that basis, are they in or out of those regional variations that he has previously commented on?

So those are a couple of the aspects that, I think, just demonstrate there really isn’t a flexibility and we just don’t need this sort of thing, because it totally takes away and undermines that base premise of good faith that people enter into on their own account. So if I could get some insight, particularly around the regional variations and whether he can demonstrate an example of his understanding of where those bargaining parties might not be there on the employers’ side. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): The member’s comments were, for the very most part, highly general rather than about the part. But I’ll just make this point: the argument that a floor becomes a target is demonstrably untrue in the labour market. We have a minimum wage; that is the floor. That member is paid four times the minimum wage and most people in New Zealand are paid significantly above the minimum wage.

In terms of regional variation, I would encourage members involved in the debate to become familiar with the legislation. The legislation is very clear that regional variations will be determined along the lines of territorial local authorities.

In terms of employer associations, there will be sectors where there are existing obvious associations, and there will be some where there are not. Ultimately it is up to businesses and sectors to organise themselves as they best see appropriate, for the purposes of fair pay agreements or any other form of industry organisation.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just do want to take issue with the response from the Minister in the chair, Michael Wood, to my previous question where I was asking about clause 5(3) in relation to the Minister being satisfied before recommending regulations that specify that the employee default bargaining party and the employer default bargaining party—he has to be sure that they are both the “most representative organisation”. He confirmed that, yes, they do need to be, and he confirmed that, yes, under the understanding of the International Labour Organization the most representative union organisation is the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) and the most representative employers’ organisation is Business New Zealand, and he confirmed that if they voluntarily don’t take up that role, then it automatically goes to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) for a determination rather than bargaining.

So I’m left puzzled. Is he saying that for every fair pay agreement that comes up, that is proposed—and later on we’ll get to the point that you only need, you know, a handful of employees across a large occupation to initiate this procedure. Is he saying that whenever it comes up, if either the CTU as the most representative employee representative or Business New Zealand as the most representative organisation of employers do not voluntarily decide to be the bargaining party, then in each case it’ll go off to the ERA, in which case much of this bill is redundant, unless in every instance Business New Zealand picks up the cudgel? I didn’t think that that was what it was supposed to be. I would’ve thought that in other circumstances, other business associations might decide to be the bargaining party. So I’d like him to just clarify that. Just what does that mean in practice, and is it the case—and I hope I’ve got this wrong, but is it the case, if Business New Zealand doesn’t decide to be the bargaining party in every case, that the whole process will be shuffled straight off to the ERA using the backstop process that he introduced in the House at the same time in this legislation?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I have addressed this matter in previous comments, and I note that, effectively, the provisions that relate to the formation of bargaining sides, which is what this goes to, are dealt with under Part 3.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to bring up a few things that have come to my notice recently from Hospitality New Zealand. They have some quite major concerns that they felt have not been addressed in the bill, and I wonder if the Minister can give us some answers on this to try to appease the concerns they have got. They believe that for their sector particularly this is a very complex, expensive, and unaffordable system for New Zealanders and for their businesses in the hospitality sector. They talk about the inability to stack roles and how workers in small businesses often do need to be able to have multiple roles, particularly these small hospitality businesses in smaller centres.

I’m thinking particularly of Fiordland and Te Ānau businesses at the moment. They are hospitality and tourism businesses that are really struggling, and so they are using people across a number of roles. On that notion of stackable roles, they think that this will prevent that and that it will be a very unwieldy system for those smaller hospitality businesses which, essentially, have to do everything they can to maintain their ability to keep trading at this time and to keep people employed. They felt that the Government has really not entertained any degree of compromise around this bill.

So can the Minister perhaps please explain and allay some of these concerns about how the bill will enable that level of flexibility for those very much smaller businesses in the smaller centres, particularly those that are worried about this lack of flexibility and this lack of ability to stack roles.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In terms of the member’s contribution to Part 1, nothing here prevents employers from organising work in a way that is appropriate in their workplaces, including stacking roles, which is where a worker takes on a number of different functions.

In this debate, I have already, on a number of occasions, addressed extensively the way in which the coverage of fair pay agreements (FPAs) applies to the type of work that is done and the 25 percent test that the select committee has inserted and the fact that only one FPA will apply per employee based on, if there are multiple FPAs, the majority of work that that employee does.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I take that closure motion, can I just check with Chris Baillie that he knows his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 266 is actually for this part, and once I take that closure motion he won’t be able to talk to his SOP.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. My Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 266 refers to the vulnerable, low-paid part of this of this bill. The Minister often refers to the bill being for the lower paid, and I can quote: “People like our cleaners, our supermarket workers have got us through COVID. It’s about them.” The SOP just wants to ensure that it is those workers that the Minister is trying to help, and makes it clear that there must be a public interest test in each consideration. A lot of people think they are lower paid—and in this environment I don’t blame them; teachers, nurses, police—but a lot of other New Zealanders would think that they are not low paid. So the SOP refers to the public interest test being part of every agreement. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Madam Chair, I think I feel that the Supplementary Order Paper is a little misplaced. The main provisions around the public interest test are in Part 3 of the bill, and I would note that one of the changes already proposed by the Education and Workforce Committee is to ensure that low pay is one of the factors that is a bar for the public interest test being met.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Michael Wood’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Chris Baillie’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 266 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 74

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended stand part.

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 General principles and obligations

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 9 to 25, the “General principles and obligations”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Part 2 does indeed cover the general principles and obligations of the bill. It includes relatively foundational principles in terms of concepts that underlie how parties will engage in the bill. As I said in previous comments, most of these concepts are not new or unique within the employment relations system. Very often—in fact, in nearly all cases—they come across from the existing regime under the Employment Relations Act. So the principle of “freedom of association” is reconfirmed. The principle of “good faith” is reconfirmed. Issues around prohibition of preference, which is ensuring that people are not treated differently or worse because they are a member of the union or engage in bargaining and that kind of thing, are here. These are all principles and very often direct wording that relates across to the existing Employment Relations Act regime, which is well understood.

Probably two useful changes to highlight that have been recommended by the select committee to the committee of the whole House—the first is ensuring that those principles around good faith transfer over to the backstop arrangements so that, in respect of parties engaging in backstop processes, we’re ensuring that good faith continues to operate there. I wouldn’t have thought that was particularly controversial.

And, secondly, in terms of ensuring consistency with the broader employment relations system framework, there has been a slight change to the way in which good faith has been described from being the general obligation of good faith, which was in the original version of the bill, to the duty of good faith, which is the consistent language that we have in the Employment Relations Act at the moment. So a relatively small but, I think, practical changes here to ensure that those well understood and generally supported principles apply across the system in a way that’s understood by all.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Madam Chair, thank you very much. We now come to Part 2 of this legislation, the Fair Pay Agreements Bill—misnamed, according to us. I want to ask some questions of the Minister around clause 11, which outlines the employer’s and the employee’s bargaining parties presenting the interests of people covered. In subclause (2), the select committee in its wisdom—the majority—made some changes, and I just want to get a better understanding of paragraph (a), on the side of the eligible union—that is the employee bargaining party. Originally, the wording said, “may represent a covered employee’s interests”, despite some Government employees not being members of the union or any other union, and there’s a similar provision for the employers.

So this is kind of making the point that the bargaining party will represent the employee’s interests whether or not that particular employee wants them to or not. But the select committee in its wisdom changed that to “covered employees’ collective interests”. So it’s no longer the fact that the bargaining party may represent the employee’s interests; it now only has to, or may, represent the employees’ collective interests, which, of course, is a very different thing in the sense that I suppose it underlines the point that this legislation is not interested in the individual employee’s wishes and desires or the individual employer’s individual wishes and desires. It’s very much a collectivist view of the world that must be brought forward.

I suppose the point I wanted to make was that I’m intrigued as to how the Minister reconciles the two elements of this part, which sets off with great fanfare about freedom of association—it talks about that. It talks about voluntary membership of unions, which it asserts, and, yes, nobody has to join a union, which is true. But also in the same part it says that regardless of whether you do join a union, you will be represented by the union, the default union, and they will decide what your interests are—and they’re collective interests. So it’s a little bit odd. Yes, you don’t have to join a union—it’s voluntary—but regardless of whether or not you want it, the union will represent you. It reminds me of the old adage that—

Maureen Pugh: Democracy is changing!

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —ha, ha!—you might not be interested in war but war is interested in you. You might not be interested in a fair pay agreement but a fair pay agreement is interested in you, and you will have it whether or not you like it. It reminds me of, as a youngster, having to have the castor oil. I didn’t want it, but I had to have it and you know what’s good for you. And this party, the Labour Party, is a party, of course, that thinks it does know better than individuals.

So I’d like the Minister to take us through his logic and his thinking as to how he reconciles voluntary membership and freedom of association, these grand statements that this bill makes, with the reality that only a couple of clauses along that, regardless of whether the individual voluntarily wants to be involved in this fair agreement or not, is now immaterial. They will be, and there is no voluntary element to it. It is mandatory, it is legislated for, and then the employer bargaining party and the employee bargaining party don’t have to consider the employee’s interests—that’s actually been taken out by the select committee. It only has to consider—or it may; it doesn’t have to even do that but it may—the employees’ collective interests. I’d be interested in how the Minister distinguishes between the two, between the employee’s interests and the employees’ collective interests, and whether he may be of the view that the employees’ collective interests will always be those that are determined by the union.

That, I suppose, might be his view of the world—that the union will always determine what the individual’s interests are in any particular matter, and that they indeed know best and they are best placed to decide. Obviously, we on this of the Chamber would disagree with that proposition, but he may have some other definition. So it’s an interesting point. What it, essentially, means is that it is immaterial as to whether an individual employee or an employer wants to be covered by the FPA—they will be once this bill is passed.

How on earth that meets with the idea of freedom of association, I’m not sure. The Minister might also give us an update or just remind us how he squares freedom of association with the mandatory nature of this bill. Because, you know, we take it back to the basics. Say you’re working in a superette in Hokianga and there are two employees, and this is your job and you’ve figured out the hours that work for you and you’ve figured out what break works for you, and the owner of the business has worked out the cost structure that they can cope with and the cost structure that the community can cope with in terms of, you know, how much, fundamentally, the running of the business adds to the cost of the cauliflower and the broccoli and the milk and the bread and the things that are sold by that superette. They’ve worked it all out and it all works, and it’s above the minimum wage or it’s at the minimum wage set by the Government—they’ve worked it all out.

Now, that is not acceptable according to the Minister. Indeed, what is proposed by this legislation is that the union, which is the collective bargaining party, now is there to represent not the employee’s interests but the employees’ collective interests, whatever that is. And it may well be that the weight of the collective interests of the employees right across the country—and there’s thousands of them; most of them working for the duopoly companies, Foodstuffs and Progressive Enterprises. Their interests might be “X” and if the interests of the people working up in Hokianga are “Y”—well, tough luck because the majority always wins. So that’s how it works and that’s going to be imposed on the workers and the businesses in Hokianga whether they like it or not. Yet, at the same time, brandishing his credentials as a great democrat, the Minister has the gall to have, at the start, the big title “freedom of association”, and assert that we’re all free to do what we like and figure it all out for ourselves. I’d be interested to know how he squares those two things.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d just like to follow my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith’s contribution, because it does raise an issue that has been raised with me several times in recent times regarding this bill as it transitions through Parliament, and that’s how the collective bargaining relates to Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) workers and the types of conditions that can be imposed on employers of that workforce.

The reason it’s become a bit of a concern to that sector is if that collective bargaining imposes conditions on employers that make it difficult for them to comply. One of the things that’s raised concern is the scenario where that collective bargaining says that RSE workers’ housing—the accommodation that’s provided onsite—must be made available for other uses, for example, emergency housing. So what if those collective bargaining agreements in a negotiation between those sector groups impose conditions such as that on employers, and then that starts to raise concerns and conflicts between other legislation like the Residential Tenancies Act? I just wonder if the Minister could clarify that these types of negotiations that could be imposed on employers of RSE workers are not the intended target of collective bargaining agreements, as this bill enables, and whether those types of negotiations can be ruled out to give the sector the confidence it needs to enter those collective bargaining agreements with some reassurance that their assets are not going to be considered as part of the bargaining between the representative body and the employers or, for the likes of the horticultural sector, Horticulture New Zealand or some of the viticulture sectors that we may have. I can tell the Minister that that is an issue that is alive and is causing some concern within those sectors. So I’m just looking for some reassurance that that is not what is being prescribed or, maybe, anticipated, as part of collective bargaining.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Referring first to Maureen Pugh’s contributions, I don’t know if there’s a strong link to Part 2 here. But in respect of collective bargaining, it’s not for me, as the Minister, or the Government or any of us to determine where collective bargaining occurs. Under existing collective bargaining arrangements and under the fair pay agreements (FPA), that will be up to workers themselves to initiate if they believe that they want to enter into a collective bargaining process. If the member doesn’t believe that there need to be some improvements to accommodation and standards for some Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme workers, that’s her view; it’s not shared by me, and I don’t think it’s shared by most people. Later on, the Act should also see that there is a vetting process whereby any fair pay agreement gets assessed for its consistency with other legislation.

In terms of Mr Goldsmith’s comments, he notes the change that the Education and Workforce Committee made to specify that it’s the collective interests of employees under the FPA that the employee bargaining side has to represent. That’s appropriate and it goes to some of the other points that he makes. As I’ve described, FPAs set a set of minimum terms and conditions for that group of workers at a sector or occupational level. Contrary to some of the assertions that have been made and some of the implications made by that member, individual employers and employees at the individual bargaining level or the site collective bargaining level are still perfectly free to come to other arrangements if they wish to. So the purpose of the select committee entering the wording around “collective interests” is to make sure that that bargaining process remains focused on the collective interests of that group of workers. It would actually become unworkable were there to be an obligation on the employee bargaining side to represent the individual interests of workers, and it would very much confuse the regime.

To give an example, that worker in the Hokianga, that the member references, might want to come to and negotiate, at the individual level, a flexible working arrangement with their employer. Nothing in the FPA legislation prevents that from happening. We want them to be able to do that in that particular employment relationship. But you wouldn’t want that being caught up in a broader process of negotiating an FPA that might cover a large number of employees and employers.

In respect of the member’s points and arguments around freedom of association, those are not shared by the Government; they are not shared by the Attorney-General, who has vetted this legislation; and they’re certainly not shared by the ILO, where these complaints were taken by Business New Zealand, and, as I described in the House yesterday, you could have heard the tumbleweeds blowing through the halls of Geneva—that complaint was simply not upheld. Freedom of association, as expressed in this legislation and other legislation, is about the freedom for people to choose, in this respect, to join or not join a union, and that is totally protected here.

The member confuses that with the application of minimum standards. We do have minimum standards across our employment relations system. Certainly, Government members think that is a good thing. When it comes to the minimum wage, minimum annual leave, or minimum sick leave, it provides a basic level of protection for the most vulnerable. Certainly, the member can make arguments that that is an imposition on people or that that is Draconian or that that reduces flexibility. To some degree, it does reduce flexibility, but, in most democratic societies, we believe that having a degree of protection for people is important. Most democratic societies—and, in fact, through the ILO and other international conventions that we are signed up to—the value of collective bargaining in terms of allowing working people to have those protections in place is affirmed. It’s affirmed by conventions that all New Zealand Governments have signed up to and adhered to for around about 70 years, as well. So to the extent that the member argues that there is a lack of flexibility there, it is a lack of flexibility that has always been recognised in respect of minimum standards applying in the employment space. I think the member makes a mistake in confusing that with the question of freedom of association.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to follow on from my colleague Paul Goldsmith in this freedom of association, minimum standards, and the compulsive nature of having to be covered by a union collective bargaining party, whether or not the employee wants to be. I return to concerns from the Hospitality New Zealand association. Just to give some context, they are a member-led not-for-profit organisation, and they represent over 2,500 businesses. They are representing cafes, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, and commercial accommodation—lots of little country hotels and off-licences—and they have a 120-year history of advocating on behalf of that hospitality and tourism sector. They also have major concerns about the freedom of association, and if I can give some examples—in many of these small cafes or small restaurants, they are family-owned and they have a number of family members that are working within that business. It may be that their employees are sons, daughters, nieces, nephews, aunties working together, understanding that they’re all working for a common good of that family. So their freedom of association or their priorities, if you will, are to the good of their family, and yet, whether they like it or not, they are going to be bound by the collective bargaining of the union. So they are concerned that those kinds of minimum standards that might be imposed are going to be out of kilter with the wishes and desires of those people working within those family units, who are working together to make a family business viable in a small cafe, in a small town, and particularly the regions.

So their concern is how this is going to make their businesses unviable, how these minimum standards might be imposed across that whole industry grouping, which, I mean, you can see from the range of businesses that they are talking about—cafes and restaurants may be large entities in some cities; they may be very, very small in a tiny little town like Orepuki on the south coast and Southland or some of the very small townships that have only got one cafe and it’s very much a family affair. It doesn’t appear that this legislation is going to allow that flexibility within a family entity, a family-run business where the employees are, in fact, all wanting to work together for the benefit of that family business.

So I wonder if the Minister in the chair, Michael Wood, can talk about how there will be sufficient flexibility. He’s already said in his answer to my colleague’s question that there won’t be a certain range of flexibility, but if he can explain how that’s a good thing in the sorts of circumstances that I have outlined in this question. Thank you, Madam Chair.

JAN LOGIE (Green): It’s a pleasure to take a call in Part 2 of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill. I substantively want to speak to my Supplementary Order Paper 271 in this part, but, first, I just do need to respond to some of the speeches that I’ve heard from the National Party. I’ve got to start by saying I’m a little bit worried for Paul Goldsmith. Not being able to differentiate between the threat of death and war and the opportunity for better pay and conditions in your workplace must make operating in the world quite threatening, I think. I am a little bit worried for that member, and suggest he may need to talk to somebody to try and work that through.

I do just need to say that some of the arguments I’m hearing about the small businesses and those examples around family-run businesses—we are not the only country in the world that has family-run businesses. We are an outlier in not having sector-based bargaining, in terms of comparable countries. Others have worked this through, and it has not destroyed their family-run businesses. It’s completely possible.

Also, I just need to speak to that sense of the threat of the unions, and the powerlessness of the businesses that I’m hearing represented. That is not the imbalance of power that our employment law recognises; the imbalance of power is traditionally understood as the other way round. If businesses feel that they can’t represent themselves, then there is opportunity for upskilling for them in this process, and I would encourage them to do that. This process, at its heart, is about hearing from people and sitting down together and working out those minimum standards.

I do want to speak to the point around freedom of association and how that is, as Minister Wood said, affirmed in this part of the legislation. However, part of it is affirmed in this legislation and part of it is actively undermined by the removal of the right to strike in relation to fair pay agreements. The right to strike is covered by international jurisprudence in the context of freedom of association. This has been well understood and protected through the International Labour Organization and international labour standards since 1957. This is a very longstanding right, because there’s a recognition of that imbalance of power. We’ve seen that recently in terms of the firefighters striking, and part of their strike has been telling us and the public, actually, the reality of what is going on in their stations and the risk that poses to public safety. That strike has been, while not yet resolved, incredibly important for our country. Without them striking and telling us that information, actually what we’ve heard and what we’re still seeing play out is there would not be resolution or hope of resolution.

We’ve also seen the importance of striking for our allied health staff, and that that is what made the difference, which was, again, about protecting our health system. We have seen the value of striking, and fair pay agreements could accommodate—and I and the Greens believe should accommodate—that right in terms of the bargaining process. Germany’s equivalent of the fair pay agreement does have the right to strike, with some caveats to it, and they’ve got some of the highest levels of productivity in the world and some of the best wages. That’s what we’re after. For the Greens, we recognise the right to strike as a fundamental right in playing for individuals and the collective as well as democracy, and we are proposing that it is restored to this bill.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to talk to the Minister and ask him some questions around Part 2, clause 20, the “Penalty for the breach of … good faith”. So this clause of the bill talks about if employers are meddling in the system beforehand, trying to persuade their employees not to start the process, not to take part in the process, or not to ratify. So it talks here about—if they do that, then there is a penalty clause, but it talks about, in clause 20(2A)(a) and (b), those actions being “deliberate, serious, and sustained”, or “is intended to undermine the process of bargaining.”

The penalty for this, laid out in clause 196 is up to $20,000; or $40,000 if it’s not an individual. So it’s a serious penalty. And I wanted to ask the Minister some questions—around clause 20(2A)(a)—about the “deliberate, serious, and sustained.” Do all of those criteria need to be met? Because at the moment, it’s not and, and, and; it’s “deliberate”, “serious”, and “sustained.” So what is the test? Because we’re talking about quite a big penalty here for the individual. Can the Minister explain that requirement to be “deliberate, serious, and sustained”; does it need to be all three of those or just one of those? Because it does use the word “and” there, so I presume it has to be serious and sustained. Does it need to be deliberate as well—so all three of those need to be met in the test?

And then the next part is intended to undermine the process of bargaining. So I guess my next question is: what would be the test there? Because if you go back to clause 20(1) where it talks about the employer persuading their employees “not to participate in initiating, bargaining [for], or ratifying …”—what is the, I guess, level of undermining that he is expecting to be met in that “intended to undermine”. And if he could give us some examples, but, I guess, at the very low level where an employer gives everyone a pay rise and gives them an extra week’s holiday, or to try and subvert the course of the initiation by doing something that would give their employees a reason not to enter bargaining—in this case if they improved conditions and pay slightly—would that be deliberate or serious enough to meet that test? Or would the Minister expect that that would be something intended to undermine the process of bargaining, where an employer is trying to do the right thing I guess, but also trying to avoid going into bargaining—especially if it’s a really big employer or a couple of really big employers, where they’re like “Well, we really don’t want to go into this, we don’t want to have a price or wage floor. Let’s improve conditions and pay slightly to try and discourage our employees from entering bargaining.”? I guess my question to the Minister is: does that meet the test of intending to undermine the process of bargaining?

That’s just one example, but there are many others. If the Minister could give us some examples of what could meet that test. I mean, there are some obvious example—such as if the employer was to actually physically say to them “Don’t do this or you’ll lose your job.”—I get that. But there is a big grey area in the middle there, and I’m quite keen for the Minister to explore where that line is, where it’s not intended to undermine the process of bargaining.

But also, going back to my earlier question around deliberate, serious, and sustained—does it have to meet all three of those, just two of those, or one of those in that part? Because, as I say, it is a significant penalty, and just understanding where the lines are and how that test is met, I think, is very important. So if the Minister’s able to go into that, that would be appreciated.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me a call in this debate. My question elaborates on a question already asked by Jan Logie with regards to strikes. My question has two particular limbs to it.

As Jan Logie spoke, there was some concern expressed by submitters with regards to the broad concern about the removal of the right to strike. And, as Jan Logie mentioned, this is an absolute right of workers.

But my second question is with regards to the large extent of disinformation that we’ve heard with regards to strikes. And, in particular, as we heard from some submitters—Hospitality New Zealand comes to mind—that potentially people could take sympathy strikes or strikes dressed up as a health and safety strike. So I wondered if the Minister could talk a little bit about, first of all, the limits on what is a lawful or unlawful strike related to collective bargaining under the Employment Relations Act.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Point of order. Madam Chair, I’m just a little bit troubled by the speech by that member, who seemed to be implying that a particular submitter—Hospitality New Zealand—was engaging in disinformation. You know, I think it’s important to recognise that submitters don’t have the ability to answer back in this context, and I don’t think it’s within Standing Orders for a member to, effectively, accuse—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Can I ask the member what his actual point of order is? Because strikes and lockouts is actually covered in clause 25.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, no. My point of order is that it is out of order for a member of Parliament to accuse a submitter of engaging in disinformation in this House.

Marja Lubeck: Can I speak to the point of order?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): There are procedures if that organisation wants to go through the process, but this is actually a debate that we’re having. As I said as the Chair of this committee, it is covered under clause 25 “Strikes and lockouts”. I call on the Minister—sorry Minister; Marja Lubeck actually got up to speak to the point of order.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Apologies. I wanted to just clarify, I was trying to be helpful. So my question was twofold. First of all, what is lawful and unlawful strikes under the Employment Relations Act in regards to fair pay agreements? And secondly, with regards to the amount of disinformation we’ve heard, I was going to quote an example of Hospitality New Zealand, who specifically spoke about strikes dressed up as health and safety. So I thought it would be helpful if the Minister could speak to that particular point. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I’d like to respond to a number of the questions raised by members around the Chamber. Penny Simmonds raised some questions about family members working in businesses. I’ve already addressed that issue in Part 1. I’m not sure that it relates to Part 2, but just, to be very clear, because someone is a family member when they’re an employee doesn’t mean that the laws of the land in respect to the employment law do not apply to them.

Jan Logie spoke to her Supplementary Order Paper 271, which seeks for the right for strikes and lockouts to be allowed under the fair pay agreements legislation. The Government has been very clear right from the beginning that we do not agree with that and we will not agree to that in the committee of the whole House stage. I’d note two points here. The first is that all workers still have the ability to engage in strikes, and, indeed, employers have a right to engage in lockouts in pursuit of collective agreements under the Employment Relations Act (ERA). So nothing is taken away there, in respect of those fundamental rights. This is a new process of setting minimum standards at a sector occupation level, and we’ve built in very clear mechanisms primarily through the determinative function of the ERA to ensure that in the event that bargaining becomes protracted or difficult, there is a mechanism that helps parties to get agreements settled. So we do not think it is necessary or desirable for strikes or lockouts to be part of the regime, and that was indeed one of the recommendations of the working group chaired by the Rt Hon Jim Bolger at the beginning of the process, and we’ve brought through that recommendation and many others in this legislation.

Erica Stanford asked about some of the particular provisions in clause 20(2) that relate to good faith—for clarity, clause 20(2)(a). Yes, the answer is that the behaviour would have to be “deliberate, serious, and sustained” to meet the test there, so it’s quite a high bar. It is all of those factors taken as one. In respect of clause 20(2)(b)—“is intended to undermine the process of bargaining”—I hesitate to provide particular examples because none of this is particularly new. These provisions are largely built off provisions that are in the existing Employment Relations Act that the authority has interpreted over the years. They’re always very fact-specific, so when complaints about breach of good faith come before parties to resolve between themselves, or end up coming to the authority, the authority will look at all of the factors pertaining to that particular bargaining, all of the behaviours of the parties in the round, to come to a view as to whether there has been a breach of good faith. I would note that paragraph (b) is a particularly high test. It is not only the test of undermining bargaining; it is also intention, so the mens rea matters here. It has to be the intention, the deliberate intent of the party, whether it’s the employer or the union, to undermine that bargaining before that test is met.

Marja Lubeck asked further questions around the right to strike. I’ve affirmed that the Government’s clear position is that there is not a role for that under the fair pay agreements regime. We’ve been very clear about that. We’ve been very clear on pushing back against misinformation that has been out there in the public domain around this, and so I repeat and underscore that point. It is important that this debate occurs on the basis of fact and not on the basis of misinformation, and that’s affirmed in the legislation. The right to strike, even under the Employment Relations Act, are limited in respect of either striking or lockout for the purposes of engaging in collective bargaining and around health and safety, and none of that is changed under this legislation.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like a comment from the Minister, the Hon Michael Wood, about clause 16, “undue influence”. The accusations are about compulsory unionism and how that’s disinformation. Clause 16(1), “A person must not, for the purposes of bargaining, [or] for the purpose of an application … exert undue influence, directly or indirectly … [for someone to remain or join] a member of [the] union,” and there are some other parts to that as well, which sounds good. The contravention to that is a penalty—section 196. I’m just wondering whether the Minister is aware of the subtle influences that go on in workplaces—I’ve sat in staffrooms where members of the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) don’t talk to non-members of the PPTA, they sit in a little group by themselves, and where relieving teachers won’t go into classrooms of non-members. And I just want to make sure that the Minister is aware of the subtle influences that go on in those other workplaces like teaching.

At this stage, I’d like to introduce Supplementary Order Paper 267, which says “An employee or employer may opt out of [coverage] of a fair pay agreement … if they notify the chief executive in writing that they have a fundamental conscientious, religious, or moral objection to their coverage … [the] employee or employer … is not subject to coverage of [the] fair pay agreement”. I’d just like the Minister to consider that, and, if not, whether he is actually telling the New Zealand public that they must participate in something that they have no desire to, don’t wish to, and fundamentally disagree with. Is that what he’s telling the people? Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Briefly, in response to the member’s questions, I know that clause 16, around undue influence goes either way, it’s about undue influence to be associated or not associated with an organisation. I can’t speak to the particular examples that the member gives, but, as I say, this clause, which, effectively, carries over from the broader Act, provides protections either way.

In respect of Supplementary Order Paper 267, we won’t be agreeing to that. I do note to the member that the provisions around opting out for conscientious reasons are captured in Part 4 of this bill and, effectively, link through to the existing provisions in the Employment Relations Act.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got a few more questions for the Minister on this part, first in relation to clause 13, which relates to prohibition on preference. This legislation has very many lofty words in it around the fact that a pair fay agreement (FPA) can’t be used to confer on a person, because the person is or isn’t a member of a union, any preference in obtaining employment or preference in relation to terms of employment. It says you can’t, in a misnamed “fair pay agreement”, give any preference to someone because they’re in a union.

Then the next subclause says, “However, a fair pay agreement may provide that a union member payment [is] paid”. How does the Minister reconcile those two things? We’re going to stand up here and we’ll say, look, there’s no way that any of these fair pay agreements can give preference to union members, but you can give them an extra thousand bucks or two thousand bucks because they’re members of the union—in fact, probably give them the exact amount that the union charges as the union fee. So please explain to me how that is not a preference and how that is not a completely muddled, confused, contradictory, and absurd piece of legislation. How can it not be that the allowance of paying union members an extra thousand bucks is not a preference?

I’d just like the Minister to explain how he justifies to an employer—again, I take, as an example, the poor little superette owner in the Hokianga who may have two members of staff; one of them is a member of a union and the other isn’t. The Minister and his Government, through this legislation, is forcing the employer, the little superette owner in Hokianga, to pay one employee an extra thousand bucks—or it might be more; it might be 1,500 bucks—to the union member to pay for the union member’s union fee, effectively. Notwithstanding the fact that he stands up there, puffs his chest, and says, “I’ve passed legislation that prohibits any preference, in terms of employment, to members of unions”, it is, I think, rather absurd, and I’d be interested to see how he explains it.

Secondly, on the issue of right to strike, did he consider one of the suggestions made by employment lawyers that I spoke to, and one which I raised with the select committee—he says, “Yes, yes, you can’t strike during a fair pay agreement”. But we all know, and everybody understands that there are many other things that you can strike over under the normal course of events under the Employment Relations Act 2000, coincidentally at the same time. Look, I don’t claim to be a great fan of the union movement, although, sure, they’ve done many great things over the course of history, and I am grateful for the previous Green member’s concern about my wellbeing and general attitude to life. But I’ve got no doubt that, over the years, the union membership has had many clever people involved in the union movement, and I don’t, for a moment, underestimate their ingenuity and their ability to figure out ways around particular circumstances so that they could engineer a strike through other means at the time of an FPA being considered.

When I look across the House at virtually every Labour member here who was a former union representative of some sort—virtually everyone; not everyone, but virtually everyone. I look at Marja Lubeck; she is cunning. There’s no question she is cunning, she is clever, and she wouldn’t have any trouble whatsoever in coming up with a way around this in order to engineer a strike during the normal course of events using the normal legislation at the same time as a misnamed “fair pay agreement” was being organised.

One of the things that was considered, or suggested, was—well, OK, if you’re really honest and serious about not having strikes going on during the misnamed “fair pay agreement” negotiations, then the Minister would have made an amendment to the Employment Relations Act itself banning strikes during the period of a fair pay agreement negotiation full stop. Therefore there wouldn’t have been the opportunity for clever union organisers like Marja Lubeck to come up with clever schemes and timings so as to, in effect, add striking pressures during the negotiations. So I wonder whether he’d given any thought to that or considered it, and, if not, why not? Why didn’t he, if he was genuine about not having strikes going on at the same time? Because, as I say, there is genuine fear out there, particularly amongst employer groups, that this will lead to more strike action, in particular because of the context. It is an increasingly adversarial approach to unions.

I also wanted to respond to the Green member’s comments. We’re not suggesting for a moment that this is going to destroy businesses in the country. If this law passes, it’s not going to destroy businesses; all it’s going to do is just add another layer of cost, complexity, and rigidity to New Zealand businesses. They’ll survive, but it will be harder, and that’s the only point we’re making—it will be harder. If you’re operating in a competitive world, trying to stay afloat to be able to provide goods and services at a cost that people can afford, or trying to remain competitive with international competitors, it’s just another layer of cost.

The Minister, in many, many answers, has come and said, “Well, yes, but there is a floor that we all agree in terms of the minimum wage and sick leave entitlements.” Of course we agree with that, and we’re not disputing that in any way, shape, or form. What this legislation does is it raises the floor substantially in many areas and introduces a floor into other different areas, whether it comes to enforcing penal rates on weekends, or different hours—a whole lot of things. So it raises the floor in various levels all over the place, and that’s the debate we’re having. The debate we’re having is: is imposing that higher floor and the additional costs that are implied in it a good thing and an appropriate thing at this time, or at any time, in a world where New Zealand businesses are struggling to compete?

The third point I wanted to make in relation to this part related to this whole question of when parties are deadlocked—this is clause 19, subclause (3)(d). I suppose the only question I have here is, in this legislation—the select committee, in their wisdom, changed paragraph (d) and it made the point that if bargaining parties have come to a standstill or reached a deadlock about a matter, they are not forced to keep on being deadlocked, or whatever. What happens is that they can stop, but it says here that they need to continue to bargain about any other matters that they haven’t reached a deadlock on. So that process goes on until such a time as there is a deadlock, but it’s all a little bit irrelevant. It’s meaningless, because the bill also provides that if an agreement cannot be reached, then the Employment Relations Authority steps in and sets the terms of agreement. I just wonder what the point of that is, saying that you’ve got to carry on, keep bargaining, and if you’re deadlocked in one area, keep going until you’re deadlocked in all the areas. In the end, the outcome is set and final, and that is it goes off to this little group of people in Wellington or Auckland who are sitting around the desk who apparently have the wisdom of Solomon, and they can work out what businesses up and down the country, large and small, need, want, and deserve. I’d be interested in what he thought he was achieving with that particular paragraph.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Firstly, can I recognise the deep-set and genuine fears and anxieties that the member has about unions. It’s a wonder the poor man can sleep at night; he’s so worried about what they might do if they organise and achieve better pay and conditions for working people! That is one of the intents of the legislation.

In respect of his particular anxieties and worries in respect of clause 13, we know that clause 13 is primarily about ensuring prohibition on preference—that is, that you can’t sort of push people one way or the other. He’s been very excited and very concerned about the fact that it is possible for a union to then, within a fair pay agreement (FPA) negotiation, negotiate for—it’s not required, but they have the ability to negotiate for a payment to go to union members up to the level of the union fee that applies across that FPA. It can be justified very simply. It’s about the fact that the benefits of the FPA go to all workers regardless of their union membership status, and so, in effect, the union members are paying for that bargaining process to occur; non-union members are not paying. And it can be, I think, very simply justified that a payment to the level of the union fee of those union members, effectively, puts everyone on a level footing in terms of their contribution.

Here’s the other interesting point about this: Mr Goldsmith might want to go back to the Employment Relations Act and recognise that under our existing collective bargaining arrangements, that is allowed. It is explicitly allowed and it was explicitly allowed for the entirety of the nine years in which the National Party was last in Government. So the suggestion that this is somehow a significant new inhibition on prohibition of preference is news to me, and presumably news to the National Party because they allowed it for nine years under previous arrangement, and indeed some collective bargaining arrangements included it on that basis.

In terms of his worries and anxieties around the right to strike, again I affirm that this legislation does not allow strikes or lockouts to occur in pursuit of an FPA. The member is simply wrong when he says that there are “many other things that unions can strike on”. There are only two things that unions can strike on under the Employment Relations Act, and that is in pursuit of a collective employment agreement and around health and safety matters, and those are pretty strictly policed. Any union or union member that goes on strike undertakes that decision pretty seriously; they don’t do it at whim. They lose pay when they do it. They can only legally do it in pursuit of those means. And I don’t think it would be a surprise to the member to know that that is tested out regularly in the Employment Relations Authority and the courts if the other parties don’t agree that that action was taken lawfully. It is also the case that were unions and workers to engage in the right to strike under those mechanisms, it’s unlikely that the coverage would match up to the coverage of fair pay agreements, because, by definition, employees undertaking the right to strike in pursuit of collective bargaining in nearly all cases are only doing so at the enterprise level, rather than at a sector or an occupational level. So I think the member’s just got that wrong.

Then when it comes to clause 19, this is basically modelled off section 32 in the existing Employment Relations Act, as many of the provisions are here. So it won’t be new or novel to either employers or unions. It, effectively, sets out the good-faith process that the expectation here is that parties remain at the table and they give their best endeavours to continue bargaining. And just because you get stuck on one thing doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t continue good-faith bargaining in other areas. That is what happens now under collective bargaining. And that is the way that you try and make progress towards reaching agreement without getting stuck on one particular thing. If you get to the end of that and you can’t, you’ve then got other dispute resolution mechanisms that come into effect.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to carry on with one of the arguments that Paul Goldsmith was making, but bring in a different clause. So when we’re talking about clause 13, and the “fair pay agreement may provide that a union member payment may be paid to covered employee who is a member of a union”, what I want to put to the Minister is: is this being covered under clause 16, “Undue influence”? Because you can see quite clearly what will happen: the unions will go to all of the employees and say, basically, “We will bargain for you to get your union fees back, $600”—or however much it is; whatever the union fees are—“and you will get all this free stuff.” You can see this happening: they will go to all of the employees and say, “Hey, this service will be for you for free, paid for by the employer, and, therefore, you should join our union and be part of this part of this process.”

Now, clause 16, the “Undue influence”, says that “A person must not, for the purposes of bargaining”—for the purposes of blah-blah—for, clause 16(1)(a), “to become or remain a member of a union”. So the ability of a union to leverage the payment that they will get for the person if they become a member to then, basically, have free union membership and they’ll no doubt say here all the other benefits paid for by the employer. The question that I’ve got for the Minister is what is the bar for undue influence? It doesn’t lay out in this what that bar is. This is similar to a question I asked earlier: where is that bar? Is the bar of undue influence a union going to non-union members and saying, “We are going to get you a payment, you will get all these services for free if you join”, and pushing them into joining by offering them free stuff. Does that meet the bar of clause 16(1)(a), “Undue influence”, “to become or remain a member of a union, a particular union, an employer association, or a particular employer association”. So it’s a slightly different question than what Paul Goldsmith was asking, but it does relate to clause 13 in the ability of a union to negotiate that a union member can get that payment, in negotiating the fair pay agreement.

So, specifically, if the Minister could talk about the bar of undue influence and whether or not this payment in clause 13(2) would meet that bar.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): It will always be up to the Employment Relations Authority to determine what is “undue influence”, and as I’ve said, they will have to consider things on a fact-specific basis. But the answer is: broadly, no, it would not be considered “undue influence” for a union to promote the lawful benefits that it might be able to bargain through the course of bargaining.

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

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 41

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 8.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Jan Logie’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 271 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 105

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 41

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 8.

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

Ayes 76

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

Noes 40

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.

Motion agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Part 3 Preliminary requirements: initiating bargaining and forming bargaining sides

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We come now to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 26 to 61, “Preliminary requirements: initiating bargaining and forming bargaining sides”. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I’ve got just a few remarks to introduce Part 3. As the Chair has said, this part relates to the initiation of bargaining and the forming of bargaining sides. This is an important part of how fair pay agreements are established. In the first instance, unions and workers are required to initiate for fair pay agreements. There are broadly two pathways—a representation test and a public interest test—for that. Those are described in some detail in this part. There is then an obligation on unions to engage in a notification process to make sure that other unions, but also employers, are aware of that fair pay agreement being initiated after it has been approved by the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE).

In terms of some of the changes for the consideration of the committee here, the Education and Workforce Committee—I’ve said this before—I think they’ve made some quite useful changes and clarifications there. In respect of the public interest test, the select committee has recommended back to the House and this committee that this be clarified to ensure that for a public interest test to be met, both low pay and one other factor have to be considered. It’s, effectively, narrowed the test from what was originally proposed in the legislation, where it could be any of those factors that were taken into account. It’s now clear that it has to be pay and at least one other factor before the public interest test can be met.

Then, in terms of coverage—we touched on this previously—there is clarification that in the initiation process, the union should, in the first instance, endeavour to describe coverage for the use of the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations and the Australia and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification codes. That is about being as clear as possible about who will be covered for the purposes of the bargaining of fair pay agreements, noting that the parties could agree to different coverage through the course of the bargaining, but that’s quite an important point and, I think, will provide much-greater clarity, which does address one of the questions which kept coming up from submitters.

In the Supplementary Order Paper 264 that I have put forward, the main change for the committee to be aware of is that there were some additional indicators, effectively, for MBIE to assess whether the public interest test had been met. On further consideration, and in response to general submissions that were received around simplifying things as much as possible, those additional indicators have been removed from the legislation. MBIE will simply need to assess whether a public interest test has been made against the core criteria that are in the legislation.

So there are a number of issues there. I’ll be happy to take any questions that do relate to those matters and other matters that are in Part 3.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. For those at home tuning into their crystal sets to watch or listen to this debate on the—misnamed—Fair Pay Agreements Bill, we’re now two and a half hours into this legislation and we’re now starting Part 3 of a bill which has 11 parts. This Government in its wisdom has introduced a very detailed bill which will have very significant effect on our workplaces up and down the country, and this part, Part 3, of course, is one of the meatier parts which we will need to delve into. It’s important that we do get some understandings about some of the issues raised, because one fundamental element of this part is how such a misnamed fair pay agreement would be initiated, because once it starts, there is no stopping. Unless the union, which in all reality would’ve initiated it, changes their mind and pulls out, there is no stopping the process, and there will be a fair pay agreement (FPA). So it is very important what the rules are for starting this and initiating such a process.

The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, in his wisdom has introduced three options. First is that 10 percent of a covered workforce may vote for it—10 percent. In most people’s understanding of democracy, they don’t sort of think of 10 percent as being a particularly strong call for change. You know, it’s kind of about the number of people that vote for the Green Party , for example—but not quite—so I don’t think most New Zealanders would indicate—

Hon Michael Wood: Does the member get 10 percent in Epsom?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, that’s a very interesting point, but not quite relevant to this part. But what I was saying was I don’t think most people would be very impressed if the Greens were to rule the country on 10 percent, or just under thereof. Not many people would think that was a mandate. So you’ve got 10 percent—that’s one option.

Then you’ve got the option of 1,000 employees. Now, again, if you happen to be in an occupation where there are 200,000 New Zealanders engaged in that occupation, if we’re in retail or sales or something like that, this Minister is telling us that it only takes 1,000. It may be less than half of 1 percent of the workforce. Just think about that: less than half of 1 percent of the workforce can start a process that cannot be stopped. That, to me, is an outrage—a total democratic outrage.

But no, there’s worse: even if you can’t make it to that threshold, you can’t even make it to half of 1 percent, there’s a third option, which is you can get one of these things if there is a public interest test and you can persuade the chief executive of the ministry of business information—or whatever it’s called—that the fair pay agreement covers an area that is of low pay, little good bargaining power, a lack of pay progression, and inadequate pay and various factors. And so the select committee, again, in their wisdom decided that there must be low-pay provisions. But that doesn’t actually define what “low pay” is. I suppose the first question that I have of many—

Hon Damien O’Connor: You’d find out if you were on it.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, you know it if you’ve got it. That might be the answer from the Minister. You know you’re low paid if you feel you’re low paid. If that’s his definition, then I think there is a certain mayor in Auckland earning nearly $300,000 who thinks he’s low paid and he should only do a 30-hour week on account of that. So maybe he would be included in that definition. I’m not sure. So I’d like to hear from the Minister as to how he defines “low pay”. But, more fundamentally, I’d like to have him explain to the committee and to the people of New Zealand how he thinks that a situation where fewer than half of 1 percent of the employees in a particular occupation or industry can decide for the other 99.5 percent that they’re going to be swept up in a fair pay agreement regardless of whether they want it or not, and how he thinks that is, in any way, shape, or form, a reasonable or democratic thing to do.

So I have taken the liberty of bringing forth an amendment which would actually do away with that proposal and say instead that a fair pay agreement can be initiated if 50 percent of a workforce or an area to be covered agree with it. And surely that is the rational and fair and appropriate way to do it—not 10 percent, not the Greens, but 50 percent; a successful Labour Party or a National Party on a good day or a combination of a number of parties in the political equivalent where you have a majority of people in an area being covered, deciding that they want this. How can that not be a reasonable proposition, as opposed to a situation where a tiny, tiny fraction of the workforce to be covered by a misnamed fair pay agreement would be able to start a process? Because it would be all right if this very tiny minority were able to start a process that that could be stopped in some way, and that if it started and everybody looked at it and said, “Well, that doesn’t make sense; we’re not going to do it; therefore it’s not going to happen. Good night and thank you very much.”, that is not what this legislation does. Once it starts, there ain’t no stopping. There’s going to be a fair pay agreement probably decided by the Employment Relations Authority.

So the Government’s proposal is 10 percent—a very low threshold; less than half of 1 percent in a large occupation or even less; maybe a just a smidgen of a fraction less than 1 percent in terms of 1,000 workers—and, even if that doesn’t work, this rather loosely defined public interest test based on low pay, which I’d love to hear from the Minister exactly how he defines it and what constitutes that in the sense of low pay.

Just briefly while I’ve got some more time, it’s interesting that not all employees who are covered by the proposed FPA need to meet the criteria of the public interest test, which is interesting. So if we’re talking about low pay, it doesn’t mean that the industry itself needs to be low paid; it just needs to be that some members of the industry are low paid. Maybe I’ve got that wrong. But, again, if you were to take salespeople, for example, as an occupation that there was going to be an FPA for—of course, many salespeople if they are, I don’t know, in real estate or selling cars or selling helicopters or whatever might be paid very well; may be paid very well. So they wouldn’t necessarily fall within the category of low pay, although according to Wayne Brown’s definition of “low pay”, they might be. But, of course, all you need is one or two salespeople who are not paid very well, and then you would fall within the public interest test that the chief executive of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) can apply. And then, again, you could have a situation where, you know, there might be 200,000 salespeople across the country—I don’t know how many there are—and it’s certainly not 50 percent that I would argue should be agreeing to a fair pay agreement that should agree to it; it’s not 10 percent that the Government thinks; it’s not the 1,000 people, which would be less than half of 1 percent who have to agree with it; it could be that none of them could agree with it; there could be nobody that agrees with it whatsoever. It could be all 200,000 salespeople across the country and none of them agree with it, but the chief executive of MBIE decides to go ahead because there are one or two salespeople that aren’t making much money. Have I got that right and does that make sense?

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): I’d like to continue on from where my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith was talking about before, especially in relation to the at least 1,000 employees covered, and the Hon Paul Goldsmith made the comment around these very large sectors or industries where you would have numerous people working in them—you know, 100,000; maybe even more—and only 1,000 of those is needed to trigger this process, and once triggered it cannot be stopped. He did comment about whether or not this was representative, and I would really want to ask that question again: is it representative?

I’d also like to tie it back to a big part that we discussed in Part 2, which was around good faith. Is this really a bill that is operating in good faith, if you are allowing a very small percentage of the workforce to initiate a process that the vast majority may not be engaged in or wanting to engage in? Have we met that good-faith test where you could have a number of people who for political or ideological reasons or whether they just want to agitate? Or, as my colleague Erica Stanford mentioned before, maybe they are induced by the potential of benefits that the union could represent to them. Are we necessarily meeting that good-faith test in this regard? I would say that I’m not sure that we are, but I would like to hear from the Minister on how he balances that.

I would also like to go to clause 29(1)(a), which was discussed around, you know, receiving low pay for work, and whether that takes account for—a lot of employment arrangements are based on a base salary, as it may be, but there’s also a commission aspect to it as well. It may be, you know, in some jobs that are, ultimately, high paying, however, the base conditions to that are quite low, but that is commonly used as an incentive, especially in the sales industry, to entice employees to work hard and make sales. It is a pretty good model for encouraging people to get out there and work hard. Does it take account of that? I would like the Minister to comment on whether it does reflect commissions. We note that banks don’t necessarily look at commissions or bonus structures when they’re reviewing mortgages, so I’m not particularly sure whether this bill would take that into account. You may have someone that does earn a lot of money, given that they do have commissions in the good times, but when you just look at it on paper, as a bank would do when assessing how creditworthy you are, you may just be on a low base rate.

I’d also like to ask, when you’re talking about low pay for their work, in relation to what are we talking about here? Is that in relation to the minimum wage? Is it in relation to a living wage? Is it in relation to the local environment and the cost of living pressures that they may be facing in their locality? Are we talking about an industry median wage? Are we being cognisant of the fact that it is a global and movable workforce and looking at what international competitors may be offering in this space?

If I move down to clause 29A(1)(b)(i), where it talks about having little bargaining power in their employment, I’d like to ask the Minister, who is the judge of this, how is that determined?

I would also like to then skip down to clause 29A(1)(b)(iii)(A), where it talks about not being adequately paid, taking into account factors such as working long or unsocial hours—you know, late nights, weekends. I’ve certainly done my share of night shifts and they’re not great, and I was compensated for that, but some of those are unique to different workplaces. That’s where we get into issues here, because the different workplaces are so unique and they all have their own little intricacies, and how we are able to then, through this bill—and I would like to know how we can then apply blanket, nationwide, industry-wide, and then take into account all of the variables that each different workplace will be faced with. I think that will be a significant challenge, and is probably quite a blunt instrument in that regard. So I would be interested to hear what the Minister’s response is.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you to the members for their questions. They primarily revolved around the representation and public interest tests. I encourage all members in the debate to read the very good report that was put together by the Fair Pay Agreement Working Group, chaired by the Rt Hon Jim Bolger.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Elder abuse.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I think that’s a very disrespectful comment about our former Prime Minister, who’s played a very significant role in public life and worked very constructively with unions, employers, academics, and civil society more broadly to develop the Fair Pay Agreement Working Group’s recommendations.

It’s really worth pointing out as well, if the member or others wish to read that report—and I would recommend it—that that report confirms that in all respects, except for the universal application of fair pay agreements (FPAs), all of the parties agreed to the key design details. It’s fair to say that Business New Zealand did not agree with the universal application of FPAs; that’s their prerogative, and that’s clearly stated in the report. But all of the other design details were unanimously agreed by all of the parties, including the initiation tests, because the initiation tests, both public interest pathway and representation pathway that members see in this bill, come straight from the recommendations of the Fair Pay Agreement Working Group. So that is the genesis of them.

The reason for where the working group arrived, and the Government continues to agree with this, is it is appropriate to have a test and a threshold, but, by definition, fair pay agreements are mainly in place for workers who have found it really difficult, under the existing arrangements, to organise and to engage in collective bargaining, and prohibitive tests would simply mean that it would not happen. It would be too difficult for workers to be able to access the benefits of collective bargaining, which, ultimately, is the core problem that we are trying to resolve here. That is something that has been commented on by many international organisations who visit New Zealand, that our low rates of collective bargaining lead to some of these poor outcomes in the labour market, and that we’re unusual in not having a sector-based form of bargaining to deal with that.

I also put this to the member in respect of, effectively, the questions of legitimacy that he raises here. I’ve had colleagues of his say that instead of doing this, the Government should just choose some sectors where there are labour market problems, and the Government should just legislate for there to be improvements. Well, what we have actually tried to do here is to set up a process whereby employers and employees can sit down and bargain in good faith, knowing the sectors that they represent and come to those outcomes themselves instead of Government imposing it, or, as opposed to the Australian model, a commission hearing arguments and then determining, instantly, no bargaining involved. So, actually, I think where we’ve landed in terms of the way of doing this is a pretty reasonable way that actually tries to make sure that civil society partners, our social partners, unions, and businesses, can work these things through. That is a genesis of both of those thresholds.

In terms of the public interest test and how those matters will be assessed, they’ve encouraged me to just read a little bit further down to 29A(3), which makes it clear that regulations will be put in place so that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has guidance to make judgments as to whether those criteria have been set and those regulations will be put in place in time for parties to be able to engage in the initiation process. We will do work to ensure, in those regulations, which are not actually the substance of this debate, but we’ll do work to make sure that those regulations are really focused in on low pay and those other factors and have a reasonable degree of objectivity about them. I think, when it comes to low pay, the members can take it as a given that we will be focused on those people who are genuinely paid at a relatively low rate of pay, at or around or a little bit above the minimum wage.

Mr Uffindell asked whether the representation test met the definition of “good faith”. The Act’s definition of “good faith”, in the Employment Relations Act and in this bill, has a specific meaning that relates to good-faith relationships between parties involved in the bargaining process, so that doesn’t really come into it. The member asked about the role of commission in determining pay for the purposes of this piece of legislation. Generally speaking, commission, because it is variable, no one can rely upon it. It is not considered to be a part of base pay. In terms of who judges who has little bargaining power and all of the other criteria, that role, as this part clearly describes, is the Employment Relations Authority. The member asked about the individual variables that were listed in the bill. As I described in my opening comments, my Supplementary Order Paper actually removes those, so it’s just the core criteria that will be assessed for the public interest test.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got a couple of things I want to ask the Minister, the Hon Michael Wood, about, one of them is in relation to a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP).

But, firstly, just sticking with the part we’ve been talking about around the representation tests, I guess the question I’ve got is around determining whether or not you’ve met the tests. And I can see here that the union that’s seeking to rely on the representation test must provide evidence to the chief executive that the relevant number of employees who would be within the coverage of the proposed fair pay agreement (FPA) are there.

What I want to know from the Minister about this part is: what information will he be looking for? The question is: if they claim that they’ve got 10 percent, what information will the Minister be relying on to ensure that’s correct? Because the unions won’t necessarily hold information around the total workforce. And we’ve got quite a flexible workforce, so you might find that you’ve got people who are employed, say, in hospitality, who do multiple roles in their job. And it may well be that 50 percent of their job is in, for example, cleaning, which might be something that is being sought to have an FPA on. But the unions don’t have that information.

So, I guess, the question for the Minister is: if the union can’t come up with a thousand, they come up with, say, 300 or 400 and claim that’s 10 percent and provides some sort of evidence, how is the Minister going to know whether or not that is 10 percent of the total workforce; where will he get his information from to ensure that that 10 percent threshold is met? Because the unions won’t necessarily have that information because, obviously, not everyone is part of a union and, as I mentioned, there’s quite a flexible workforce of people doing multiple roles. So who holds that information; how do we know what the total workforce is, when many people are flexible; and how will we know that that 10 percent has indeed been met? That’s my first question.

And, then, I guess, the second part of that question is: is there anything in this bill whereby that could be challenged? So if the major employers get together and say, “Well, actually, no, that’s not 10 percent”, is there a vehicle within the bill for them to be able to supply evidence to suggest that that is not 10 percent and actually challenge that that representation test has not been met, is that something that’s been included, and, if not, why not? Because I’ve not been able to find it. So there’s that part.

I just wanted to clarify: when the Minister was just talking about the regulations that will come into force around the public interest test and around the low pay, will those regulations include the number of people on that low pay? Because that was one of the questions that we asked earlier—that there might be a workforce where there is a small percentage of people that are low paid, and if this was being covered by the public interest test. I understand that, in regulations, it will set what that low pay will be, but will it also set the proportion of people that fall into that, and will there be a requirement to meet a certain percentage—so 5 percent, 10 percent, or 20 percent of that workforce? So those are my first questions about that particular part.

I just want to move on now to the tabled amendment in the name of my colleague Paul Goldsmith—I’m failing to find the number, but we can work it out. It’s around clause 39 after subsection (1) and inserts a new subclause, (1)(a): an employer must acquire permission from each of their employees before releasing their contact details to the initiating union. Now, I do see that in this particular clause, there is a requirement that “The employer must not provide the contact details of an employee who has elected … not to have their contact details provided.” This, sort of, adds a belt and braces to that, requiring the employer to formally request permission from all of their employees before passing on personal information—contact details, email, phone number, or name—of those employees. So it’s just an extra check and balance and step for the employer that they must go through in order to ascertain that one of their employees may well elect not to have their contact details provided, because people are very careful around their privacy these days and may well not want their details passed on to a union. Thank you.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): So following up those questions from my colleague Erica Stanford, in relation to clause 30 and 30A, in how the how the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is supposed to deal with an application and what evidence is supposed to be forwarded.

So I’ve made the point—and the Minister didn’t really sort of give a coherent answer to it—as to why we believe that not having 50 percent of a workforce agreeing with it is not a reasonable hurdle to start a process that cannot be finished, and why he thinks that 10 percent or less than half of 1 percent or even less than that if there’s a public interest test met, is good enough. And just saying that the working group said that that was good enough doesn’t strike me as a good answer.

But moving on from that, the question is, well, how do you determine that 10 percent threshold has been met? As Erica Stanford said, there’s no clear way of doing that, particularly in the very complicated circumstances of people doing multiple jobs and getting over that threshold. If over 25 percent of your work is in, then you’re in it, and so how on earth this great logistical exercise is supposed to occur so that we know how many people we’re dealing with in order to work out whether 10 percent have been engaged.

But the question I have is, of course, there is no prescribed way in which the chief executive of MBIE can satisfy himself or herself that the union initiation claim has been met. And why is that? Of course, the legislation is kind of silent on that. So the chief executive gets it, the initiating union claims they’ve got 10 percent and that they’ll come up with whatever justification they come up with.

Then, as far as I can see from the legislation, it’s just up to the judgment of the chief executive of MBIE as to whether that’s met or not. And why did he not consider the Minister and the Government actually being a little bit more explicit about that so that people could reassure themselves that it had been met?

Next question is around clause 31, where it says the coverage of the proposed fair pay agreement (FPA) must be clear enough to enable all employees and employers to determine whether or not they’d be covered, and that will be defined in regulations. Now, of course, you know, the regulations can be changed by Order in Council very swiftly by the Government. So it creates an enormous amount of uncertainty about what’s in and what’s out and how that’s going to be defined. So I’d be interested from the Minister as to how he thinks that’s going to aid the general business certainty context that we’re operating in.

Thirdly, around clauses 32 and 32A: applications to initiate bargaining. It says that MBIE will have a maximum of 30 days, extendable to 45 days, to assess applications to initiate fair pay agreements. But that time frame will come into force six months after the main parts of the bill. So I’m just curious as to that. I hope it doesn’t mean that there is no maximum prior to that six months. Or does he not think that there will be applications through? I’d like him to explain the sort of thinking behind that element of it.

But the absurd part it relates to—it says that MBIE may invite public submissions when considering applications. For example, in relation to the public interest test, whose opinion is that it’s in the public interest? And, you know, that’s a highly debateable thing. Of course, as you know, I’ve already used the example of the Mayor of Auckland, Wayne Brown, thinking he’s low paid on a $300,000 salary. So where that line is drawn is a highly subjective thing.

So it’s a possibility that the chief executive of MBIE may seek public submissions. If he does or she does, then there’s a maximum of 30 working days to do that, however. So he’s got 30 working days—or she’s got 30 working days—to invite submissions.

But the chief executive also only has a maximum of 30 working days to review and decide upon the application. Which is, you know, kind of farcical, isn’t it? So the chief executive comes in, she gets the application to initiate, got 30 working days, but, you know, can include some public submissions, which also could be 30 working days. But it’s all got to be within 30 working days.

It seems very odd. I suppose if you were of a cast of mind where you were thinking that perhaps this Government wasn’t genuine about its desire to have genuine public consultation on whether or not this thing should be done or not, then perhaps you could draw that conclusion by the fact that somehow you’re supposed to have had a period of public submissions of no more than 30 working days within an overall process—where, don’t forget, you know, the chief executive has to reassure himself or herself that the union has either sort of crossed the threshold or 10, or whether it’s in the public interest to go ahead with this fair pay agreement because of one of four criteria being met. So how that timing works is a bit of a mystery to me, and how genuine public submissions are to be included.

I might add why the Minister has regarded that as an optional thing for the chief executive of MBIE. Because if you get to the point so you haven’t met the 10 percent threshold—which we think should be 50 percent; you haven’t met the 1,000 employees but you’ve gone for a public interest test. Why on earth would you not, in every circumstance, offer the opportunity for public submissions on that question?

I think it should be that the chief executive must invite public submissions when considering applications, because, you know, these things—as we said right from the start—once it’s initiated, once it started, there is no stopping it. There will be an FPA. So the starting of it is important.

So I’d be interested in responses to those questions in relation to clauses 30, 31, and 32.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I’m happy to address the questions raised by Erica Stanford and the Hon Paul Goldsmith, which mainly go to queries around the representation test. Firstly, it’s just important to clarify that that test is to the satisfaction of the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE)—one or tother of the members mentioned the Minister there. It’s not a role for a Minister; it’s a role that sits with the chief executive, and they have to be satisfied. That is a duty and a test that has to be met to the satisfaction of the chief executive of MBIE, taking into account the application that is made, and, if they choose to open up for submissions, additional information that comes forward, most likely from employers.

So in particular respect of the 10 percent test—and there was a question here. The question was: well, how would there be confirmation that a group of workers who had initiated on that pathway did represent 10 percent? That is where the chief executive of MBIE could directly engage with employers to test out the number of people who are within that coverage. So people who are seeking initiation have to be within the coverage that is being claimed for. They could receive that information from employers.

In answer to Erica Stanford’s question: yes, that would be a judicially reviewable action from the chief executive of MBIE.

In terms of the question around the proportion of people who are low-paid, that goes back to a previous answer I have given, which is that that can be set by regulations. That’s in new clause 29A(3)—the question around the proportion of people who would have to be low-paid. Obviously, you’ll have sectors where the vast majority of people, most of us would agree, are low-paid, and we’ll have a small number who are not, and so reasonable proportions will be set there through the process of regulations.

I acknowledge the member for her comments around the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) seeking changes around the contact details process. That is not an SOP that the Government will be agreeing to. We have set in place, in the legislation, a very clear process. People will be able to opt out if they do not want their contact details passed on, and we think that that is broadly satisfactory.

In terms of clarity around coverage, which Paul Goldsmith had questions around, this goes to clause 31. As I have outlined previously, the Government, again, has the ability to set regulations to provide clarity around coverage, and I’ve confirmed to the committee my intention that we’ll be looking to use the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) and Australia and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC) codes there, which are well understood and provide good clarity.

The reason we want to do that through regulations is that it could be that things evolve in terms of the tools that are used by employers to understand job roles and job families. ANZSCO and ANZSIC are the most useful tool now, but if that changed, we’d want to provide the flexibility there.

Then, in terms of the time frames—the 30 days or 45 days for MBIE to make assessments and confirm—this was a change made by the Education and Workforce Committee, who, in response to submissions all round, actually, did put in place a number of changes to make sure that the process moves through relatively expeditiously. The reason that it’s six months after commencement is there is a possibility at the outset that you might get a large number of applications come in at once and that could be difficult for MBIE to process. So in that time, they have to process them and respond in a way that’s reasonably practicable, but beyond that point you’d then expect applications to come in a more staggered way, and that’s where the stricter 30/45-day requirement will come in there, and we think that is important to ensure that, ultimately, the entity who is responsible for the system is performing their duties in a reasonably efficient way.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d just like the Minister to have a look at clause 29A, “Test for initiating bargaining: public interest test”, and consider the two tabled amendments that I’ve put forward today. The first one refers to clause 29A(1)(a), which says, “receive low pay for their work;”. For clarity we suggest that it be amended to “pay at or near the minimum wage” as they are demographic that the Minister purports to be wanting to help through this legislation, and just for the sake of fact, the supermarkets are often looked at as beneficiaries of this legislation.

The average wage in a supermarket grocery store is $24.82, in a department store it’s $26, and in a clothing store it’s $26.70. So we would suggest that it be closer to that minimum wage. It’s interesting to note that my colleague Rachel Boyack said yesterday that she’s so proud the unions got the Countdown supermarkets at the living wage. The Countdown supermarkets were the only ones that didn’t participate in that particular survey.

The second amendment refers to clause 29A(1)(b)(i), which currently states, “they have little bargaining power in their employment:” We would suggest you have a look at rewording that to, maybe, “a majority are not members of a union” as if the majority are members of a union, they’re already well represented and shouldn’t need this legislation to help them through. I’d ask the Minister to consider that. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Happy to provide a couple of quick responses to Chris Baillie’s comments on the amendment that he is tabling. As I’ve canvassed, the Government intends to provide clarity around low pay and that criteria through regulations. I actually don’t think we’re probably too far apart there. I’ve indicated previously that we will be looking to provide a relatively objective measure that is focused in around those workers who are close to the minimum wage. I don’t think we’ll actually get to a position that’s too far apart there. We think it’s more appropriate to do that through a regulations process rather than to embed that in the primary legislation.

In respect of an assessment of bargaining power, I’m convinced that that is the appropriate measure there. It is still possible for there to be workers in a particular sector who perhaps do belong to a union, but for various reasons it might be particularly difficult for them to exercise the ability to engage in collective bargainings. That test around bargaining power is also one that’s already well understood. That is a test that is already in Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act, which relates to particular groups of employees who have additional protection in contracting out arrangements. I think that is the appropriate test, and, for that reason, we won’t be supporting those tabled amendments, but I thank the member for his comments.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to go back to some of the questions that weren’t answered. My question was: how do we know what total size of the workforce is, to determine what 10 percent is? I know that the chief executive must be happy with the application and be satisfied that the test is being met. I’ve got a number of questions. That’s my first question, which hasn’t been answered. As I said, especially when you’ve got a workforce that is flexible that a person might do many jobs within their specific job—so if they work in hospitality, they might do cleaning, front of house, bar, cook, the might do a few jobs—how do we know what the size of the workforce is, and does that include people who do that job for less than 50 percent of the time? So the size of the cleaning workforce—well, that’s a bad example; let’s use the example of bar staff. You’ve got a number of people who cover bar staff in a hospitality job but it’s not their main role—are they included in this 10 percent of the entire workforce? So that’s the first question. How can the chief executive be satisfied that the 10 percent test has been met, when there’s no evidence to suggest what the total workforce is? That’s the first part I don’t think has been answered.

I guess the second part is: how is the chief executive satisfied and what information do you expect that the union will give them to be satisfied? So when they go to the chief executive and say, “We’ve got a thousand members.”, what do you expect will be given? At this point, we have to remember that bargaining initiating hasn’t started, so, therefore, the employers haven’t been required to give the details of all their employees. So the union is going to be supplying information to the chief executive which may just say, “We are confident that we’ve met the 10 percent test and we’ve got 300.” Will they be supplying names and details and contracts to see what percentage of their workers may well be covered in this fair pay agreement (FPA)? What information do you expect will be given and what requirement is there to give that information? I do understand and I know that the Minister has said that if the chief executive is not satisfied, they can then ask for more information.

My next question is: what information is that and how do they get it and where are the privacy protections? This goes back to my initial question of: how do you know that you’ve met the 10 percent or you’ve even met the thousand? People do so many different roles within a job and only part of their job may actually be covered under this particular FPA that’s being proposed. So what that would require would be the union giving details to the chief executive—if requested, I expect, and this is what I’m asking—of a breakdown of the jobs that each of these people do. Is that the level of detail that the chief executive can ask for? That information is private information, so how is that able to be given across? What is the test, I guess, for the chief executive to then be satisfied that the test has been met? Because of the flexible nature of the workforce, there will have to be information given, I expect, that will be quite detailed around the roles of the person and the amount of hours that each of those roles are undertaking to determine whether or not they are actually included, because it will have to be a certain percentage of their work that will mean they’re included in this FPA. So you may well find, if it’s a really big workforce, they’ve got a thousand people and that the chief executive will then be expected to go through, I would assume, every single one of those people, their contracts, their hours of works, and how many hours they work in that particular role. So it’s really complicated and quite convoluted.

I guess the next question is: is that what the Minister expects the chief executive to do to be satisfied, or is he able to just kind of look at it sort of with a helicopter view and go, “Well, you’ve given me a thousand, you say you’ve got a thousand people, the title of their job is ‘hospitality worker’ or ‘bar staff.’ ”? But is he required to go into the level of detail to make sure that the work that they do meets the required percentage to be included in the FPA to count as one of these people? This is really important to make sure that that test is made.

So there are two questions there. One about: how do you know what the total workforce is? And the next part is around the requirements of the chief executive to actually make sure that they are meeting that threshold.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you. Again, I apologise to people who are tuning in and wondering how long this debate will go on. We’re now over three hours and still on Part 3 because it is a detailed bill with an enormous number of complexities that we in Parliament—and this is the process that we’re going through, trying to reassure us, or not, that the Minister has got some clear justifications for what he’s doing. So I want to look at clause 36, where it talks about “Within 15 working days [of] receiving notice that … [an] application to initiate bargaining” has been approved. So this is about starting the process for a fair pay agreement, which, as we’ve said before, once it’s started, cannot be stopped. The initiating union is required to identify and notify other unions and employers who it believes are likely to be covered by the fair pay agreement. Now, I just wonder, logically, practically, and logistically how on earth this is supposed to happen, because the criterion being used is that reasonable efforts have to be made. I suppose my concern is that, in reality, it will mean only token efforts are applied in 15 days. I mean, there’s no way anybody can effectively figure out whether other unions are involved or employees are likely to be covered.

I keep referring to the humble superette up in Hokianga with one or two employees. Now, are we really saying that within 15 days the initiating union is going to sort of be able to get right across the country into the many nooks and crannies if, for example, it’s in hospitality or cleaning? Hospitality, I suppose, is easier because at least you can go through the streets and see that there is a shop there. But when it comes to, say, cleaning, the little mum and dad operator with two employees in Haast, for example—and I was in Haast last week and talking to business owners who were at their wit’s end around just trying to find employees, let alone more regulation coming down the track. But if you’re a little mum and dad cleaning operation in Haast, for example, the conceit or the pretence of this bill is that somehow, within 15 days, a union is going to scour the country and find all these little mum and dad operators and give them notice that there’s going to be a fair pay agreement. We all know that that is just nonsense. The best endeavours will be—and it’s given some indication in the legislation that what they might do is publish a notice in the daily newspapers. So, I mean, that will be of great reassurance to the little cleaning operator in Haast to know that there will be a public notice in the New Zealand Herald or in the Otago Daily Times because, heck, they’ve got nothing to do with their life. They can’t get employees, they’re busy as all hell, they’re trying to make a living, but the expectation is that they will be keeping an eye on the Otago Daily Times for any public notices as to fair pay agreements relating to cleaners. We all know that that’s just nonsense.

So it’s an unrealistic expectation and it creates the near certainty that employers and employees who are caught by the proposed fair pay agreement won’t be notified. The first thing they’ll hear about it is when it actually comes into force and some labour inspector turns up on their doorstep and says, “Oi, you’re not part of this. You’re not paying the correct penal rates”—or whatever it is that’s been agreed without their knowledge—“and you’re going to face big fines.”, which we’ll come to later. So please explain how on earth he thinks that within 15 days this great logistical exercise is supposed to occur, and in any way, does he believe that all the little employer operators—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order!

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I’m happy to answer questions from Erica Stanford and the Hon Paul Goldsmith now. We had a few interplays around the question on the representation test—the 10 percent test in particular—and the size of the workforce. I’ve responded a couple of times, but if I can clarify again: the point of this test is it is a little more onerous, as the members talk about. The union will need to provide evidence that is initiating that that 10 percent threshold is met. At its simplest, it’s a relatively simple equation with a divisor: how many people have applied, want to initiate; how many people are in that area of coverage. It’s one divided by the other. To get to 10 percent—

Erica Stanford: Yeah, but how do you know the bottom part?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: If the member will just let me finish—I didn’t interrupt her. The union will be required to provide evidence to that effect. The chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) will need to be satisfied, on a reasonable basis, that test is met. The chief executive of MBIE, as I have described already, will be able to seek submissions from employers to receive further information to determine whether they are satisfied or not by that. Employers will generally know how many people are employed in different roles. So I think there are reasonable ways of MBIE being able to determine that test in a reasonable way. We’ve said that it’s challengeable if someone thinks that it has not been determined in a reasonable way as well, and there’s a capacity for regulations to be created to give greater guidance to the chief of MBIE in coming to that conclusion. But that is something that I do not expect to actually be as onerous or as difficult as the member has indicated.

In terms of the notification requirements in clause 36 that Paul Goldsmith has identified, this is one of those areas where the Education and Workforce Committee has provided further useful clarification. I just say to the member: he is catastrophising here. How does the member think that when this Parliament makes new laws, or a Government department like WorkSafe makes new regulations, that information gets communicated to the employer in Kaikohe or other employers around the country? It’s through sensible and rational channels. This information will be promulgated through publicly accessible channels, in newspapers, and on websites. There will be a process of contacting employer associations and asking them to feed that out through the networks. It will be through normal communication channels, as we use for those other things that we do as a normal part of running the Government and regulatory systems across the employment relations system. MBIE will have a function there, in terms of getting that information out, as will social partners. If there was a fair pay agreement initiated, for example, within the retail sector, it would be obvious to talk to Retail New Zealand. It would assist getting that information out across their networks. Some of these things are not rocket science, Mr Goldsmith.

In addition to that, the legislation requires that the union must use its “best endeavours” to directly contact employers in that sector, and they will have networks and information to that respect. They must place information on a website and they must also go through the major newspaper. So, taken in its totality, there are number of very reasonable steps which are set out here. And, of course, in particular, I think there is a role that employer associations will play here—they will be contacted and they will let members know. So I think, overall, the answers to the member’s questions are set out relatively clearly in clause 36 and in other parts of this part and they will ensure a reasonably smooth process in this area that, as I say, it is not inconsistent with how other information gets promulgated to employers in the normal course of business.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): I move, That the question be now put.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call on Part 3. And I want to take us a little bit back, if I may, to clause 26(3), then (4). I refer, here, to the linkage of that point with the departmental disclosure statement, section 2.5, which refers to, in particular, the cost burden that will be placed upon employers as a result of this legislation. And, obviously, clause 26(4) initiates the obligations around the employers to undertake obligations that are relating to representation and the requirement to comply around a duty of good faith, etc., etc.

And so the question that I have for the Minister, the Hon Michael Wood, particularly, is: in section 2.5(b) of the departmental disclosure, it refers to estimated benefits in this case, which, of course, will be a cost to employers of $150 million to $600 million of ongoing benefit to workers. I think—for those that are that are sitting at home watching this, which I’m sure there’ll be a large number—on every side of a benefit, there is also a cost. So someone has to pay these benefits. And $0.6 billion is the estimate, here, around what will be the cost on employers to, in effect, affect this legislation—and that’s the increase in labour costs, which would be borne by the employer.

So I’m wanting to get clarity from the Minister on three points, in particular. The range given in the estimate is between $150 million and $0.6 billion. So that’s a pretty big range, right? I mean, that’s pretty significant. So give us some context, give us some substantiation, and give us some confidence around how this number is being determined and, importantly, if this is going to increase labour costs by $0.6 billion, how can that be, in effect, justified in regards to the reality that our business community—I think, all Kiwis, not just business community, all Kiwis—right now are struggling under the significant burden of a cost of living crisis? Adding more cost—and this is not just a little bit; you know, $0.6 billion, that’s a significant amount of additional cost. So I’d like to have a bit of clarity around how that number was ticketed. That also is in reference to appendix one of the departmental disclosure statement where those numbers are quoted.

There’s other elements there, which are costs of bargaining consultation. So, again, that links back to Part 3, clause 26(2)—again, the cost there refers to $1 million to $2 million. Well, that seems to be way out of whack in terms of 150 to 600. I mean, I just can’t see the linkage in terms of how those two numbers relate. So I’d like the Minister to provide some clarity around how the costs of bargaining, in consultation, on regulated employers will be calculated.

The third element is, actually, well, let’s look at the compliance cost on the public sector as a result of this as well, because we talk about the cost burden that’s going to fall on all employers. And the Hon Paul Goldsmith actually referred to Haast—I think he referred to. I was actually in Te Ānau last week, and, I tell you what, the people of Te Ānau, the business owners—we had a meeting with hospitality owners and business owners—they are in strife, and that understates it. And so they are struggling with a workforce crisis. So they’ve now, I guess, as a result of this legislation, according to appendix one of the departmental disclosure, got a train coming at them, you know, a train of cost coming at them. Not only them but, actually, it looks like it costs the Government—according to appendix one, they’re also going to increase by around $10 to $12 million, which seems significantly less than the $150 million to $0.6 billion around the labour costs. So, again, I’d like a little bit of clarification around how that component of what is the cost to Government and how are those numbers being determined, and what is the expectation around the ability for those costs to be covered. Thank you, Minister.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just going back to what the Minister was saying before about how things would be communicated out—and, Minister, you noted that it would be on websites and publications. It would just be good for anyone at home who’s tuning in or may later want to understand where to look for this: on what websites and publications would notices be made available? You know, 15 days is a pretty short time, and a lot of people aren’t as politically attuned as what we are. I’d imagine most members of the public aren’t trawling through union websites to see when their collective bargaining process is kicking off and what their obligations are under that. So if there’s a bit more clarity around that.

I was also wondering whether the Minister had considered—if it is just going to be on a union website or on an employer’s website—whether any research has been done around how often people actually engage with those sites; whether there are any other ways to notify. And, Minister, you mentioned phone calls. If you’re looking at the retail sector, for instance, that’s a significant number of phone calls. So I’m just a little bit concerned here around the practicalities of that and whether people will actually get visibility of what they need to.

Around the 15 days, I’m curious as to how that time was landed on. That is a pretty short time frame, considering whether the penalties are not engaging, and also, perhaps, people are completely unaware—I know a lot of people just watch sport and reality TV and aren’t looking for this sort of stuff to pop up on their radar. All of a sudden, an inspector turns up and says, “Boo! You haven’t been doing what you’re meant to.” And all of a sudden, they’re faced with penalties. So I can understand the intentions around it, but I would also want to wade through the—not saying that I agree with the intentions, but I would also want to explore how practical all of this is, and the communication to the key stakeholders involved.

Going back to clause 29A(1)(b)(ii)—the test for initiating bargaining—“they have a lack of pay progression in their employment”, how are we determining that? Are we looking through employment contracts and saying that they must be locking in a pay increase every year? I know in several of my employment contracts, I haven’t had anything stipulated around that. So is it a backward-looking thing? Because what this clause looks like is that it’s a forward-looking piece and it is quite uncommon—well, it’s not necessarily common for employment contracts to stipulate that you will have your wage increased at X amount per year, whether it be 2 percent, 3 percent; heaven forbid for employers if it was at Consumers Price Index, but I know the workers would definitely appreciate that. So just wanting to get a bit of clarity around how that was landed on.

In the time I’ve got left, I’d like to jump over to contractual uncertainty, including performing short-term seasonal work or working on an intermittent or irregular basis. Look, the reality is that a lot of people do work on a contractual basis. And some of that is just the way we’ve been moving; a lot of it is also just the way people actually want to operate. A lot of people are stepping out of traditional employment with a big employer and putting out their services as they see fit—as they should be able to see fit, frankly, in a free society—on a contractual basis.

I’ll take a couple of industries and I’ll go with the tech one for starters: a lot of people there contract themselves out. A lot of people in that sector also don’t necessarily get paid a lot, because they’re going into young companies—start-ups or whatever you want to phrase them as—and a lot of their pay isn’t actually through wages, but through equity. And they’re buying something in the hope of being part of something that goes well. Are you then going to say to all of these companies which are on pretty short runways, as far as cash flow is concerned, “Yeah, we understand that you’ve given your employees share plans, but we don’t really care about it; we’re really concerned that you’re paying them a low weekly wage;”—or whatever it may be—“we’re now going to apply an industry standard”—which is inevitably going to be set by much more established players—“and force these little companies to have to cough up with a lot more than they would be able”—

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

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Madam Chair, thank you. I’m happy to respond to a couple of the questions from Mr Watts and Mr Uffindell.

Mr Watts’ questions were largely focused around questions around costs. To be honest, I’m not entirely clear how they relate to clause 26 of Part 3 of the bill, which relates to the initiation of bargaining, to be quite honest. The reason that there are a range of costs, none the less, in the information produced by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is that this is an enabling framework and, in the end, costs and benefits will fall based on where and when and how quickly fair pay agreements are initiated and how many people they cover, and that will ultimately be up to parties in the system to work through. There’s a fundamental difference here between the member’s analysis and the Government’s. The member sees it as a zero-sum game—that employees potentially receiving improved pay and conditions necessarily means that others in the system are worse off. They argue that every time we put the minimum wage up; yet economic growth has continued to grow when we do that. Unemployment has continued to fall and corporate profits have actually continued to increase. There is actually such a thing as investing in workers and making sure they have fair pay and conditions that can actually benefit the overall economy. And that, to be honest, in this debate, fair and square, is the difference between the view the Government has and the view that the Opposition has, but I’m not sure it really goes to this part.

The member is right that there’s no “off the hook” for the public sector here. It applies to employers, whether they’re private sector, NGO, or public sector, and that is the fair and the appropriate thing to do. If the Government is responsible for paying people in a way that is low or inappropriate, then I do hope that fair pay agreements are a way of improving things for those workers.

Mr Uffindell asked further questions around the requirements for advising people that a fair pay agreement has been initiated. I’ve responded to that already and provided clear information, and it’s there in the bill around the use of websites, around the use of MBIE’s channels, and around the use of daily newspapers as well. I’ve got to be honest, in respect of some of the examples Mr Uffindell gives, I just think it shows a lack of understanding around the reality of life for low-paid workers in New Zealand. We’re not talking about people who have share plans. We’re not talking about people working in highly paid roles at the top of banking institutions or the private medical sector or public relations. We are talking about the low-paid workers who often don’t have pay progression, who often have been stuck at or near the minimum wage for years and years and years and have to work multiple jobs and have insecure lives because of those conditions. I understand that is a different circle from that which many members opposite move within, but that is who this bill is focused on, and the examples that the member gives shows that he has very little appreciation of that.

The member also needs to note—and, again, please, I ask all members engaging in this debate to read the bill. He makes commentary about people who work in contract areas. The bill does not cover contractors.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. I just wanted to check—I haven’t had a chance to talk on my tabled amendment on a clause that we haven’t talked about yet. It is part of the part. Is it not normal practice that that we would get an opportunity—as a part of the Standing Orders to actually talk about an amendment that we put forward on a clause that we haven’t even talked about in the part before we move to voting on it? How are we going to vote on it when we haven’t had a chance to talk about it?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Speaking to that point of order, just—in following the speeches that have been given on this particular part, and I have been following it even from my office, the member has given five speeches in that time. The member could have actually spoken about the particular part that he is giving me the point of order about. Also, the member is the one who has given the most speeches on this particular part that we’ve just voted on in Part 3.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Just speaking further, the only point I’d make, Madam Chair, is that this is a very big part, with an enormous number of issues in it. I didn’t repeat myself on any of them; they’re all separate issues, and there are an enormous number of issues. It’s not our fault that the Government has introduced a bill with very fat parts with lots of clauses in them that need to be discussed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): And that is not the Chair’s fault that the member has actually, in the times of the five speeches that he’s given, not spoken to the parts of the bill that he hasn’t yet covered. It is, you’re right, a very big bill. But in three and a half hours or so, we’ve only covered three parts. We have many other parts to cover.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. To assist Mr Goldsmith, I seek leave that this bill be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): That has not been agreed to.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Point of order. Madam Speaker, just following on from your counsel to the committee before, I mean, there has been times where a Chairperson has advised there’d been repetition in certain areas of the part and would encourage members to speak to parts of the bill or Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that hadn’t been spoken to. So if Mr Goldsmith in his five calls thinks that he spoke to five different points, then maybe on his sixth call, he would’ve spoken to that SOP. I think it’s tough for us, as Opposition, where we’re trying to debate each part of the bill, if we’re not giving full warning that you are going to bring it to a close like other Chairs have before.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): There are times when I actually give warning. As I said earlier on, I had been watching this debate, even from my office. One of the things that I do with the Chair that has been here before me is actually have a small discussion just to see if things are beginning to be repetitive. The Chair that was here before me did say to me that things were beginning to be repetitive. I did, however, give a number of calls. It is not actually a ruling that we always give—there is a point of warning before we shut down a debate, but it is actually within my powers as Chair of this committee to close out particular parts, and we’ve taken the vote. I will now move that we move on to Part 4.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 40

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Hon Paul Goldsmith’s tabled amendment deleting clause 29A and amending clause 32(4)(b)(ii) is out of order as being inconsistent with a prevision decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Paul Goldsmith’s remaining tabled amendments to clauses 28, 29, 30, and 30A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 40

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.

Noes 74

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Chris Baillie’s tabled amendment to clause 29A(1)(a) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 40

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.

Noes 74

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Chris Baillie’s tabled amendment to clause 29A(1)(b)(i) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 40

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.

Noes 74

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Chris Baillie’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 are out of order as being outside the objects and principles of the Bill.

Chris Baillie’s amendment to clause 32 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 266 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Chris Baillie’s remaining amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 266 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 40

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.

Noes 74

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Paul Goldsmith’s tabled amendment to clause 39 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 40

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.

Noes 74

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 76

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

Noes 40

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 3A Specified employer bargaining parties and default bargaining parties

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to Part 3A. This is the debate on clauses 62 to 80K, specified employer bargaining parties and default bargaining parties. The question is that Part 3A stand part.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got a logistical problem here, which I’m just trying to deal with—everything’s folding over. Thank you, Madam Chair.

So we come to Part 3A, which is in relation to default bargaining parties. The question here is in relation to what happens if a default bargaining party, particularly, doesn’t turn up. And we’ve had this rather confused answer earlier in the debate from the Minister around the fact that Business New Zealand is, effectively, the default bargaining party and is the group most likely to represent—I’m sorry; I’m just trying to find the exact phrase—the largest number of employers. So is the implication that if any time that they don’t voluntarily take up the position, the fair pay agreement process is immediately sent off to the Employment Relations Authority for them to adjudicate and just decide? And all this part is supposed to deal with situations where that happens and the process by which the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment works out that the bargaining side hasn’t been formed.

I suppose I want to start off with that broader question of how the Government thinks this is a fair process to impose on New Zealand businesses and companies and workers. Because what we’re saying is, regardless of whether companies and employees want to engage with the process—and, again, we’re thinking of the little cleaner operation in Haast or the superette in the Hokianga; they’re busy, they’re trying to find workers, they’ve got all sorts of problems and trouble and strife, and life and business is not easy. In Haast, they’re looking for tourists and in the Hokianga they’re just trying to find somebody to buy their bread and milk and so forth. And they’re supposed to be somehow engaging in this process, or some part of some group that is going to represent their interests. The expectation is that the Minister is supposed to identify the employer party that is the most representative organisation of employers in New Zealand, which is Business New Zealand.

Now, if they have decided in their wisdom not to want to be—and also, are perfectly entitled to do, then what happens? It’s still not clear to me whether another business group could turn up and then make the case; say, it was retail workers—whether, say, Retail New Zealand, which is not an organisation that has been in the habit of negotiating agreements such as this. So it’s a whole new sort of task for them. But, for example, if they decided to put their hand up and say, “Well, we’ll be the bargaining party.”, can that happen? Can the Minister say that they are the most representative body under that test back in Part 1? I’m not sure. But if not, and if nobody puts their hand up, then the chief executive goes through a little process—not much of a process; a little process—to determine that nobody’s turned up. Now, it’s a fair question to ask how thorough the chief executive has to be in figuring out how many how many people he has to ask. Does he knock on how many doors to find out just whether or not there is anybody there? But I’d be interested to know what the Minister thinks of that and whether he’s got it right.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m interested in particular in clauses 64 and 66 within, of course, Part 3A, and the reason that I’m interested in that is just to drill down a bit into this concept of the specified State employer. Particularly, I note that clause 64 applies to certain “specified State employers in specified circumstances:”, and one of them is the Chief of Defence Force as appointed under the Defence Act. So I’m interested if the Minister can provide a bit of context about how a scenario might play out whereby defence personnel would be somehow entering into these discussions or negotiations for bargaining from the employee side.

We see that the legislation contemplates that the Chief of Defence Force himself or herself could be represented, effectively, by, I think, the State Services Commissioner—excuse me, the Public Services Commissioner, as that person is now—and that’s fine as far as it goes. Of course, the context for the question is that the Employment Relations Act doesn’t apply to New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel other than civilian employees, roughly speaking, and, of course, there’s a more general context about pay and conditions for New Zealand Defence Force personnel whereby, for example, the Minimum Wage Act doesn’t apply to them.

We’ve had an example in the last couple of years where personnel of the New Zealand Defence Force were found to have been paid below minimum wage, which I think we can all agree—

Dr James McDowall: It’s still a third of them, Chris.

CHRIS PENK: My colleague and friend Dr James McDowall points out that it’s still the case that that can take place. I think we’ve had some kind of assurance from the Minister—no, excuse me—the Chief of Defence Force, I think, that it wouldn’t, in fact, take place. But the law of the land still says that our sailors, soldiers, and air personnel can be paid at lower than the minimum wage, and so, of course we’re all in favour, I think, probably—hopefully, across the House, and certainly on the National side of things—of ensuring that our defence personnel are not taken advantage of in an employment context, notwithstanding that between that and the exclusion of healthy homes standards and so on for defence housing, it would indicate perhaps that the current Government isn’t paying very close attention to their conditions of service and so forth.

Nevertheless, I’m interested to know how this would fit with that. In particular, and for good reason, arguably, defence force personnel don’t have the right to organise. They don’t belong—can’t belong, indeed—to a union and so forth, and I’m not suggesting, of course, any difference of policy position in relation to the legislation as a whole, but if the bill is useful and good in the way that the Government says it is in relation to the general population of New Zealanders, I’m keen to know if there are scenarios in which the Minister can provide some context about how things might play out in the context for NZDF personnel.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I thank the members for their question. I do feel that I’ve dealt with Mr Goldsmith’s question previously on a number of occasions, but, to clarify, the way that process works is that there is a three-month period for parties to come forward on the employer’s side to represent employers at the bargaining table. If that does not happen, if those parties are unable or unwilling to form, there is a one-month period then for the default bargaining party to come forward. That is, as we’ve described on a number of occasions, the most representative body, which, clearly for business organisations, is Business New Zealand. They would be that body. There is not a multiplicity of bodies which can come in at that point as the default body.

In terms of Mr Penk’s questions, he’s right in identifying this point around specified bargaining parties, which are an important part of the legislation because, very often, these particular bodies who are identified in this part will operate very differently and have quite different drivers to other employers. So it is important there is the capacity for them to be involved directly in the bargaining and to be represented through the public service commissioner. In respect of whether there are any other particular legislative constrains or rules, for example, around some of those particular inhibitions on the rights of certain people within defence to be able to organise, etc., etc., any fair pay agreement that is agreed gets vetted by Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment at the end; we’ll deal with that in a later part. It has to be consistent with every other law of the land.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Madam Chair. It always amazes me—and I’m going back to a comment that the Minister made earlier on Part 3—that you have Ministers and bureaucrats in Wellington, the non-productive part of our economy, that always seem to enjoy finding ways of applying legislation to the productive part of the economy who are out there actually working and trying to get ahead, and for which most of them actually take good care of their employees and actually protect that relationship.

But maybe I was being a bit unfair because I wasn’t sure whether or not the Minister in the chair had actually any private sector experience himself—and he has apparently, as a Christmas tree salesman. I don’t know whether or not that entailed him having his own employees and understanding the responsibility in the relationship—

Simon Watts: Hope he declared the cash income.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, that’s right—worrying about making payroll, but actually giving him an understanding of how the private sector actually works. So I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and I’ll say, yes, he has got that private sector experience. So when he’s making his decisions as a Minister, he’s actually quantifying and he’s making sure that he captures the real costs that are associated with the type of legislation that you bring in as a lawmaker.

But I do want to seek clarification on the point that Mr Goldsmith raised, and it’s a very good one in terms of around the bargaining: why has he gone to a default setting after the 90 days, or whatever the period was, to go to Business New Zealand, because in his case, as a Christmas tree salesman or business owner, I would have thought that Retail NZ would probably be the best person to understand his business and to be able to represent it and go into those negotiations. So why has there been a favouring or a compulsion towards Business New Zealand rather than actually recognising that the different associations, whether it be Retail New Zealand or Hospitality New Zealand, which actually have a much better and intimate knowledge of what their members need, how to represent them, and actually advance and make those negotiations probably far more credible and smoother than actually—

Chris Penk: There should be a Santa “clause” for Christmas trees.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Ha, ha! It should be. That’s right. They should introduce a new clause on that. The Minister stood up and said, “Look, if they don’t come forward in 90 days, then we’ll default back to Business New Zealand.” Why have they done that? Why is Business New Zealand getting treated differently than other industry representatives like Retail New Zealand and Hospitality New Zealand? Thank you, Madam Chair.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. An interesting perspective from the Hon Mark Mitchell in terms of that business. But I want to cut to a different angle, if I may, to give the Minister a little bit of time to come back with an answer on those good points.

I want to look at clause 64(d), actually, and it builds on the points that were raised by the member Chris Penk previously around Defence, but in particular, a point where he refers to Health New Zealand. We’ll be familiar with the Health New Zealand entity that the Governments have set up in terms of their—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! My apologies for interrupting the member, but the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Fair Pay Agreements Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 12.56 p.m. (Thursday)