Thursday, 20 October 2022
Volume 763
Sitting date: 20 October 2022
THURSDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2022
THURSDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2022
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
karakia/prayers
karakia/prayers
GREG O’CONNOR (Deputy Speaker): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Next week, legislation to be considered by the House will include the first reading of the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill, the second readings of the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill and the United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill, the remaining stages of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill, and the third readings of the Fisheries Amendment Bill and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill. There will be an extended sitting on the morning of Wednesday, 26 October. On Tuesday, Soraya Peke-Mason will be sworn in as a member of Parliament, and for the first time, the majority of serving MPs in the House of Representatives will be women.
CHRIS BISHOP (National): I thank the Leader of the House for that update. I notice from looking at the Order Paper that Government orders of the day is reducing rapidly, now down to 18, and the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill is making its way—by dint of bills being taken off—further up the Order Paper. Might we get it up to No. 1, 2, 3, or 4 this side of Christmas?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Of course, yesterday the member was proclaiming how the long Opposition were intending to take over progressing the other legislation that is a matter of priority for the Government. If he continues to facilitate the expeditious progress of the Government’s legislative programme, he might just get lucky.
Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Welcome back to the Leader of the House. The last time we traversed this, he said that there was some quite good news coming up on the Organic Products Bill, but it has been some time since he said that. I just wonder, do we have an update on what is now No. 15 on the Order Paper? It’s going in the opposite direction to some of the other legislation. Last time it was No. 8 on the Order Paper.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): The member can live in hope, but I don’t have a particular update on that for him today.
PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Ministers have delivered papers—21 of them.
CLERK:
Ministers’ reports in relation to selected non-departmental appropriations for the year ended 30 June 2022 for:
Vote Agriculture, Biosecurity, Fisheries and Food Safety
Vote Forestry
Vote Social Development
Vote Customs, and
Vote Health
2022 annual reports for:
Parliamentary Counsel Office
New Zealand Customs Service
Border Executive Board
Ministry for Primary Industries
Department of Conservation
Manatū Hauora
Ministry of Education
Export Education Levy
Te Puni Kōkiri
Department of Corrections
New Zealand Post
Public Service Commission
New Zealand Police, and
Ministry of Social Development
statement of intent 2022 to 2026 for the Department of Conservation
integrated report 2022 for New Zealand Post
World Trade Organization joint initiative on services domestic regulation together with the national interest analysis
SPEAKER: I present the 2021/22 annual report of the Parliament sector for the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Parliamentary Service. These papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK:
Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the petition of Juliana Carvalho and the petition of Yvonne Pern
reports of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on
the international treaty examination of the protocol to amend the agreement of 3 April 2001 establishing the International Organisation of Vine and Wine
United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill, and
the petition of Democracy for Myanmar Working Group New Zealand
report of the Social Services Committee on the petition of Graeme Axford.
SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading and the treaty for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.
CLERK: Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill, introduction.
SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Finance
1. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with CoreLogic chief economist Kelvin Davidson on rising mortgage interest rates that it’s “a big change, so that’s going to mean quite a big change for household finances”; if so, what advice, if any, has he had on the impact rising mortgage interest rates will have on disposable household incomes?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I do acknowledge the impact that rising mortgage interest rates will have on households, which is why this Government is focused on supporting New Zealanders, both directly but also through maintaining economic growth, low unemployment, and higher wage growth. It is worth pointing out the context that Mr Davidson gave for his comments, and I’ll quote briefly from him: “Comparing the current downturn to the GFC, one big wildcard is low unemployment, and nobody’s expecting it to suddenly spike higher. Strong employment should help to keep a floor under home values, and be the difference between a correction and a more serious slump.” I would note for the member that the last time mortgage interest rates were at the current levels was in 2015, when unemployment was 5.5 to 5.7 percent. To answer the second part of the question, I certainly have received a range of advice. One report from Statistics New Zealand today said that household savings had increased in the latest quarter as incomes rose and expenses fell, indicating the importance of maintaining a strong economy, low unemployment, and rising wages during a global inflation spike.
Nicola Willis: So is it the Minister of Finance’s position that families who are now going to be paying hundreds of dollars more each week in mortgage repayments, while also having to find hundreds of dollars more each month for their grocery bills, should just be grateful they have a job?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, absolutely not. As I’ve stated many times in this House, I understand that this is a tough period for many New Zealand households. That’s the reason why the Government has continued to step up with initiatives to support low and middle income people. All of those initiatives, without fail, have been opposed by the National Party.
Nicola Willis: Has he sought any advice on how many people who purchased their homes in the past two years will be facing the prospect of default on their mortgage if the current projected interest rate increases occur?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again, as I said in my primary answer, there is a wide range of advice. I would note the advice from the banking sector itself for the first half of this year that noted that the number of customers who were behind on their loan repayments was only just over 1 percent of borrowers. We do know that, as part of the stress-testing exercise when people take on mortgages, those are stress-tested at much higher rates than the rate that the person actually borrows at. I have no doubt that, for a number of households, this is going to be a very tough period. The Government has continued to support New Zealanders through this period, and a low unemployment environment—i.e., people being in work—supports them to get through the situation.
Nicola Willis: Can he confirm that a family borrowing a $500,000 mortgage at the average two-year rate of 5.65 percent will now be paying—sorry, it was 2.69 percent—$14,300 more a year on the rate of 5.65 percent, which is $275 more per week?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It will depend entirely on the specific circumstances. That calculation could well be correct for a household in a particular set of circumstances. I repeat: no one is denying that this is a tough period for many households in New Zealand. That’s why they need a Government that is focused on making sure that we keep people in work, that we support economic growth that is sustainable in New Zealand, and that we look after the most vulnerable in our society.
Nicola Willis: Can he confirm that, for every additional 0.5 percent in rising interest rates, that family with a $500,000 mortgage will be $2,500 a year worse off—nearly $50 a week in higher mortgage interest costs?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, again, without all of the information about the person, it’s hard to say exactly what will happen. I presume those people will fix their mortgage at some point in the process, and so, therefore, won’t be subjected to the increases in rates that follow on from that. Again, none of this changes the point: there are many households in New Zealand who are finding things tough at the moment. That’s why they need a Government that has fully costed policies and is focused on supporting New Zealanders, and not on making tax cuts available for the wealthiest New Zealanders, which is what the National Party would do.
Nicola Willis: Does he accept any responsibility for rising interest rates and record high inflation, or is it his position that his job as finance Minister is to try and convince New Zealanders that everything’s just fine when they aren’t only having to face rising living costs but they’re now having to face rising mortgage costs at the bank?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is my belief that it is my job as the Minister of Finance to continue to help shepherd New Zealand through the impacts of a major crisis in the global economy. For the last 2½ years, this Government has stood alongside New Zealanders, supporting them through the wage subsidy scheme, supporting small businesses with the small-business cash flow scheme and with the resurgence support payment, lifting benefits, increasing the family tax credit, lifting the minimum wage, and making sure that New Zealand has got through a massive crisis with unemployment at 3.3 percent. There are no costless decisions when it comes to a pandemic, but I stand proudly on this Government’s record.
Question No. 2—Police
2. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has he seen of New Zealand Police responding to youth offending?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): Police have made hundreds of arrests and laid thousands of charges for offending at retail businesses in Auckland and the Waikato in recent months. Provisional figures show how hard police staff have been working to identify offenders and to hold them to account. Yesterday I met with the Dairy and Business Owners Group and I recognise how tough it has been for them to be the targets of this criminal offending. Police focus continues to be on working to try and prevent this type of offending and to hold to account those responsible, whilst also ensuring that the necessary supports are in place for victims to prevent this happening again.
Helen White: What steps have police taken to respond to youth crime in Tāmaki Makaurau?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Across Tāmaki-makau-rau, police have arrested 129 youth offenders and laid 1,036 charges since May. Those charges, across both regions, relate to burglary, robbery, and unlawful taking offences. In many instances, individuals have been charged with more than one offence on more than one occasion. I was advised this morning that just last night, police across Tāmaki-makau-rau arrested 15 young people aged between 11 and 16 following fleeing-driver incidents involving stolen vehicles. Further investigations are ongoing, and more arrests and charges will be made.
Ginny Andersen: What steps have police taken to respond to youth crime in the Waikato region?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In the Waikato, 205 offenders have been arrested a total of 307 times for ram raid and smash and grab - style offending. Some of those arrested have been repeat offenders. Overall, those charged are now facing or have faced a total of 1,229 charges that have been filed in the Youth Court. This data relates to the period from 1 February to the end of September.
Ginny Andersen: What insights has he seen from police on the nature of this offending and on how the Government is working together to respond?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It is clear from my conversations with police that police alone will not be able to solve the level of offending that we are currently seeing amongst young people. The complex social issues that sit underneath this need to be addressed in a whole-of-Government manner. As the Minister of Police and as the Minister for the Public Service, I have been convening regular conversations across Government to make sure that we are doing everything we can to get these young people off the streets and back on to the straight and narrow.
Question No. 3—Immigration
3. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister of Immigration: Has he seen the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities report’s concerns and recommendations regarding the acceptable standards of health requirements; if so, has he requested any advice on this report?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): Yes, I’m aware that the UN committee has made observations about New Zealand’s progress in realising disability rights, including three observations in the immigration area. Officials will soon be providing me with full advice on these issues. I understand that my colleague the Minister for Disability Issues has agreed a cross-agency process to respond to all of the recommendations, and my immigration officials will be providing a formal response to this. All recommendations will be considered early next year. More broadly, I note that an Immigration New Zealand working group has been considering the acceptable standard of health requirements, and that a number of changes have been made recently, including increasing the significant-cost health threshold from $41,000 to $81,000 over five years, removing HIV from the list of medical conditions considered to impose significant costs and/or demands on New Zealand’s health or education services, and updating the list of countries considered to have a low incidence of TB to include an additional 85 countries that no longer pose a significant risk. Proving an individual has an acceptable standard of health is necessary for several reasons but is primarily required to ensure they will not impose significant costs or demand on health, disability, or education services during their time in New Zealand. It’s a challenging balance.
Ricardo Menéndez March: What is his response to Jonny Wilkinson, CEO of Tiaho Trust - Disability A Matter of Perception, who wrote on the Northern Advocate on 8 October: “It’s not really the dollar figure that perturbs the disability community, it’s the principle of the matter. It says to New Zealand and to the rest of the world that disabled people are not wanted and are a burden”?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: What I would say to the gentleman in question is that disabled people right across New Zealand society are valued and make a significant contribution. In respect of the immigration system, New Zealand—like every other country—will make reasonable and balanced decisions about how it manages its borders. We do have to be fair for everyone: those people who wish to apply to come to New Zealand and New Zealand taxpayers more broadly.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Does the Minister support the committee’s recommendation that New Zealand reviews and amends its immigration and asylum legislation and rules “that persons with disabilities do not face discrimination in any of the formalities and procedures relating to immigration and asylum, in particular as a result of the application of the acceptable standards of health requirements”; if not, why not?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As I said in my primary answer, we will be giving full consideration to the observations and recommendations of the UN committee and responding in due course.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Is the Minister confident that disabled convention refugees and asylum seekers aren’t being subjected to the acceptable standards of health policy?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: In respect of asylum seekers and refugee claimants, as far as I’m aware, we are compliant with all of our obligations in respect of those people.
Ricardo Menéndez March: How many, if any, disabled people were consulted as part of the recent changes to the threshold for determining if a condition will create a significant cost to the health system?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I think the member in the House would appreciate I don’t have that particular number to hand, but I’m very happy to provide it to the member. I do know that there was engagement with relevant sector groups about that policy before it was decided.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Does the Minister believe that disabled people should be part of the review of the acceptable standards of health requirements; and if so, what steps is he taking to ensure that disabled people are participating in the process?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: We do have further work that is going into consideration of policies around the acceptable standard of health. It is my expectation that we would consult with the disabled community as a part of that work, and that is something that I will ensure that officials do.
Question No. 4—Health
4. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: How many people identified by his “high-powered” waiting list task force as having waited more than 12 months on the surgical waiting list have had surgery, and how many have been removed from that list due to being medically unfit for treatment?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Wait-list numbers change every day—for example, when patients are scheduled, treated, or there is a change in clinical circumstance. As at 1 July this year, the clinical task force appointed by Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand had identified 5,405 patients who had been waiting more than 12 months. Between 1 July this year and 31 August this year, 734 people had been treated or discharged and removed from the wait-list. As at 31 August, the wait-list for those waiting over 365 days stood at 5,104, which reflects the net movement of people on the wait-list; 672 of those people had been booked for surgery, 1,772 people had been scheduled but not yet notified of surgery, 2,660 had not yet been scheduled for surgery, and approximately 70 had returned to the care of their GP. It’s important to understand that a patient’s procedure might be deferred if they have a minor illness such as a cold. However, it’s unlikely that this would be coded as medically unfit for treatment, because to do so requires that the time frame for when treatment can be rescheduled is unknown. Therefore, what I can say is Te Whatu Ora advised that approximately 81, or 1.5 percent, of patients have been coded with what they describe as Exit Category 15: Medically unfit for treatment. Responding to the global pandemic has resulted in delays to planned care. Our doctors and nurses are doing a magnificent job addressing the backlog, and I thank them for their hard work.
Dr Shane Reti: What does he say to those 81 people who were fit for surgery when the surgeon put them on the wait-list 12 months ago but because they have waited 12 months, they are now too unwell and have been removed from his priority list?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I don’t think it’s possible to generalise about the people in that particular category, but I do note, when we sort of do a comparative example, for those described as medically unfit for treatment, in the year to 30 June 2017 2.3 percent of people were described as medically unfit for treatment and therefore did not get their treatment. In the period to 30 June 2021, which is the last full year for which we have current data, it was 1.8 percent. So even with dealing with a pandemic, our health system is doing better than the final years of the previous Government.
Dr Shane Reti: Why, in written questions, is exit data missing for people waiting more than 12 months for surgery on the priority list, including two whole months missing from MidCentral, and which other areas have similar missing data from this list?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: One of the appalling parts of the health system that we inherited from the previous Government is the hopeless data system that we had—so a totally disaggregated system. That’s why last year we started the long, hard journey of investing more than $600 million to upgrade our data system so that every hospital is able to gather data and report it consistently, something the previous Government totally overlooked.
Dr Shane Reti: Is missing data his new excuse now for some of the worst waiting lists ever given that his recent attempt to blame the worst flu season ever is not supported by Institute of Environmental Science and Research health stats data from 300 general practices?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No, the missing data is my explanation for the appalling stewardship of our health system by the previous National Government, who under-resourced it and underfunded it and left health professionals doing the best they could with appalling systems.
Dr Shane Reti: How many patients waiting more than 12 months on his priority surgical list died while waiting, and of the three codes he gives for removal from that list, are deaths while waiting recorded as the code “change in patient circumstances” or “medically unfit for treatment”?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I don’t have that data, but what I do know, and as I indicated in the answer to that member’s first supplementary question, is that the ability for the health system today to deal with those who’ve been waiting a long time for their surgery and get their treatment, even though it is overdue, is better than in the final years of the previous National Government.
Question No. 5—ACC
5. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: What announcements has she made about improving ACC support for workers?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for ACC): Today marks the 50th anniversary of the Accident Compensation Act which passed in this very House in 1972. ACC is a word-leading scheme and has served New Zealand well for decades. But, as with any scheme that is 50 years old, we need to ensure it continues to be updated. We took the first step in this mahi by the passing of the maternal birth injuries bill, and, today, I announced a new review framework for Schedule 2 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. This framework will guide a fresh look at what occupational diseases should be covered in the year 2023 and beyond. The review of Schedule 2 will be consulted publicly, ensuring that workers, businesses, and other interested parties can provide feedback.
Angela Roberts: Why is a new review framework needed?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Schedule 2 is set up to reflect a very different labour market to the one we have now and has not been updated since 2010. It has now become clear that women, Māori, Pacific, and disabled people are not as well served by ACC. The new review framework will provide a regular, evidence-based approach to review Schedule 2 to ensure it reflects diseases that all working New Zealanders experience. It will take into account gender and improve our understanding of how occupational diseases impact different population groups in Aotearoa. Previous National Governments have made cuts to the support ACC provides to New Zealanders or tried to privatise it. This Government is committed to strengthening ACC supports and ensuring they serve New Zealanders as we are in 2022 and beyond. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: I’m going to award the Opposition, the National Party, a question. That was unnecessary on a Government question to itself.
Angela Roberts: What other announcements has she made regarding ACC?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Recently, I announced the opening of consultation on changes to ACC’s Accredited Employers Programme. At its best, the programme enables employers to provide a better experience for injured workers and supports them to recover fully from their injuries. However, over time, it’s become clear that stronger measures are needed. The consultation aims to help us strengthen the programme by ensuring employers are held to account and injured workers are better supported. We know that this programme does deliver positive outcomes and that it currently delivers better return-to-work outcomes for employees. It’s important that we maintain this, but we are committed to taking steps to better support injured workers on their journeys to returning to work.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will the Minister commit to our professional firefighters that the review of occupational diseases will result in a presumptive list of cancers for cover, that evidence shows is linked to their occupation?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We’re not looking at presumptive cover.
Angela Roberts: What are the proposed changes to the Accredited Employers Programme?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The proposals aim to tighten the standards for and the monitoring of accredited employers, pick up poor performers faster, and provide a greater range of sanctions if poor performance occurs. This includes exiting poor performers from the programme if they are unable or unwilling to improve. The proposals have been co-designed with employers, workers, and health and safety experts to ensure that we strike the right balance between the welfare of workers and compliance costs for employers. Both of these moves are timely in updating ACC for the modern era. I’d like to recognise all of those who were a part of passing the Act 50 years ago. Their foresight has provided us with a fantastic resource for New Zealand. It is our job as stewards of the legislation to ensure it continues to evolve to reflect the modern world we live in.
Question No. 6—Police
6. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of Police: How many ram raids have been reported since May 2022, and how many offenders have been arrested in relation to these reported ram raids?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): I’m advised that since May 2022, there have been 215 ram raids recorded nationally. Police have made 347 arrests on these kinds of incidents in the Tāmaki Makaurau and Waikato districts in the last eight months. The number of arrests specifically relating to ram raids across the rest of New Zealand isn’t readily available, but I can confirm that a total of 315 prosecutions and 115 youth referrals have been made relating to ram raids since the beginning of the year.
Chris Baillie: Is the Minister considering changing the police pursuit policy to account for the surge in ram raids, considering that only 17 percent of fleeing drivers were subsequently apprehended in 2021 compared to 41 percent in 2017?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The fleeing drivers policy is a matter for the police. It’s an operational matter. But the Commissioner of Police and I have had conversations about it, and I do expect that there are going to be changes to that policy.
Chris Baillie: What percentage of ram raid offenders have been identified as youth offenders, and will the Minister consider adopting ACT’s policy to introduce ankle bracelets for serious repeat youth offenders?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t have a specific percentage, but the vast majority of ram raids are being undertaken by young people. That’s not to say that there aren’t some older people involved, but the advice that I’ve had from police is that this is predominantly a young people issue, including some very young offenders—some below the age of 10, for example. In terms of the ankle bracelet policy, the issue of removing some of the repeat offenders from circulation and keeping them out of circulation is something that the Government is very focused on. I’m not convinced that extra use of ankle bracelets would necessarily achieve that, but we’re keeping all options on the table.
Chris Baillie: Does the Minister think we’re in a crime crisis?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It is very clear that there is an escalating level of youth offending, particularly in the upper half of the North Island. I’ve also acknowledged that for the businesses who are victims of that, it is a crisis-like situation. We need to work hard to make sure that there are fewer businesses who find themselves in that position in the first place.
Hon Mark Mitchell: What changes have been proposed by the Police Commissioner in relation to the pursuit policy, as discussed between the Minister and the commissioner?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That’s a matter for the Police Commissioner to announce.
Question No. 7—Justice
7. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: Is she confident the justice system is delivering justice to the victims of youth crime?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I think we can all agree that the justice system is in no way perfect, for victims included—which is why we are constantly striving to ensure that we have the right evidence-based settings across the justice system to keep our communities safe.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can she have confidence that justice is being delivered when there have already been more ram raids this year than there were in 2018, 2019, and 2020 combined, but only just over one in three offenders are caught; and of those few that are caught, fewer than two in three are actually prosecuted?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I refer to my first answer. There are many areas which we are seeking to improve. Consistently—as the Minister of Police has already stated in this House today during question time—there has been a considerable uplift in the apprehensions of young people this year.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: What hope do victims of crime have when getting justice, when according to Mahmoud Hardan of Quick Picks Convenience Store, front-line police officers are telling victims of ram raids: “We’re very close to catching them, but there’s no point of it as they will only get a slap on the hand.”
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I know that people on this side of the House are engaging with ordinary businesses, police officers, and victims of crime frequently. I think it’s fair to say that there are a range of very useful solutions that have been proposed to us. The thing that we’re really insistent on, on this side of the House, though, is that whatever amendments we make to the youth justice system, they don’t go on to perpetuate and cause more harm for more victims; which is why we take an evidence-based position to the way that we introduce reforms—any reforms—in this area.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has she called for an inquiry into the handling of convicted rapist Jayden Meyer’s case—where a male who was convicted of raping four young women has received nine months’ home detention—and if not, why not?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The member will be well aware that that is squarely within the judicial realm. What I will say, and I want to put this on record clearly in this House—first, I want to acknowledge that those young women came forward. They went through an incredibly tumultuous process, but the fact that they came forward is something that this side of the House has been particularly insistent on ensuring: that we support victims of sexual violence to share their stories. I acknowledge the work of the Hon Marama Davidson in this area. Secondly, what I will say is that on reflection, in reading the High Court judge’s decision, it found that all of the measures that could have ensured a penalty of imprisonment were there, and in this circumstance they were not followed.
Hon Judith Collins: Rubbish.
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Read the case. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! We’ll have the question.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: What changes, if any, is the Minister considering to the Sentencing Act to ensure that serious crimes do indeed lead to serious consequences, and that victims do indeed receive justice?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I’ll refer to my previous answer. As found in the decision yesterday, of the High Court, there is an appropriate sentencing regime. It is the system that was in place under the previous Government but for the fundamental reforms we made to the three-strikes system.
Question No. 8—Conservation
8. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Conservation: How has Jobs for Nature supported local communities with employment opportunities and conservation efforts? [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Is the House telling us that we don’t want to hear?
Hon Paul Goldsmith: No, we don’t want to hear.
Hon Member: No, not really. No.
Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: I think we’ll hear this in silence, then.
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Jobs for Nature has supported dozens of communities, up and down the country, by investing in local projects that benefit the environment, people, and the regions. Last week, I was in the Chatham Islands and met with the team working on the Jobs for Nature species and habitat restoration project, a project that will create a safer habitat for our native wildlife through additional planting, robust predator control across 2,000 hectares, and comprehensive habitat restoration. This wouldn’t have been possible without the funding support provided through Jobs for Nature, and will go a long way to help us achieve our Predator Free 2050 target.
Paul Eagle: What other Jobs for Nature projects has she visited?
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Save the Eagle!
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: During Conservation Week, I had the opportunity to visit the predator free team on the Miramar Peninsula, which has been able to supercharge its efforts to help Aotearoa meet its Predator Free 2050 objectives. The project is also creating up to 40 employment opportunities on the peninsula and has seen over 10,000 traps set up in backyards all over the city of Wellington.
Paul Eagle: What are the benefits of supporting local communities to get involved in conservation efforts through Jobs for Nature?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: In order to achieve our predator free goals and implement Te Mana o te Taiao, our national biodiversity strategy, we need as many people across the country to get involved in our conservation efforts. That’s why supporting local communities, through Jobs for Nature, to do trapping or planting is so important. These are projects that would either not go ahead, or take much longer to implement, without the support from Jobs for Nature.
Chris Bishop: Are eagles a type of vulnerable and endangered species that the Jobs for Nature programme seeks to protect?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: It’s clear that the National Party set up a programme called Predator Free 2050 and now consider that it is a complete waste of time. Because, as the member said yesterday—as the member said yesterday—Jobs for Nature are a waste of taxpayers’ money. The member, Ms Willis, said that in the House. How can the Government achieve the National Party’s Predator Free 2050 targets without Jobs for Nature?
Hon Michael Wood: Is it true that some—
Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about the status of eagles as vulnerable and endangered species, and the Minister did not even mention the word “eagle” in her answer.
SPEAKER: Yeah, and the member is in danger of losing a supplementary if he continues to take points of order that are clearly out of order. And the question was addressed.
Hon Michael Wood: Is it true that some native species in the Hutt South area became extinct in late 2020?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Yes.
Paul Eagle: Turituri. How is Jobs for Nature supporting New Zealand’s commitment to being predator free by 2050?
Hon POTO WILLIAMS: New Zealand committed to Predator Free 2050 in 2016, and we’ve supercharged the efforts to reach that target through a number of Jobs for Nature projects. The results speak for themselves: Miramar Peninsula is now free of stoats, weasels, and Norway rats, and there has been a massive 51 percent increase—[Interruption]—in the native bird population. I think it’s clear that the National Party do not give a fig, an eagle, or an MP’s proverbial for conservation where they laugh through this. They set the targets for Predator Free 2050, did not commit any funding to it, and now make jokes of the fact that there are 4,000 people up and down the country who are planting trees, doing predator-control work, and are contributing to the conservation values of this country. Thank goodness they are, because the National Party would not be able to go out and do their summer walks in the Great Walks without the work of Jobs for Nature doing the track maintenance and all the work that they like to engage in—but they clearly do not want to fund.
Question No. 9—Transport
9. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Transport: Does he agree with NZTA’s statement that Kiwis should “slow down and maintain a safe following distance between their vehicle and the one in front to maximise their chance of seeing and responding to a pothole in the road”; if so, why?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Well, as the late, great Peter Brock once said, “Only a fool breaks the two-second rule.”, so, yes, I do agree with Waka Kotahi’s advice to keep a safe following distance. Neither of us would want to be a fool when it comes to road safety, Mr Brown. I also agree with Waka Kotahi’s statement that expenditure had been held “at a constant rate between 2009-10 and 2016-17, by constraining growth in the funding range for State highway maintenance in the GPS meaning that the strong condition of road surfaces and road pavements that existed in 2009 had been consumed and network condition has declined to a point where increased investment is now critical.” This is typical of the National Party. They run down our public assets and then whinge about the inevitable results. Fortunately, our Government has increased road maintenance funding by 50 percent since we came into office, to clean up their mess.
Simeon Brown: What speed should Kiwis drive at to dodge pot-holes, and is dodging pot-holes the reason why the Government has lowered speed limits on hundreds of kilometres of our State highways in the past five years?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: New Zealanders should always drive at a safe speed on our roads. I would have encouraged the National Party to have thought about that more carefully when they froze road maintenance funding for eight years across our State highway network.
Simeon Brown: How far behind another car should Kiwis follow in front of them to maximise their chance of dodging a pot-hole?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Only a fool breaks the two-second rule.
Simeon Brown: How many pot-holes could the New Zealand Transport Authority have fixed with the $30,000 spent on the five big red zeros the Minister was so proud to stand next to?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, they fixed about 45,000 last year, and interestingly, the biggest number of increased pot-holes occurred between 2016 and 2018 at the end of the last National Party term.
Question No. 10—Economic and Regional Development
10. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What announcements has he made to support regional economies?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): Over the weekend, I attended the celebration of the restoration of St Michael’s Church on the Ōhaeāwai pā and battle site, an historically important restored battle site in the context of the 1845-46 northern land wars. After undergoing $1.79 million in Government-backed restoration, it is now a fully-fledged cultural heritage tourism experience. In my opinion, the Battle of Ōhaeāwai pā deserves to rank up there with battles like, for example, Agincourt in 1415. The reason I say this is because this battle involved around 615 British troops against around 100 Māori. The British casualties numbered in the hundreds, and there were less than five Māori killed. After the battle, the British made a couple of models of this pā site and used the Māori tactics to completely rethink their approach to close-contact trench warfare. Chiefs like Pene Taui, who was the architect of this tactic, deserve to sit in the pantheon of great military commanders, innovators, and strategists.
Shanan Halbert: How is the Government supporting historic sites of national importance?
Hon STUART NASH: Ōhaeāwai, located near Kaikohe, in Te Tai Tokerau, Northland, is the second project completed from a $20 million historic sites of national importance allocation from the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF), which is administered by Kānoa - Regional Economic Development and Investment Unit.
Shanan Halbert: Why is it important to restore these sites?
Hon STUART NASH: The restoration of battle sites like Ōhaeāwai allows the descendants of those involved in the war and the wider public to learn about this significant battle, as well as the wider community to benefit from the restored infrastructure. Project coordinator Raima Redden said that the restoration of the church was “the realisation of a long-held dream” for the community.
Shanan Halbert: What other benefits will these investments provide?
Hon STUART NASH: Ōhaeāwai is part of a family of projects that our Government has funded to boost Māori economic development and tourism and to generate employment, growing the local and regional economy. These projects offer a unique tourism activity supporting Māori development and storytelling, and promoting a shared understanding of history.
Shanan Halbert: How else is the Government supporting the Northland economy?
Hon STUART NASH: The Government has provided a range of support to strengthen regional economies like Northland, including investing nearly $800 million from the PGF and other funds across 230 projects. We have invested more than any other recent Government in building the capability, infrastructure, and economic capacity of the regions. That’s a record I’m incredibly proud of.
Question No. 11—Broadcasting and Media
11. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: Does he stand by his statements and actions regarding the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Broadcasting and Media): Yes, absolutely.
Hon David Bennett: Don’t read it, Willy!
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, I have to read it just for your head! In particular, I stand by my remarks made in the House for the bill’s first reading about why it’s so important we create a new public media entity.
Simeon Brown: Tell us why!
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, I’m quite happy to do that. What I said then was that “The creation of this new [organisation] will strengthen the delivery of New Zealand’s public media services for future generations. That’s our key objective: that public media in Aotearoa New Zealand is strong and that it endures. With increasing levels of misinformation around the world, a rapidly changing media landscape, and declining commercial revenues projected, New Zealand needs strong, independent public media more than ever. It is critical to the functioning of a healthy democracy. We need a public media entity that can inform, entertain, and educate in a uniquely Kiwi manner. We need strong, independent journalism that holds Government and those in power to account. We need all the people and voices of Aotearoa to be represented not just on our screens but in the [production and] development … of our public media content … We need a public media entity with the flexibility to meet audiences where they are, utilising the platforms New Zealanders are choosing. We need a sustainable funding model that ensures our public media doesn’t just survive but can thrive in its pursuit of public media outcomes. [And we need public media to play its part in strengthening our wider media sector.] This bill provides a foundation to deliver exactly that. It will create Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media, [that] builds on the best of RNZ … and TVNZ.” I stand by all my comments and views and opinions on this very important kaupapa.
SPEAKER: That answer was far too long, and so I will award Melissa Lee with two extra supplementary questions to examine the total totality of the answer that the Minister has given.
Melissa Lee: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister think that concerns raised by Stuff CEO Sinead Boucher that the merger is a—and I quote—“very serious threat to our viability and the viability of the rest of the industry”, and an example of—and I quote—“utterly misplaced hysteria.”, in the Minister’s own words?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I respect Sinead very much; I actually met with her. But I think she’s worrying a little too much. The key for her and for other players in the media, with respect, are partnerships—that’s what this is built on. If the market’s going to work, it will need Stuff to partner up with others. This will, I think, allay her worries and her problems. The entity must not, and should not, overwhelm smaller media entities like Stuff. Stuff needs to work in tandem with other groups, with other newspapers, with other media outlets, with Māori media, and with Pacific media. By doing that, they can address some of the worries that she has in terms of the market. This is about partnership. This is about collaboration. Collaboration is built into the entity, in terms of its future and in terms of how it progresses business.
Melissa Lee: Does the Minister stand by his statement regarding whether future a Government will direct the new public broadcaster for political purposes that—and I quote—“there is always a risk.”, and, if so, is he now conceding the Government’s legislation is, in fact, flawed and is at risk of political interference?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Absolutely not. But there would be a problem, of course, if there was a National Party Government, because, as we all know, they have a record of interfering in terms of what’s happening in society. The editorial side is very clear—very, very clear: any Minister cannot interfere—clause 15(3), have a look, all you members; clause 15 is very clear—into the day-to-day workings of the entity. You cannot direct the entity—
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Except their policies.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: In terms of policy, Mr Goldsmith, the Government can advise what Government policy is. We may have a policy on gender equity. Of course, we can celebrate gender equity over here; you cannot—the Opposition cannot. We’ll be celebrating that next week.
SPEAKER: Yeah, I’m probably doing the Government side a favour by sitting you down.
Melissa Lee: How can the Minister justify his statement, and I quote, “There is no way we’ll be telling editors how to run their news.” when he also makes it clear he will require a change of culture; is this not explicitly telling them how to run their organisations, which affects their editorial independence?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Not at all—not at all. In fact, I was talking to Simon Power about this just the other day and he and I are in full agreement that there can’t be any direct interference. In terms of the culture, we’re talking about bringing a commercial entity and a non-commercial entity together. That’s going to require an adjustment. If you don’t like the word “culture”, let’s talk “adjustment”—just for the National Party. That’s going to require an adjustment and, obviously, commercial / non-commercial entities are going to have to work through their processes. I’m looking forward to that and I think we’re all on song—RNZ and TVNZ.
Melissa Lee: Does the Minister stand by his statement, and I quote, “I stand by the sentiment of what I said.”, in relation to his comments on 28 September that “We no longer have trust in national media. No longer is there trust in what’s happening at a national media level. … We need a trusted public broadcaster”; so which part of that answer is he standing by?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: As I clarified in the House a week or two back, of course I stand by the sentiment that the public are losing faith. We do have trusted media; they’re called RNZ and TVNZ. But we also have reducing audiences. The audiences are diminishing. So we have to set up a new entity, a new public media entity, that recognises what’s happening in New Zealand. Our people want to see themselves, hear themselves—Māori, Pasifika, and Asian—and that member should know that better than anyone.
Melissa Lee: Why did the Minister choose not to front on TV3’s The Nation on his plan for the merger and instead dispatch former Government Minister Tracey Martin, who also failed to explain why this Government is wasting $370 million on this merger?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Tracey did a brilliant job, and I will be fronting on the different TV shows after the select committee gives its report back. You must allow process to take its course.
Melissa Lee: Was it his decision not to front the programme, or was it the Prime Minister’s office?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, no, it was my decision—it was my decision. I know the National Party wants to jump on TV all the time, but you’ve got a select committee process running. I assure that member I’ve done many interviews and there’ll be many interviews coming. Don’t worry about that.
Question No. 12—Women
12. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister for Women: What reports of recent progress towards gender equality has she seen?
Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): Today marks 50 years since the Equal Pay Act 1972 was passed, and I’m pleased to inform the House that we are celebrating this anniversary with the milestone of a record low gender pay gap of 7.7 percent in the Public Service. The number of women in leadership continues to trend upwards, with women now holding 55.8 percent of senior leadership positions. However, while a gender pay gap exists in the country there’s no time for complacency, and we need to continue to work towards full elimination of workplace inequality.
Camilla Belich: What progress has she seen on reducing the Māori and Pacific pay gaps in the Public Service?
Hon JAN TINETTI: In the Public Service, the Māori pay gap has fallen to 6.5 percent from 8.3 percent and is now the lowest it has been. The Pacific pay gap has fallen from 17.9 percent to 17.7 percent. Concerted effort by the Public Service to continue to see these track down is continuing, as well as stepping up efforts to close ethnic pay gaps.
Camilla Belich: How has the Equal Pay Act 1972 delivered for New Zealand women?
Hon JAN TINETTI: The Equal Pay Act was a huge achievement for women, but despite enshrining in law a legal right to equal pay for equal work, any substantial progress stalled until the passing of the amendments to the Act in 2020. These amendments have enabled the settlement of historic pay equity claims in female dominated industries. With seven pay equity settlements so far, these settlements remove gender discrimination from pay for more than 104,000 people, with an average pay correction of 33 percent.
Camilla Belich: What action is being taken to reduce the overall gender pay gap in New Zealand?
Hon JAN TINETTI: The overall pay gap in New Zealand is 9.2 percent and has been stagnant for far too long. Evidence shows that one of the tools that could support businesses to shine a light on gender and ethnic pay gaps is mandatory pay transparency reporting. This is why my colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan and I have announced that the National Advisory Council on the Employment of Women will act as a national advisory on pay transparency.
SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill.
Bills
Fair Pay Agreements Bill
In Committee
Debate resumed from 19 October.
Part 3A Specified employer bargaining parties and default bargaining parties
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, when we were last in committee, before lunch, we were debating Part 3A.
SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good to kick off proceedings after oral questions with a question on clause 64(d), as I was asking the question before we broke last time. My point is in regards to Health New Zealand. We were talking as my colleague Chris Penk was questioning in regards to the Chief of Defence Force around specified State employers.
My question to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, in regards to Health New Zealand, is the relation with the new Māori Health Authority. As we know, the Government has put in play the new Māori Health Authority, which is an independent authority that sits outside of Health New Zealand. My question to the Minister is quite simple: why have they only included in paragraph (d) “Health New Zealand” and not included the “Māori Health Authority”? In effect, one would—maybe I’m just being simplistic—exclude quite a significant element of the health sector in regards to that clause in the legislation.
So I’m interested, from the Minister: what is the consideration, what is the reason why they have simply only chosen Health New Zealand in relation to the proposed agreement in regards to the variation or a fair pay agreement of Health New Zealand that is covered by the employee?
SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety on this.
I was looking at clause 70 in Part 3A, and I was wondering why there was a proposal for “the employer default bargaining party must not elect … an employer bargaining party for a proposed agreement [or] a proposed variation”. And what was the alternative? I’m assuming it would be, in this case, an employee bargaining party?
But I wanted to just question the Minister why it is listed in here as, you know, not being an employer bargaining party, and why they were not allowed to be represented or bringing that forward in that piece.
Hon Michael Wood: Sorry, which clause?
SAM UFFINDELL: So we are on—
Hon Member: 70.
SAM UFFINDELL: 70.
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I will come back in a moment on Mr Uffindell’s question. In respect of 64(d), my understanding is the reference to Health New Zealand would be inclusive of the Māori Health Authority.
SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you. We’ve moved to clause 76 here, the default bargaining parties for proposed agreements, and looking at that three months’ notice that’s been put in there—so this is “The employer default bargaining party may elect to be an employer bargaining party for a proposed FPA that covers a covered employer that is a non-SEBP employer”—why has the three months section been put in there; why does it have to be within the three months?
Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Chief Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 74
New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Noes 40
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.
Motion agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3A 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.
Part 3A agreed to.
Part 4 FPA meetings and union access to workplaces
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s my pleasure to speak on this part, and also in relation to an amendment that I have proposed around clauses 86 and 87. Here, I am proposing to replace “without the employer’s consent” with “with the employer’s consent”. So if we go to clause 86 in the legislation, what we’re talking about here is the ability of union organisers and agreers to come in and to visit workplaces without consent—just rock up and talk to workers. We think it’s not unreasonable for employers—and this is a longstanding issue—to have some ability to give consent to that.
The other broad issue, I suppose, that I want to make in relation to this part and the rules in relation to fair pay agreement (FPA) meetings—and I’m sure the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety will bat it off and say, “Well, there’s nothing to worry about here.” What you have is that employers will have to pay for workers to attend meetings on the fair pay agreement, and then additional meetings on the fair pay agreement if things need to go through different steps. It’s just, I don’t know, another few hours that employers will have to pay for. I’m sure the Minister will say, “Well, that’s nothing, they’ll just cope with that and swallow that. It’s just a couple of hours away from the workforce. What’s there to worry about?”
The point I would put to him is: does he not recognise that this is not the first imposition the Government has made on businesses large and small, and that every month, this Government passes fresh legislation adding costs and requiring businesses to do this; fill out this information; fill out that; report on this; report on that; give, in the last few months, an extra week of sick leave; give sick leave in different requirements; give bereavement leave in different requirements; have another public holiday every year; etc.—the list goes on.
This bill, this legislation, requires businesses first to engage in a process that they may or may not want to engage with; then it involves them trying to deal with setting up employer agencies and so forth; then it involves them having to have union reps coming in, visiting the workplace; and then it has to involve extra meetings to discuss these things and to consider it all. Again, I remember the Green MP standing up and saying that we were claiming that this is going to be the end of the world and it’s going to destroy businesses. We’re not claiming that; we’re not saying that for a moment.
Dr Duncan Webb: Which clause are you talking about?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I’m talking about clauses 85, 86, and 87, quite clearly, in relation to the requirements to access workplaces, and clause 84 about entitlement to attend additional FPA meetings. What I’m saying is it’s just another layer of cost, of time, of difficulty that this whole process adds on top of businesses that have got a lot to do as it is at the moment. I’d just like to get some thoughts, I suppose—some observations—from the Minister as to whether he acknowledges that at all. I presume he will argue that the cost is worth it for whatever ideological goals he has in mind, but I’d ask him to consider just that impact on workers. Ultimately, if we want to have sustainably higher incomes, which I think is the purpose that the Minister has in mind for all this, the best way to get higher incomes is to have more productive and more competitive workplaces so that they can thrive as a business. Then the opportunity is there to deliver higher incomes and higher wages.
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I’m very happy to briefly respond to the member Paul Goldsmith’s questions there. Part 4, for people familiar with our employment relations framework, will seem very familiar. Most of the clauses in this part relate very clearly and strongly to corresponding clauses in the Employment Relations Act (ERA). In respect of the access provisions, there’s nothing here that’s particularly new or all that different from the access provisions in the Employment Relations Act, so I don’t especially see that there’s really any additional cost compliance or big issues there. It’s just about the basic right that most countries have—and it was accepted, in fact, under the previous Government, under the ERA that they oversaw, for union representatives to be able to speak to workers about activities which are relevant to them. In this particular case, the access provisions in the Fair Pay Agreements Bill simply ensure that the union in question is able to talk with employees who might be covered an FPA about those matters. I don’t see that as being in any way particularly inconsistent, new, or burdensome over and above the general access requirements that are in place.
Now, in respect of the union meetings that are in here, I do accept that to a small degree, there will be some additional cost that is associated with them, but we do need to keep things very strongly in proportion here. I think what we need to remember is that FPAs will have terms of between three and five years. So once every three to five years, when an FPA is negotiating, it will be possible for a union to be able to set up meetings to meet with people who are within the coverage of that FPA to ensure that those workers can genuinely feed in their views and be reported back to on the progress of that process. But for that to happen once every three to five years, I do not think is a significant additional burden on anyone.
TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. That just highlights how disconnected the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is with the businesses around New Zealand. Now, we’ve got a set of impositions here that quite clearly make it difficult. They raise a number of concerns that the Minister has just brushed over as though there’s nothing to see here—no concerns to be heard whatsoever. There is nothing in here that gives any consideration to the potential implications of health and safety from a representative coming into the workplace. There’s also nothing that gives consideration to the importance of a particular task being conducted by the employee at the time that may be interrupted by this meeting, and the importance of that within the normal business operations of whatever entity it may be; for example, someone that’s on a farm, maybe they have a particular deadline for picking or milking or harvesting or whatever it may be that fails to be met as a result of an imposition like this discussion taking those employees away from their critical task.
You can look at other distribution businesses—chilled frozen products, for example—where product might be left, having been unloaded off one truck before it gets redistributed for delivery, and that is left sitting there getting damaged or destroyed as a result of the employees being otherwise engaged in a conversation with a union representative who has turned up unannounced and actually doesn’t even have to talk to the employer before they engage with the employees.
So we have, quite clearly, a total disconnect between what the Minister is suggesting—and yes, sure, it’s OK to say we should be able to have access for those discussions, but, actually, business still is happening. This is the key thing that the Minister totally neglects, that we are in an environment here where people are conducting business in some fashion that has certain expectations and requirements around the performance of their employee in that workplace. Some of those may be time-sensitive, and this doesn’t allow for that at all. So it would be nice to think that we could have some greater consideration.
This comes back to the points I made in an earlier part this morning, as well, around the total lack of desire, despite the Minister’s comments that what we’re looking to achieve here is to improve conditions. When you have these sorts of impositions that clearly favour the union representative coming in, with no ability for the employer to have influence over the timing of some of those critical, time-sensitive tasks that may need to be carried out, then it totally undermines that goodwill or good-faith approach that the employer and employee should be taking.
I think that’s the real challenge here is that, ultimately, whilst the intent might be nice—and we see this from the Government time after time—good intent doesn’t necessarily translate into good policy and good outcomes for Kiwis. I think we’ve seen that again here through clause 86 around the access to workplace and the conditions relating to access, where it quite clearly doesn’t allow for those time-sensitive, time-critical tasks that can be a part of a business function, particularly in the food manufacturing space, for example. I’d be interested in why the Minister hasn’t taken account of that.
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Once again, I do respectfully encourage all members participating in this debate to read the clauses of the bill that they are commenting on. The member who has just stood up, Tim van de Molen, has said that the bill has no provisions in respect of access to take account of health and safety or normal business operations. I quote clause 87, two on from the one that the member is talking to: “A representative of an employee bargaining party exercising the right to enter a workplace (a) may do so only at reasonable times during any period when any covered employee is employed to work in the workplace; and (b) must do so in a reasonable way, having regard to normal business operations in the workplace; and (c) must comply with any existing reasonable procedures and requirements applying in respect of the workplace that relate to (i) safety or health; or (ii) security.”
Tim van de Molen: Madam Chair, speaking to that—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on Erica Stanford.
Tim van de Molen: Point of order, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): It is not a point of order when I, as the Chair, decide to give the call to Erica Stanford.
Tim van de Molen: Correct, but I have taken a point of order, Madam Chair. With the changes that were made to Standing Orders to allow for shorter calls and multiple calls to be taken, it was the intent that questions could be asked and answered to facilitate a better flow of questions. I’ve asked a question, the Minister has responded, and I have a further question off the back of that. Your decision is entirely within your right to make—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): And it is up to me. When you actually sought the call before—both of you sought the call—I gave you the first call. I’m now going to Erica Stanford, and then I’ll come back to you. The flow of the questions will still be intact because both of you can ask the questions and then the Minister can answer both them at the same time—Erica Stanford.
ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to go back to clauses 82, 83, and 84 and just elaborate on what my colleague Tim van de Molen was talking about in terms of the health and safety. So under clause 82, it allows the employees who are subject to the fair pay agreement (FPA) to attend meetings. In fact, if you count them all up, there’s two, three, four, five, and then another one in clause 84 that are allowed to be two hours long. I think the point that I want to make around health and safety is not regarding the union reps going into businesses but the taking out of the staff in order to attend these meetings. I want to ask the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety the question around health and safety of, let’s say, petrol stations, which is, as we all know, highly important in that sort of environment. If there was to be an FPA around gas station attendants and there was a meeting in Auckland for two hours, as I read it in the bill, all of those workers who were subject to the FPA could and probably would attend the meeting. Now, those positions are actually highly trained in terms of emergency response if anything were to happen on the forecourt in such a volatile situation.
So my question around health and safety is: was there any proposal to put in the bill a requirement for the union to hold multiple meetings that the employees could pick from so that we didn’t have a situation where there was, for example, one meeting in Auckland where every single gas station attendant who was subject to this FPA would be required to and would probably want to attend this meeting, leaving no one who was suitably trained, or certainly not enough suitably trained people, to man the forecourts and, in the case of an emergency, would put those businesses and potentially people at risk.
I guess my question, because as I’ve mentioned to the Minister, this could happen not just once but two, three, four, five, maybe six times—and I just wanted to know from the Minister whether or not he would support a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), if it was to be introduced, that would require the unions, in those cases where health and safety was potentially an issue, to hold multiple meetings so that the workers could attend one of a number of meetings, therefore staggering the employees so that they weren’t all attending a meeting at the same time.
So that was my question around safety, and it certainly wasn’t anything to do with unions entering workplaces; it was to do with the employees leaving the workplace to attend these meetings. I can think of other occupations—ambulance drivers, care workers, anywhere where there is a particular health and safety issue.
Setting that aside, health and safety, of course there are other concerns as well: just normal day-to-day business, and, as we know, we’ve got a workforce crisis which we haven’t seen in 50 years because of our immigration settings—that’s for another day. But it does mean that businesses are under a certain amount of pressure and stress and are already having to close their doors, and to have all of their workers out, potentially, at one time where there wasn’t ability to stagger meetings could seriously impact their business.
So, question to the Minister: was that proposed, does he think it’s an issue, and would he consider an SOP just slightly amending that to allow for staggered meetings?
TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Coming back to my point I was making before, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety can stand up and say, flippantly, “You should read the bill”—words are one thing, but, actually, it’s the interpretation of that that it’s become clear the Minister really doesn’t have his head around. It’s that sort of detail that just shows how uninformed this Minister is when it comes to putting this legislation forward.
He referred to clause 87(1)(c)(i) around the safety and health aspects—“must comply with … existing reasonable procedures and requirements” in relation to the workplace. But how are they to know what those are if they are allowed to enter the workplace without having spoken to any employer, or any representative of the employer, which is allowed for under clause 87(3)—just, you know, they can turn up, if they haven’t made the effort, and they can’t find the employer, a representative of the employer, or a person in control of the workplace. So they can turn up without seeing anyone whatsoever, having no understanding of what those safety and health requirements might be in that workplace, and they can still enter. And this is where it’s clear that the Minister doesn’t understand the complexity of workplaces around New Zealand and the types of examples that could be found.
Ms Stanford’s one was a good example of that, as well, where you’re taking a critical skill out of a critical role that, in and of itself, may not be the union rep breaching that health and safety requirement under clause 87(1)(c)(i), but could have an impact on the overall business operations, and the same applies in any number of construction businesses. For example, if you’re, perhaps, taking a health and safety rep off the floor for discussions and some sort of incident happens during that time—these are the sorts of things that happen in workplaces that it’s clear the Minister doesn’t understand.
And alongside that, as well, was the impact of the timing of those things that he really didn’t address whatsoever. He said, “Oh well, it’s totally fine. There’s no issue around there being time-sensitive aspects because the representative of the employee bargaining party exercising the rights to enter a workplace must do so at reasonable times, and must do so in a reasonable way.” Well, what is reasonable in those circumstances? There’s no definition of that, in this bill, around what constitutes a reasonable time during a period when that employee is working or, indeed, a reasonable way, having regard to normal business operations. Of course, assuming that union rep understands what the normal business operations are—and it’s clear that this Minister doesn’t have a good understanding of normal business operations across a range of sectors. And, of course, that sort of complexity can vary significantly, even within businesses in the same industry. So we really aren’t getting to the nuanced sort of detail we need to properly cater for the requirements that can be found in a workplace.
So I’m interested in why the Minister doesn’t understand that, or whether he has sought any advice on that, whether he will consider amending that to accurately reflect the impact this will be having on those businesses, or whether he simply doesn’t care.
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): The members opposite are again becoming extremely worried and anxious about provisions in this bill that are almost exact copies of provisions in the Employment Relations Act that they oversaw for nine years while they were in Government. All of the provisions that the member has just referred to, in respect of union access to workplaces, including the reasonableness, are, effectively, word for word from the provisions in the Employment Relations Act.
In the end, people are not idiots. People do not want to create problems in a huge way. These things get managed well between sensible adults who work through employment relationship issues. When it comes to questions of reasonableness and issues being tested around the edges, there is an established jurisprudence which is established if unions or employers want to test out these rights.
But I repeat again that in both respects, union access and all of the wording here in respect of meetings with people, these are copied across, effectively, from the Employment Relations Act and operated without very many issues at all for the entire nine years that the previous National Government was in power. Most of these provisions date back to the year 2000, when the Employment Relations Act was established. Again, I must encourage members to please not just look at a particular clause but to actually look at the surrounding clauses to understand the issues and how the clauses actually connect.
So Erica Stanford asked questions around how union meetings are established. If she went back to clause 81(3)(a) and (b), she would see that they have to be set up with 14 days’ notice, as is the case under the Employment Relations Act. She would also see that there is a requirement for the union setting up those meetings to make arrangements with employers to ensure that their business is maintained. It’s there in black and white, as it is the current Employment Relations Act, which deals with all of the issues that she has raised in that area.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety for his invitation for us to do some extra reading on this side of the House. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I might refer him to some reading. He could look at one of my books, actually, on Douglas Myers and the history of Lion Nathan, and look at some of the union practices in the 1980s at Lion Breweries on Khyber Pass for evidence as to whether people behave reasonably. And you might find, indeed, some very interesting practices that were the development of a system, an arrangement, and a plan that was similar to what he is reintroducing.
And you might also read about the history of the building of the Māngere Bridge, for example—which was held up for a decade—and have a look inside the harbour inlet there to see all the concrete that was poured into the harbour because of people being on strike and practices that were dealt with and were part and parcel of the industrial relations framework that we had then, which the Minister seems to look back upon as a golden age.
What I was trying to work out was just—getting clear in my head, and the Minister may well think that I’m not as swift and mentally agile has he claims to be, but let me just work this out. So the point that he makes is he says, “Oh well, look, this is all just what there is in the existing legislation; what’s the problem?” Well, the problem is that this is additional. This is new. This is another set of circumstances—another whole suite of negotiations, conversations, meetings, and people arriving—on top of what we already have. It’s not replacing the current regime; it’s adding to it. So notwithstanding all the things that are currently going on and the union meetings that are already being paid for under the existing regime, he is coming into the House and introducing a new set, an additional set—and more hours, and more meetings.
So you can go along and you attend an initial two “fair pay”—misnamed “fair pay”—agreement meetings. So that’s two hours each; so that’s four hours gone. And then under clause 82(1)(b), if they decide midway through the fair pay agreement—and I’d be interested if he could confirm whether I got this right. So under paragraph (a) you attend two meetings; two hours each. Then, if they decide to propose a variation midway through, which they possibly could—there’d be another two-hour meeting, so that’s three. And then under clause 84, there is the entitlement to another meeting; so another two-hour meeting for the purposes of the fair pay agreement. And then, remember that we may be dealing with multiple fair pay agreements.
And so a business might have to face the possibility that they have a whole bunch of workers, who may spend some of their time as cleaners, for example, and they go through this whole process and they have three meetings, possibly four—I don’t know whether it’s possible to have four meetings under this arrangement—of two hours each. And they go through all of that and have all these visits. And the employer—and again, we think of the small mum and dad operator in Haast who might have two employees; so the two of them have to travel to wherever they have their meeting. They’ve had their three, possibly four meetings because of the cleaning operation.
But then, that goes through, and then next month another fair pay agreement comes along and it turns out that actually—while they’re cleaners a third of their time and they’ve gone through the whole process and they’re in that—actually the next one relates to something else; it may well be hospitality, and so they have to go through the whole thing again. And they go through a number of meetings, and so that’s great.
The Minister says, “Oh, it’s nothing, it’s nothing, it’s nothing! It’s just a few hours, and it’s every three or five years”. Well, I don’t know where he gets that great deal of confidence from, because this is all additional to what we’re already doing. And the point that we’re making is that it’s not the end of the world; people aren’t going to go broke overnight because of this—but it’s another layer of cost that he is adding on to businesses right here and right now.
ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 74
New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Noes 40
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 7.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 4 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 question is that the Hon Paul Goldsmith’s tabled amendments to clauses 86 and 87 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.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 4 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 4 as amended agreed to.
Part 5 Bargaining
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to Part 5. This is the debate on clauses 92 to 113, which is on bargaining. The question is that Part 5 stand part.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk on Part 5 of this bill. I want to look at clause 92F, in particular, which is around entitlement and the obligation to represent covered employers. So what happens—and I just want to remind people who are just tuning into this debate—with what we think is a grossly undemocratic initiating process is that a fair pay agreement process gets under way. It might have only taken a thousand employees out of 200,000 in a sector or an industry. That tiny little minority has decided they want it; therefore, it’s happened and it’s under way. And then regardless of whether they want to or not, the two sides, the employee side, which is the union that started the whole process, and the employers—the employers have to try and get together and decide on who to represent the employers. They may not, in which case it goes straight off to the Employment Relations Authority for them to decide.
But if they do decide, then I suppose a couple of questions arise then. How on earth does any employer group represent the views? Because there is an obligation in here, in clause 92F, for the firms to represent—well, let’s just read it. The employer bargaining side is entitled to represent and must use its “best endeavours” to represent the collective interests of all covered employers, whether or not each employer is a member of the association. OK, all right. So it’s got to do its best endeavours. Well, that’s not the highest hurdle in the world.
Dr Duncan Webb: Well, actually, it is quite high.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, yeah, well, let’s just see. So you’re up, and again, if we take the example of the cleaner down in Haast—a two-person operation. Do we really think that the large cleaning operations that dominate the market, who presumably will have the most say when it comes to the organisation that emerges on the employers’ side—how practically are they going to engage and understand the interests of that little operation down in Haast?
Or, if we were to take another example—if we were to take the example of the superette owner in Hokianga, for example, who I have referred to. So if the fair pay agreement was on checkout operators, for example, and a group was set up to represent the employers, I just have this worry or this concern that it will be the big operators that dominate the employers’ group. It’s natural and they will do it.
And it’s interesting because we have, on the one hand, the Government, this same Government who spends a great deal of time going on and beating its chest, saying “We’re going to get tough on the supermarket duopoly, for example, and we’ve got the Commerce Commission focused on that and we’re going to do all sorts of stuff that are going to make life difficult for them and we’re going to show them what’s what, and we’re going to be tough because we’re on the side of the consumers.” OK, well, that’s all very well and good. And then at the same time, it’s bringing in regulations and rules such as this, which I have no doubt whatsoever will help the same big players vis à vis the little ones that they’re supposedly trying to help, on the other.
Because if you think for a moment that regulations, which are costly, time consuming, and require an enormous amount of management effort to get your head around—what on earth is all this about, what’s going on, what do we want to have in terms of conditions, how are we going to organise this—do you really think that the small little operator in the Hokianga with two employees and a superette is going to be focused on that and contributing, and that his or her voice is going to be paramount in how this is all shaped up and developed? Or do you think it will be the vast team of people in Progressive Enterprises or Countdown—how do you think that distinction will work?
So what you’ll have, which is typical of all regulation, is that mostly regulation supports the big players. It’s in the interest of the big players and usually makes it more difficult for small businesses to compete, because the more cumbersome they are, the more difficult it is to deal with. The more management expertise that is required to handle it, the bigger the systems that are required to manage it. The more regulation there is, the more the big organisations do well and they manage it—they complain about it; it doesn’t mean they don’t complain about it. They’ll always complain about it, but actually it suits them vis-à-vis the small person, the small operator who is just scrambling, trying to figure out who’s going to be on the checkout because so-and-so is sick today and the other one’s not available, and they’re scrambling around trying to just keep the business going and they’re trying to sort of come up with and deal with these regulations.
Then secondly, it’s not only just dealing with the regulations; it’s also who shapes them and for whose benefit, because it doesn’t, again, take very much imagination to think that an organisation that has 10,000 employees may well be able to cope with—we’ll come later to all the mandatory things that have to be included in the fair pay agreement. And, you know, it’s all around our penal rates. It’s around this, that, and the other thing: leave entitlements and health and safety requirements—all sorts of things that an organisation with 10,000 employees might be able to cope with. It might be all sorts of rules around tea breaks and how often you have to do this and how often you have to do that. If you’ve got 10,000 employees you might be able to cope with it well; if you’ve got two employees, it would be an absolute total nightmare and very difficult to deal with.
So what we have is on the one hand, this Government says it’s going to get tough on the big guys and we’re going to break up the duopolies and we’re going to bring in more competition. On the other hand, they’re passing legislation every month—every month—that actually makes it easier for the big guys vis-à-vis the little ones. If you wanted another example, and I pray the indulgence of the chair for a moment, it would be how the COVID regulations worked for the supermarkets. For example, the supermarkets kept going and all their little competitors, the fruit and veggie shops, are shut down and just about go bust. And so, “Oops, there’s an issue, but anyway, we’ll come back and we’re going to get tough on the supermarkets and we’re going to be tough on competition.” So the complete muddle-headedness of their approach to regulation when it comes to competition consequences is laid bare in this.
So what I’m getting round to, is I’d like to hear from the Minister what thought, if any, he gave to the competition consequences of this, because I’m sure he would have got a lot of advice on this and he would have thought very carefully about it. How do you design a system in a disparate occupation or industry level, which, you know, again, thinking of it in those examples of checkout operators which spans from the big supermarkets, massive well-organised industry through to tiny little shops, mum and dad operations who have their little EFTPOS machine, and they’ve got a couple of casual employees. You’re trying to come up with a system that suits all of them, and you’ve got a cumbersome, expensive system with lawyers and QCs and everything like that, trying to organise how they’re going to set up the system. And you’ve got under clause 92F the obligation to do “best endeavours to represent” the collective interests of all these employees. I don’t think for a moment that the collective interests of all those little players scattered around the country are going to be represented at all by them, and the “best endeavours” will be a joke. They can’t be anything other than a joke because it’s just too hard and not practical.
So I’m keen to hear from the Minister as to how he has thought about that implication, and it would take a bit of a mind-set shift for him to think about that. But I’d be interested to know what advice he’s had and whether he’d given thought to particular ways that he can deal with that particular issue that I’m raising, in terms of entitlements and obligations and the best endeavours that need to be taken.
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Part 5 very specifically deals with bargaining arrangements between the parties, in respect of the fair pay agreements regime. It doesn’t speak at all to questions, which might be useful in a different environment, around competition between large and small firms. So I’ll let those comments lie.
In amongst that 10 minutes, there was one pertinent question that relates to Part 5, and that was about the best endeavours obligations of bargaining sides to employers. I do note that those obligations are mirrored on the other bargaining side from the unions to the employees that they represent. The short answer to the member’s question is that if we move from clause 92F(1) to clause 92F(2), the best endeavours requirements are clearly described: “To comply with subsection (1), the employer bargaining side must use its best endeavours to … (a) provide regular updates … (b) give all covered employers the opportunity to provide feedback … (c) consider, during bargaining, all feedback”, and then a number of other items. So that best endeavours obligation is very clearly set out in the part that is before us.
STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill, but I want to talk about clause 92D, “Obligation to ensure representation of Māori employees”: “Each employee bargaining side for a proposed FPA must use its best endeavours to ensure that Māori employees are represented effectively in the bargaining process, including by (a) seeking and considering feedback from representatives of Māori employees; and (b) considering whether the bargaining side should include a member to represent the interests of Māori employees.”
Why, if this is a best interest and is a collective piece of legislation, is one group singled out in the legislation? What about other groups? Surely that flies in the face of the whole collective bargaining rationale for this bill. It doesn’t make any sense, if you’re putting one group above others in this legislation. It’s quite clear in here, and it’s quite worrying, actually. What about other groups? There are other minorities; there are actually majorities that could be disadvantaged. Why would you put that in legislation, unless there’s some rationale in there that one group is going to be given an advantage over the other?
I don’t understand the thinking process that went into that. Who did the Minister consult with before allowing that clause to go through? Did the Minister seek to have that put in the legislation, or was it put there by officials and it just merely slipped past the goalie? I don’t know; I don’t understand it. It’s not a common thing to have in legislation. I think it’s quite divisive, actually. It seems like a lot of the policies that this Government is bringing forward in what they, I would imagine, I assume, is a very good process to be all encompassing, and, in fact, all it is doing is doing actually the opposite. It is seeking to divide us. It is putting people into different groups and lining them up against one another. That’s not how you deal with relations in this country. I think it’s a very worrying trend, and it’s just outrageous.
But, perhaps, the Minister—I would like him to get some advice from his officials and inform the committee as to what the rationale was behind this clause in the legislation. I don’t see anything in here that says anything about women. I don’t see anything in here about Scotsmen or any other ethnic group—Pasifika, Asian groups, anything like that. It’s outrageous we’re even talking about this, but it’s here in the legislation and it needs to be addressed. The Minister has chosen what he’s got to get up on his feet about; I think this is one clause in the bill that needs to be addressed.
ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to carry on from my colleague Paul Goldsmith, but in a new and different clause, 92C—so that’s the equal and opposite clause. So where my colleague Paul Goldsmith was talking about the employer side, this is the equal and opposite side for the employees.
So, basically, this section requires the employee bargaining side to represent, or to use their best endeavours, again, to represent the collective interests of all the covered employees, whether or not they are members of a union. So my question to the Minister—and he traversed through clause 92F, where it says what best endeavours means—but my question here is when you’ve got a bargaining side that is a union, they’ve got divided interests, they’ve got the interests of their members, but they’re also, under this part, supposed to give equal rights to the people who are not their members but are other employees who are part of the bargaining process. And I understand that it says here what they’re supposed to do: “provide regular updates”, “give all covered employees”—whether they’re union members or not—“the opportunity to provide feedback”; that’s great. Then it says that they have to consider all the feedback received. But where it stops is that it’s completely silent around what they need to do with that feedback.
So, clearly, here, you will have a conflict between the unions and their members and the other employees who are not covered by the union but are still subject and part of the bargaining process. So where you may have non-union employees giving their feedback as part of this, and the feedback being acknowledged and received and considered—there’s nothing in here to state that, as far as I can see, and maybe the Minister can point it out if I’ve missed it. But there’s nothing in here in between, say, subclause (2)(c) and (d) of clause 92C to actually require the union to do anything with the consideration of that feedback. So my point here is that there is quite clearly going to be, in some instances, a conflict of interest between the two types of members: the members and the non-members. If the non-members’ views and feedback and wants are different than the union members’, then what requirement does the union have, other than just to consider the feedback of the non-members, to actually act and bring those forward in the negotiations? Because it’s not laid out here, and it’s not clear to me, and it may well be the same for the employer’s side as well; I’m not looking at that at the moment, I’m just looking at clause 92C.
So my specific question to the Minister is: what happens in the case where a union has its members and non-members who have different feedback and different points of view? What is the requirement on the union, who, if they are the bargaining party, and the only bargaining party, to equally put forward both of the views of the members and the non-members when they are conflicting? Because it looks like, in the bill, all they have to do is to provide the update in clause 92C(2)(a) and, then, in (b), to give the opportunity for feedback, and, then, in (c), to consider it.
What it feels like is missing there is a new subclause 92(ca) which says, “then put forward equally the views of both the members and the non-members if those views are divergent and different”. And I suppose that the point, here, is that there is a possibility for conflict when those views are divergent and there is no provision as to what the bargaining party, if it is the union, should do in that case. I’d be interested in the Minister’s explanation as to whether or not he’s thought of that, whether there is anything in here that, potentially, I’ve missed that would address that, or what the union would be required to do if they’ve got a divided interest, in this case. Thank you.
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): For the member who has just resumed her seat, the two key things for the member to be aware of: firstly, the wording of “all covered employees”, in clause 92C, states in very clear terms that the obligations of 92C of the employee bargaining side apply to all employees who are covered, irrespective of their union membership or not.
The member can also read this clause in concert with the good-faith obligations as they apply to the employer bargaining side, which make no distinction in respect of the good-faith obligations of that employee bargaining side to all of the employees who are covered by the fair pay agreement, regardless of the union membership. There is no distinction that the employee bargaining side can make—under this, they have to represent, in good faith, those interests, regardless of membership.
In respect of Mr Smith’s question, I’m very sorry to hear that he considers it “outrageous” for there to be consideration of Māori interests when fair pay agreement bargaining sides are being established. The Government does not believe that that is outrageous; we believe that it is reasonable and appropriate, given the significant inequalities that new Māori employees face and the Treaty obligations that we hold, bearing in mind that fair pay agreements will be given effect via a piece of secondary legislation. I note that these provisions are facilitative; they are not required. They simply ask for the parties to give consideration to these factors, it is then up to them what they would do. I also note that this was an issue that was raised by hardly anyone—employee, employer, or any other submitter—during the select committee process. But it’s perhaps no surprise that the National Party in its current temper is attracted to the issue.
CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d also like to go back to clause 92D, Minister, in relation to my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). While I do agree with a lot of what Mr Smith said, I accept that it might have been pushing it a little bit far for this Government at the moment.
My SOP would just like to replace, where it states “Māori employees”, to “employees who have identified themselves as Māori”. I think it just makes a lot of sense. A lot of businesses, especially small businesses, don’t carry that information, and finding out whether or not—how do you do that? Do you go round and ask? It’s just fraught with issues that I don’t think employers should have to face.
Also, in relation to a similar thing, clause 92G, identifying representatives of Māori employers, we’d just like that deleted. Identifying what are undefined as Māori employers will, again, prove difficult, and potentially be used to gain an advantage in the bargaining.
While I’m here, can we look at clause 92F(2)(f): “if the proposed FPA covers employees of a private sector employer and an employer bargaining party on the bargaining side is aware that the private sector employer regularly receives [funding from either local government or central government]”. We believe that “significant funding” is more appropriate in that area, otherwise we’ll be dealing with just lots of little wee contracts that the Government departments and local bodies deal with. So, if you can consider that, it’d be appreciated. Thank you.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I want to take up the reply from the Minister, who casually dismissed the competition elements that I was raising as not relevant to Part 5 or to the bill.
Clearly there isn’t a meeting of minds and clearly the Minister and his Government don’t seem to think that there can be competition consequences from regulations that they pass. That’s what I’m asking him to think about. Because this clause, 92F, is saying that employers, in the process, are required to form one group to represent all employers as part of the bargaining process, and that clause represents the obligations on the employer bargaining side and how it relates to all the other employers who may be included in them.
What I’m arguing is, notwithstanding all the things that are listed—that they must do and that they must operate with good faith and they must provide regular updates, and they must give all covered employees this, and they must consider all this, and they must advise employers all that, and then when the information comes back, they should consider all these things—we do live in the real world.
And notwithstanding all that and they do all that, the reality is that the consequence of that is it will be dominated by the big players. Notwithstanding all the obligations and best endeavours, the smaller players will inevitably have less say in how these fair pay agreements that will control and dominate and will have obligations across all employers, large and small—that the smaller operators will inevitably have less influence over the shaping of those agreements. And the larger players will inevitably in practicality—like they have in every other state of regulation throughout the history of the universe, including here—have greater input into how they are shaped.
So what I’m asking him to consider is what competition consequences there will be for that. I’m putting it to him that they will be substantial. And I’m putting it to him that they conflict with the stated aims of a whole bunch of other Government policies, which are claiming to be focused on weakening or constraining the power of the large duopoly powers—in the context of the supermarkets, for example—using the powers of competition, law, and the Commerce Commission.
On the one hand, they’re trying to do that, but at the same time, they’re bringing in legislation that will apply to the working conditions of everybody in, say, the supermarket checkout. The checkout operators, if they were to become under a fair pay agreement, will have an impact on all those employees and all those operations, large and small. And I’m putting it to him that it will be the big operators that dominate that framework.
Notwithstanding all—you can all stand up and say, “Well, yes, under 92F(2)(e) that the employer group needs to consider whether all interest groups of covered employees are recognised and given the opportunity to provide feedback.” And, yes, they will tick that box. They and the larger operators—with all their advisers and lawyers and QCs and whatever—will tick the box and they will ensure that under 92(2)(d), they will advise all covered employees of any ratification votes and they’ll do that. But how practically they’ll find them all, I’m not sure. We still haven’t got a clear answer on how they’re going to actually find the small little operation in Haast and the other one in Balclutha and one in Chatham Islands and how they’re going to find them all and effectively communicate with them. But once they have found them and they’ve given their views and they’ve said, “Actually, we need more flexibility here. And we don’t want it that way,” they’ll consider it.
Well, what does that mean, “they’ll consider it”? I bet they’ll consider it and they’ll think, “Well, actually, no. I think we’ll prefer it to arrange things in a way that suits us. And if we’re a large organisation with 10,000 employees, there’s a whole lot of things that will suit us a lot differently to the small operators.” So what I’m asking is: has he considered the consequences for competition from this legislation?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair. In response to Mr Baillie’s contributions, the Government does not agree to those Supplementary Order Papers for the reasons that I’ve outlined in respect of Māori representation within the process.
In terms of 92F(2)(f), which he also raises, this clause is about ensuring that in situations, particularly in the funded sector where it might be an NGO or private sector employer, but it is ultimately Crown funding, that there is a clear link between the bargaining process and the funder to ensure that there is a rational discussion and an ability to actually meet any expectations or commitments that are made within the bargaining process. So we think that retaining that clause is important. And I think, by definition and just through reasonable practice, there will be a significant threshold there. It’s not going to become a big issue if there is only a small amount of funding at stake.
In respect of Mr Goldsmith’s coming back again to his concerns around big and small employers, I do note that at many points over the course of this debate, he has spoken—and his colleagues—glowingly about the role of employer associations and representing the legitimate interests and concerns of employers. Yet in this part of the debate, he seems to have no faith and confidence that they will be willing or able to represent the interests of small employers.
I believe that they will, and I also note that there is a clear obligation in this legislation, in this part, whereby they have to represent the interests of all employers. And there was a clear good faith obligation and those obligations, ultimately, are things that can be tested if anyone does not believe that they have been followed.
TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Look, I just wanted to pick on the comments that the Minister made there with relation to the representation for Māori employees, and particularly around clause 92C, which talks to the entitlement and obligation to represent covered employees: “When bargaining for a proposed FPA, an employee bargaining side for the proposed FPA is entitled to represent, and must use its best endeavours to represent, the collective interests of all covered employees, whether or not each employee is a member of a union.” So I’m interested to hear from the Minister which part of the collective interests of all covered employees, whether or not each employee is a member of the union, excludes Māori from representation? Because quite clearly, to me, that includes everyone, because it specifically states “all”, and so there would, of course, then, be no need for a separate clause, and it just simply presents the opportunity for conflicts of interest, which has been raised by other contributors.
I also want to come to, then, contrary to that, on the employer side, clause 92G, which was picked up by other contributors. But the aspect that I want to focus on here is the ambiguity around what are considered Māori employers. So clause 92G, “Obligation to ensure representation of Māori employers”, is that employers who are themselves Māori or employers who employ Māori employees? It’s ambiguous, and is not necessarily the same. So I’m interested to understand which of those it is and, indeed, what classifies a Māori employer in the context of the scale of a potential business. So some definition around that, given that they’ve gone to the effort to make it a specific stand-alone clause—indeed, the only carve-out for any ethnicity or special group based on gender or any other aspect. So why have they done that? And on what basis, then, is that definition decided?
But actually, I also want to pick up on and expand on the comments that Mr Goldsmith made around fair representation, and particularly with the knowledge that—and this may be news for the Minister, but most businesses in New Zealand are small businesses, and those small businesses operate in many different ways and all have quite unique, often, considerations within their business. They have different staffing arrangements, different competencies within their teams, and, indeed, would be able to therefore respond under this Act in different mechanisms. Under clause 92(2)(d)—so this is talking about during bargaining, if one side requests information—if, for example, the employee side requested information, getting that information could be much more challenging for those small employers who do not necessarily have the depth of resource within their management team, if, indeed, they have a management team to be able to find and supply that information in a timely manner without interrupting normal business operations. So clause 92(2)(d) specifies a reasonable time, but my point here is that is highly subjective and varies based on the size of the business. So I’m interested in the Minister’s consideration of “reasonable time” in that context and the implications for small versus large businesses and their ability to respond.
Moving forward also to clause 92A(4), the information requested, if it’s considered confidential, then having an independent reviewer come in to make a determination on that, I’d like to understand how that independent reviewer is chosen—and, indeed, how they are defined—what is considered independent, and how the Minister will have confidence that they then, as an independent reviewer, have the competence to understand and determine whether or not a particular piece of information supplied should or should not be considered confidential, and the process of the fair pay agreement bargaining agreement.
So those are probably the key aspects that I wanted to touch on, particularly from the small business perspective, just reiterating that for the Minister: the variation of size and ability to respond, the nature of the independent reviewer, and, indeed, the classification of what is or isn’t a Māori business, given that they have gone to the efforts of specifying that in legislation. Thank you.
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In response to Mr van de Molen’s two lines of inquiry, I do not believe that the provisions in this bill for bargaining sides to consider whether Māori interests should be represented at the table in any way conflict with the fundamental duty to represent the interests of all employers on one side and all employees on the other side. The member can think of it this way: the fact that we have Māori seats represented in this House to ensure that there is Māori representation in this House does not in any way interfere or undercut the fundamental duty that all members have to this House and to the people that we serve.
In respect of his question about information being provided in clause 92A, the key point to be aware of here is that it is an information request about bargaining sides. It is not about individual employers. It is, effectively, about one bargaining side being able to request information from the other bargaining side. It doesn’t go down the chain to individual employers. Again, I point out that this provision is, effectively, a lift from the Employment Relations Act, which covers collective bargaining, which, of course, the National Party left in place for the nine years that it was in office.
SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): I move, That the question be now put.
ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Mr Chair.
Tim van de Molen: Mr Chair.
ERICA STANFORD: Mr Chair—please.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Erica Stanford.
ERICA STANFORD: Thank you, Mr Chair—I asked very nicely. Mr Chair, I want to raise a new topic, and it’s something that actually relates to the whole bill, but I can make it apply to Subpart 1A in Part 4. The point of the bill is to set a floor, a wage floor—
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I expect that’ll be Part 5.
ERICA STANFORD: Sorry, Part 5, I said the wrong thing—Part 5. In clause 92C, the bargaining side, whoever they might be, if it’s a union or some other employee association, is representing everybody, and in this case they may well be representing migrant workers. There are some sectors where migrant workers hold a lot of those positions—if you think about security, retail, gas station attendants, care workers—that may be included in fair pay agreements (FPAs). The question I’ve got for the Minister is: how is it going to come, when the bargaining is happening, that we’re setting a price floor, effectively, for one group of people where another group, who are covered by clause 92C and will be represented by the union or whoever else that’s on that bargaining side, who have a completely separate wage floor—because as we now know, the new visa, the Accredited Employer Work Visa, requires that in almost all cases the migrant worker needs to be paid the median wage, which next year will be $29.66, which is relatively high. So when we are going into bargaining for, let’s say, gas station attendants or security guards who are traditionally earning much, much less than that, maybe just a little bit over the minimum wage, how is it going to be that the bargaining parties will take that information and use it?
Now, I understand that this doesn’t mean that people can’t be paid more—I get that—but you are going to have two classes of people who, effectively, have different price floors. Now, I’ve brought this up with the Minister in the chair, Michael Wood, before in select committee and he really didn’t answer the question as to how this would be dealt with, because you’ve effectively got a union or someone on the employee bargaining side that is representing both a migrant and a non-migrant who will have completely separate wage floors. How that’s going to play out is of interest, and I’d like the Minister to explain how the bargaining parties will treat that and how they will come to any floor below $29.66.
We have to remember that migrants work in almost every sector, and they do work in a lot of these low-paid sectors, and so if they’re effectively on the median wage, what happens in the bargaining? Does that then push the bargaining position up from, let’s say, just over the minimum wage to the median wage of what will next year be $29.66? It seems like a very odd position to be in when the two parties are bargaining for, effectively, two classes of people. Surely, that means in that bargaining situation that the employee side would have a very good case to say, well, actually, migrant workers make up a large section of this workforce who are, effectively, paid a much higher rate. Would that not then push up the bargaining to the median wage of $29.66, which, in a lot of these cases, if you think about the cleaner in Haast that we’ve been talking about all day, or the superette owners up in the Hokianga, may well put them out of business, if they were to pay all their employees at the median wage, which is extremely high.
So the question for the Minister is: did he consider this? How will it be the case in clause 92C that the bargaining party—a union or someone else—can represent both of these views? And how will it affect the bargaining when it comes to bargaining for those two different wages?
I’ll just, before I finish, Mr Chair, make the point that it’s very noisy in here, if you could potentially quieten it down.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Yeah, just before I give a call, can I just—appreciate that normally during committee stage, the Chamber is slightly less full than this. Could members just, in their chats, be aware that it is a little bit harder to hear, so taking that into account, please.
MARJA LUBECK (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.
Motion agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Minister’s amendments to Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 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.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Chris Baillie’s amendment to clause 92D set out on Supplementary Order Paper 268 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 Chris Baillie’s amendments to clause 92F set out on Supplementary Order Paper 269 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 (Greg O’Connor): Chris Baillie’s amendment to delete clause 92G set out on Supplementary Order Paper 270 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. Chris Baillie’s amendment to Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 266 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 5 as amended 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.
Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Part 6 Content of fair pay agreements
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we now come to Part 6. This is the debate on clauses 114 to 129, “Content of fair pay agreements”. The question is that Part 6 stand part.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I do want to start the discussion on Part 6 of the bill on the fair pay agreement. I’m just conscious of the fact that there is a crowd here that seem to have come along to hear the valedictory—
Hon Chris Hipkins: They’re all for you.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Oh well, I’m glad they’ve come along to hear the discussion we’re having on the fair pay agreement. We’re on our fifth hour of the committee stage of the fair pay agreement. We don’t agree with the fair pay agreement—it might surprise members who have come along—and we want to repeal this bill if we happen to win the election at this time next year. I’m conscious also of the fact that many of the supporters of Trevor Mallard might have a union background, and so there may be—I can’t help but feel a little hostility in the context of that.
We’re going to hear from the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard very soon. I would like to relay a story. I did play for the parliamentary rugby side one time in Stokes Valley, where that member used to hold the seat, and I do recall going down on the ball one night. I went down on the ball and I received a very strong knee into my back behind a very heavy person, and it has often occurred to me whether or not he’d had any encouragement from the said Rt Hon Trevor Mallard. But it was very painful, and I just wanted to relay that little story to the committee just to rebalance some of the views that no doubt we will be hearing from Trevor Mallard.
Now, coming to this point—
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, perhaps, Mr Goldsmith, you could have some encouragement to come to Part 6 of the bill, please.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I’m coming to this part. Now, this part of the bill is actually a critical part of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill, because it includes a list of things that must be included in a fair pay agreement. Now, we say it’s misnamed—fair pay agreements. They’re not fair pay agreements; they’re mandatory union deals that all businesses have to take if a very small minority of the workforce take part.
But it includes a long list of things that need to be included in a fair pay deal, and that is: hours of work, which type of work is covered, the details of wages to be paid, minimum base rates, penalty rates, payment for overtime penalty rates—a whole lot of things that need to be included in a fair pay deal. What’s not included anywhere in this bill is any reference to the productivity of the firm, and I have included an amendment to this legislation which would include and require that this be amended to include a reference to the productivity of the firm.
If you’re forced to have a conversation about a deal that would apply to every—say, if we’re taking the example of cleaners, it would involve the very big corporate cleaners in Auckland and also a mum and dad operation in Haast with one employee, for example, and another one up in the Hokianga with two employees, for example. So it’s a wide spread of businesses, and it’s got to include everything. It’s all got to include a whole bunch of things in relation to penal rates and hours of work and a whole bunch of things that will add cost to the business, but nowhere in the negotiation of this fair pay agreement—miscalled—is there any reference to the productivity of the firm, and I don’t think that any New Zealander would be surprised to know that we are concerned.
Ultimately, if we’re trying to raise wages and we’re trying to raise living standards, yes, legislation can be passed by this—
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Goldsmith, enchanting as we are, unfortunately the time has come for me to leave the Chair and report progress.
Progress to be reported.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): 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.
Valedictory StatementsValedictory Statement
Valedictory StatementsValedictory Statement
SPEAKER: Members, I will indicate now that at the conclusion of the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard’s valedictory statement, the House will adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 25 October 2022, so that I don’t have to interrupt the celebrations that will occur at the end of that speech.
Members, in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, I call on the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard to make his valedictory speech.
Rt Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour): Kātahi anō au ka wātea ki te mihi ki a koe e te Mana Whakawā i te tūranga hou.
[Now for the first time I am free to acknowledge you, Mr Speaker, in your new role.]
I’ve had the honour of being unanimously elected as a presiding officer three times. Ka rawe tō mahi ki a koe hei kaiako mōku. [You were an excellent teacher for me.]
Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.
[Greetings, greetings, greetings one all.]
I came to this place with a mission: to make New Zealand a more inclusive, more prosperous, and a better country. My talk today will involve some thanks, some anecdotes, and a bit of preaching—not much of that preaching will be to the choir!
I joined the Labour Party 50 years ago next month, after watching Norman Kirk speak. My mother’s family had benefited from the first Labour State house building programme. A secure, warm home meant the world of difference to that poor family during the Depression; allowing them to buy it, after living in it for decades, was a good thing. Members of my father’s family were actively involved in the union movement, including with Standing True in 1951. None of my grandparents had a secondary education, and Peter Fraser made a big difference for my parents.
I did some work in that election in 1975 for David Shand, who’s with us today. David was part of the caucus that elected the Kirk Cabinet a few days after the election, but he lost on the specials. I became more active after the 1981 election loss and helped build a large branch at Taumarunui. Our home became a meeting place for both wings of the Labour movement. We got to know David Lange and Helen Clark because they stayed with us. There wasn’t as much money for travel in those days.
I became a candidate in late 1983 in Hamilton West. All four of us were opposed to Muldoon, but even Mike Minogue’s maverick independence didn’t save him from the tide. The Hamilton West Labour team was a real mixture of New Zealand society: academics and unionists, World War II veterans and those imprisoned as conscientious objectors, feminists and those who thought that blue movie evenings were an appropriate way to fund-raise—forwarding those funds to the Women’s Refuge and returning the cheque to the company who wanted to mine the Coromandel conservation estate set an ongoing tone for the team. The tide going out in 1990 meant that I missed the opportunity to place my thanks on the parliamentary record; I do that now for the late “Skip” Fraser, Martin Wallace, Linda Holmes, and Mike Law, who led in various ways.
My first day here is etched in my memory. I was walking along the select committee corridor with my younger daughter, when Sir Robert came the other way. He was still the Prime Minister. In fact, it took a brave intervention from Jim McClay to get him to follow constitutional conventions. No police. No staffers. That’s the way it was in those days: the Prime Minister just wandered around. Two-year-old Beth sighted Sir Robert and called out “Daddy! Daddy! There’s ‘Piggy’ Muldoon!” His response: “Ha, ha, ha! What’s your name, little girl?” Later in Copperfields, he pointed at me and said in his stage whisper, “Who’s that one, McKinnon?” “That’s Mallard, Prime Minister; he beat Minogue.” “Oh, good on him. We’d better send him a bottle of whisky, hadn’t we?” Like many Muldoon promises, delivery never ensued.
I’d like to thank some people. First to you, Prime Minister. Of all the colleagues I’ve worked with, you’ve made the biggest difference. You’ve had challenges like no other. But I’m pleased now that your policies are beginning to get some substantive analysis. The recent report on Healthy Homes shows how reducing child hospitalisation rates can be done. Anyone who is in touch with their local communities can see the house building that is occurring, much of it is social housing. We all know new apprentices. Local schools tell me the difference that access to mental health services is making. None of these things happen overnight, but they are happening. Thank you for making clear your expectations of MP behaviour, following the Francis report, and your support in putting the commissioner into place. The era of sweeping matters under the carpet in this place is coming to an end.
Your kindness is evident to all, but what I also see is the preparation and the competence—the contrast with what I see far too often here and it’s a combination of lazy high school debating styles and reading boring research unit notes. Both are far too common in this Chamber.
I think there must be something in the water of the Leader of the Opposition’s office, and I will say I have warned the three previous Leaders of the Opposition who are in the room of this line. With the exception of John Key, everyone who has assumed that role in the last quarter of a century has seemingly lost the ability to listen in this House, and to respond with spontaneity and nimbleness. Prime Minister, I’m pleased you skipped that role.
I’ve been married to two women who’ve been very supportive of me. In my generation, the wives are often the partner who would have been the better MP. Steph was in that category. My biggest regret is that I caused my first marriage to fail in a way that was catastrophic for my family.
Jane picked me up from the scrap heap. Her income dropped when she took up with me and she could no longer use me in her colour pieces. It dropped even further when we got married and the Dominion Post decided that every piece she wrote had to note that fact. She stopped writing for them, and their circulation has been dropping ever since.
At some stage, we do have to have a discussion as to whether the base assumption is that spouses share confidential and privileged information with each other, or that they behave professionally. Frankly, I spent too much of my time in the sensitive compartmented information facility being briefed on national security matters that I find the suggestion that I would pass on MPs’ confidential information to my spouse particularly insulting.
My children are all really talented in their different ways, and over the last 13 years I’ve been lucky to have seven grandchildren; four of them born in Galway and four now living here. The seven-year-old—then-seven-year-old immigrant when she arrived here—called me “Mr Talker”! And following a meeting with Helen Clark and the current PM, she asked: “Can men be Prime Minister in New Zealand?”
The weekly toddlers swimming sessions in the parliamentary pool have helped me get to know my only Wellington-born grandchild, and I want to thank the Copperfields staff for their tolerance when he worked out how to turn the lights off. There were a few occasions when the MPs there were all literally in the dark.
Mum and my late father were great supporters. Mum was worth at least 200 votes every election. She collected the sick votes. I’m pretty sure that some of the oldies would feign illness just to get a visit from Mum. Dad played the Tory interjector at a couple of debate training sessions for Helen. He did it too well and he wasn’t invited back. The three of us together, and then Mum and I, had lunch on sitting Tuesdays at the Backbencher for over 30 years. It was very grounding. My siblings have been there for me too; too often called upon at the low points rather than sharing the highs.
Thanks too for those that have encouraged me to bike. I was 15 kilos heavier when Heather Kirkham took me under her wing, and Heather tells me I’ve only got 15 to go.
Helen Clark was a confidante, and we got to know each other’s foibles. Helen was never a morning person. I worked out the best way to have good Cabinet committees was to have lattes delivered at 9.30 and 11. They were amongst the best investments I ever made. One of Helen’s biggest achievements was to rid the Labour Party of factionalism, which meant that ideas are now treated on their merits, not on the basis of who was promoting them in the mindless way that hobbles both the Australian and British Labour Parties. David McGee, Geoffrey Palmer, and Don McKinnon all helped me understand and love this place. There was a messenger called Trevor who did the evening shift over by the Speaker’s door. He gave me running guidance on points of order, with a quiet nod, “you’re heading in the right direction”, or a shake, “no, you’re down the wrong track.”
Hon Chris Hipkins: Did he ever nod?
Rt Hon TREVOR MALLARD: He did nod quite often! But one thing that I can say is that he had a better understanding of the Standing Orders than either Sir Basil Arthur or Gerry Wall, who were the Speakers in my first term. Basil was a freezing worker, he was a Ministry of Works tunneller, but he is also a hereditary baron and entitled to sit in the House of Lords. Gerry was one of the doctors who treated drug addiction, and at 6 o’clock there was a queue at the Speaker’s door, out in the alley, of addicts waiting for their daily methadone drink. He was himself a nicotine addict and had about a 40-minute limit in the Chair. The last part of question time was always interesting!
I was Michael Cullen’s Associate Minister of Finance. We became close and looked after each other when things weren’t going that well. He got me to read all his Treasury papers with my black hat on—apparently it got on pretty easily—identifying the gaps, the dangers, and the misplaced decimal points. I also had the expenditure control role. It was my job to tell colleagues that their logical, well-developed bids that were consistent with party policy were not going to get funding.
Every Budget had a surplus. I laughed out loud recently when I heard a $10 billion deficit being described as being “awash with cash.” The final results were often significantly better, generally because employment was higher and numbers on benefits were lower than Treasury forecast. Michael blocked efforts to improve the model because he wanted to keep his fiscal headroom. In retrospect, I think we would have been a bit better if we’d loosened up on health and, certainly, on housing expenditure; both areas suffered, but, of course, not to the extent that they suffered later.
Annette King and I were bench mates from 1984 to 1987, right back in the corner—there. Throughout my career, she’s been a very good friend. She’s been doing a brilliant job in Australia, and she’s been giving me plenty of tips. It’s great to see how happy she’s been since she’s teamed up with Ray. Annette and I didn’t always agree on policy; she was fiscally dry, except when it came to her portfolios. Annette went into Cabinet just before the Lange resignation. At the time, two-thirds of the Labour caucus wanted Lange to be leader, and two-thirds wanted Douglas to be finance Minister, so about a third really believed in fairies. Helen and I spent some time with David at his home in Māngere, unsuccessfully trying to talk him into staying on.
Being around for a long time means that lots of staff have worked with me, some for as long as 15 years. I’m naming those who’ve spent six or more years with me because I can’t think of a way of doing a fair, subjective criteria. So thank you, Eileen Sutter and Shona Robb, who were the mainstays of my electorate office; Jen Toogood and Carly Bromley, who bore the brunt of organising me as a backbencher; Sharon Girven, who led a superb ministerial office team that included Malcolm Bill, Charlotte Hughes-Johnson, Sharon Ellis, Astrid Smeele, and Bill Moran.
Bill, with Katherine Rich, drove the establishment of Parliament Education Charitable Trust. Nearly 60 MPs have been assisted with study, ranging from remedial reading through institutive directors’ courses, to postgraduate university study. Thanks, too, to those who led the local Labour team in different ways: Barry Ebert, the late Kenny Barclay, Angela Fookes, Sharon Cole, and Anaru Ryall.
The people who run this place are underrated, some by the Remuneration Authority. Thank you, David Wilson, Rafael Gonzalez-Montero, the actual organisers, Andie Lindsay and Roland Todd, and the rest of your teams. I want to say a special thanks to the low-paid staff who keep this place running. I was very pleased when we became the first State sector workplace to adopt the living wage.
Because I’ve been an MP for a long time, it’s inevitable that I’ve met some interesting international leaders: Gromyko, Rajiv Gandhi, Colin Powell, Mandela, Thatcher, and the late Queen could all get little chapters, or maybe footnotes in some cases, for me. But what I valued much more from travelling is getting to appreciate colleagues from the other side of the House. Philip Burdon, John Luxton the younger, and Barbara Kuriger have all taught me much more about international trade and the dairy industry than papers ever could have. The work that Barbara did earlier this year with Italian, Polish, and Irish farming groups could well make a difference when it comes to the ratification of the EU trade agreement, and what I like is the way that Kiwis work together so well when they’re offshore.
George Gair was a journalist at the end of World War II. In the USSR, he explained to us the beginning of the Cold War from a New Zealand perspective, something that’s just as relevant—in fact, more relevant now, probably, than it was at that time. He also provided a direct example of the intrusiveness of Soviet surveillance. Pre-perestroika Moscow hotels were very inefficient. We all took our own bath plugs, because there was nothing for the bath or the hand basins, but we expected our towels would be changed. After four days of requests, George addressed the chandelier in our lounge. He said, “I do not believe that the first country in the world to put a man into space cannot deliver towels to a hotel room.”; 20 minutes later, they arrived.
We’ve made some progress here in recent years. Our buildings are more family- and dog-friendly. Our prayer is no longer the Anglican one. The grounds of buildings are more welcoming to the public. We mostly treat each other better, but we have more work to do.
Our select committees used to lead the world, but I think they’ve become rubber stamps for Governments. Members form the legislative branch and they should take responsibility for legislation. Reform isn’t hard. They should sit more. Recesses used to be called select committee weeks. Submitters were heard—half an hour or an hour, if they had something really important to say. Committee membership should be based the same way as questions—based on the number of non-executive members the party has, similarly to chairs. Departments have got to realise that when they are advising committees, they are advising committees and not the Minister. Submitters to committees need to know that their submissions will be treated on their merits by committees, not vetoed by a political adviser in a Minister’s office, who is often breaching privilege by merely being in position of the committee material. Ministers should trust the process. Let the committees do their work, and if, in the end, they don’t like the result, then they can change the bill at the committee of the whole House stage. The Government has the power to pass legislation here; it should trust the select committees to try and improve it.
One fascinating bit of advocacy work I did in my first term was at the behest of a friend who was working for Médecins Sans Frontières in the Sudan. He alerted me to Simon, a nurse who worked with him, whose family who, as a result of the Ethiopian-Eritrean war, had been scattered for a period of nine years. The boys, Habin and Salem, were in a German Catholic orphanage. His wife, Zewdi, worked as a domestic in Saudi Arabia. None of them had documents. Kerry Burke issued them with temporary documentation and they made their way to New Zealand. The children didn’t have a common language with their parents. What that taught me is that Ministers have discretion and it’s really good to exercise it with compassion.
I’ve lived, for two thirds of my life, in Wainuiōmata. The population grew from a few hundred, when I was young, and we were briefly a city—Michael Bassett got to us. It was a community with a clear boundary and intergenerational networks. My father played interclub mixed doubles tennis with Ken and Winnie’s mum in the 1960s. Keith Eddy and Harry Martin led the community teams that built the rugby field, the swimming pool, and the school hall—mainly on Saturdays because almost no one did paid work at the weekends. There was over 90 percent owner-occupied housing in the 1970s. Families used first-home buyer grants, subsidised homeownership schemes, family benefit capitalisation, and State Advances loans at only slightly more than the cost of the borrowing to the State. All of that assistance was removed in the 1980s and, now, nearly 40 percent of homes are owned by landlords, with the inevitable churn, instability, and reduced long-term commitment to the community.
The reforms of the 1980s and 1990s hit our valley hard. Jobs at the railway workshops, car part manufacturing, and car assembly plants all but disappeared, leaving many families in stressed financial circumstances, in danger of losing their homes. Part of my work as an MP at the time was negotiating debt consolidation and mortgage terms—families were much better off if they could stay in their own home rather than rent. It would often involve tense discussions with pastors about unaffordable tithing. The local supermarket was great; it provided extra work, often at nights and weekends, for people who really needed it. And, in just about every case, the banks came to the party—often by stretching the repayment term, and sometimes with a personal guarantee from the local MP. The guarantees were never called upon and those $60,000 homes are now valued at 10 times that.
We currently spend $4.7 billion a year in family tax credits, in work tax credits, and subsidies to landlords that we call the accommodation supplement. We should use the strength of one of the strongest Crown balance sheets in the world, and present value calculations, to make available advance payments, as we did for family benefit capitalisation, for use of partial deposits for Kiwi families. It would involve no extra cost to the Crown in the medium term, a bit of belt tightening for new home owners—but that is always the case and has always been the case. But the education, health, and community benefits would be enormous. The second order savings would be massive.
The time has come to significantly upscale KiwiSaver. The first thing that needs to be done is that the sham that was legislated for by the previous Government, where employees are offered a 3 percent higher salary if they opt out, needs to be reversed. Second, it should be made compulsory—at least for all new entrants to work. Thirdly, we need to look at whether the employer contribution should be a flat rate, rather than a percentage of an individual’s salary. That would make a significant difference to low-paid workers. I would increase the individual contribution rate by half the annual increase in real wages until we can get it up to 10 percent. It would significantly increase our savings culture but give employers the opportunity to be better capitalised and time to look for methods, other than low wages, to boost profitability.
And now for a left-field suggestion. I’ve long been concerned that the Reserve Bank only has one instrument—other than printing money—to wind up or cool down the economy. With so many mortgages being fixed, the cash rate tool has become a bit like using a hammer to fine-tune an electric vehicle. The results are both slow and unpredictable. An extra tool for the Reserve Bank could be to give them discretion over, say, the last 2 percent of individuals’ KiwiSaver contributions. They could increase or decrease net pay almost immediately and, in that way, boost or tighten the economy. It would have a much more immediate effect than interest rates. Most of us would prefer to see a bit more of our incomes go into KiwiSaver than go to banks through increased mortgage rates. And banks, of course, put up mortgage rates at just about the same speed as petrol retailers put up petrol prices and drop them just as slowly. The profits show that.
The policy area that was and is the most important to me is early childhood education. It is where the biggest cognitive and emotional development occurs. It used to be legal for an untrained minimum wage worker to look after 10 babies at once. Just imagine trying to do it. We had a great working group and a good 10-year plan. There are signs of renewed progress with it. However, subsidies currently go too often to companies that are more interested in property development and capital gains than quality early childhood education.
Throughout the education system, the best way of improving the quality of learning is to improve the quality of teaching. That’s why I’ve often agreed with some of my former teacher union colleagues and preferred to invest heavily in teacher professional development rather than focus on improved ratios; Lockwood Smith was partially right. Unfortunately, centrally funded support is easy to cut. It was decimated and, in my opinion, teaching standards have been slipping for more than the last decade as a result of that.
I enjoyed being the Minister for Sport and Recreation. Invitations relating to other portfolios were much more likely to be accepted if they were close to a Silver Ferns, a Black Ferns, or an Otago women’s rugby match. I got to know lots of wonderful people, and occasionally I was able to help.
There was one netballer who needed citizenship to play at the Commonwealth Games. She just didn’t come close to qualifying except by the ministerial discretion that can, in that case, override all of the policy. The then Minister of Internal Affairs wasn’t keen. The departmental advice was very much opposed, 9/11 meant—as a matter of policy—we were tightening up, and the one person my predecessor had promoted had failed a drug test at Kuala Lumpur. Fortunately, in New Zealand, any Minister can act for any other—something Scott Morrison would have appreciated. And the Minister agreed to leave the papers on their desk during dinner. I popped in, I signed them, and a week later, the Government performed Irene’s citizenship ceremony in my office.
In early 2005, the possibility of winning the hosting rights to the 2011 Rugby World Cup looked remote. But it was important as to how we saw ourselves. Failure would have been—you know, being too small to run it—a big blow to the national psyche. We decided the Government would invest heavily in the rugby unions, but our biggest assets were the late Jock Hobbs and the Prime Minister. The other bidders were shocked when we won; we’d been 27-to-one outsiders a few weeks earlier. I was dispatched on a one-day trip to Tokyo for a meeting with the chair of the Japanese rugby union, the former Prime Minister Mori, to give our Government’s assurance that we had not followed the practice of football and the Olympics and bribed the decision makers. I undertook to work with our union to support the Japanese in the future.
Unlike that case, there are some decisions that are important but will never get popular support. I took lots of those decisions. I’ve always had appalling popularity ratings, and never got too anxious about it. I accept that I’m not that good a politician. I closed over 200 schools, including one down the road from home, where I’ve been a foundation pupil, because they were in the wrong place. Population numbers had changed; communities didn’t value them enough to send their children there. But I was never successfully judicially reviewed; I followed the processes. Opposition members promised all the time to reopen them. How many were reopened? None.
I will never forget being ridiculed by members opposite for undertaking to partner with Rocket Lab. I was described as a space cadet—and for those who, you know, are of a different era, that’s someone who is out of touch with reality; generally, drug use was a reason for being so described—for accepting Peter Beck’s view that New Zealand could leverage our good weather, our low concentration of aircraft, and our ingenuity to develop a space industry.
Taxpayer funding for the America’s Cup is another unpopular policy. I’ve never seen a poll, except just after we’d won, where more than 20 percent of Kiwis supported it. Jim Bolger saw the potential, promised support, and was vetoed by Bill Birch. We decided that the equivalent of the PAYE paid by the team would be refunded. There was a condition: they had to be a tax resident in New Zealand. It was viewed with horror by the sailors, who, because of their nomadic lifestyle, had in the past carefully avoided having tax residence anywhere.
We now lead the world in carbon fibre technology, something Rocket Lab is built off. We have hydrogen-powered foiling chase boats, which in the next couple of years will be fashion items. More important are the advances made in computer design and simulation. They’ve attracted the attention of both gamers and those interested in simulation for defence purposes. Again, I’m pretty unusual; I’m ambivalent about where the cup is held. Twice, it’s been good for progressing the Auckland waterfront. In 2003, the team wasn’t up to scratch, but the leverage worked well. New Zealand trade and tourism probably got their best promotion value when they invested in Cowes and Valencia and San Francisco. Leveraging off the team helps us go up-market and reduce our reliance on commodities and low-value tourism.
Those involved in leading the teams have never been popular. They’ve always been difficult people to work with. Peter Blake, Russell Coutts, and Grant Dalton have never, in the end, had good reputations or popular reputations—I know how they feel—in New Zealand. All have been accused of financial irregularities; never has there been the evidence.
Returning with Helen Clark from Sir Peter’s funeral led to an incident which probably put my career at biggest risk—and, given one or two incidents I’ve been involved in, that’s saying quite a lot. We were on a Virgin 747 that had been refurbished—it was actually an old Air New Zealand one, with some of the first lie-down business-class seats. I woke in the middle of the night and saw the Diplomatic Protection Service officer winking at me. I presumed he’d woken me up. I was in what might be described as a compromising position. We hadn’t put the barrier up between the beds. I gently extricated myself, and if Helen noticed, she was kind enough to never mention it.
The time has come for me to say farewell. I’ve experienced all the highs and lows that politics gives and takes. Others will judge whether New Zealand is more inclusive, more prosperous, and a better country, and my role in that, but, looking around me, I know that the people who are here will make it a better future. Hei konei rā. [Applause]
Waiata
The House adjourned at 5.03 p.m.