Thursday, 8 December 2022

THURSDAY, 8 DECEMBER 2022

THURSDAY, 8 DECEMBER 2022

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Legislation to be considered next week will include the first readings of the Human Rights (Incitement on Ground of Religious Belief) Amendment Bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill, the Therapeutic Products Bill, the Water Services Legislation Bill, and the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill, and the third readings of the Electoral Amendment Bill and the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill. At 8 a.m. on Wednesday, 14 December, President Zelenskyy of Ukraine will address the House. There will be an extended sitting later that morning. After the adjournment debate on Wednesday afternoon, the House will—assuming everybody votes for it—adjourn for the Christmas break.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I thank the Leader of the House for that update. I was just wondering whether the Government could advise as to whether or not there is any interest in picking up members’ notice of motion No. 1 in my name, in relation to the passing of Supplementary Order Paper 285 for the Water Services Entities Bill, and advancing it as a Government notice of motion.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): That matter was well traversed in the House yesterday, and the issue has been resolved.

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

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

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

CLERK:

2021-22 annual reports for:

Ministry of Education, Student Loan Scheme

Education Payroll Limited

New Zealand On Air

Asia New Zealand Foundation

Local Government Commission

2022-23 statements of performance expectations for:

New Zealand On Air

Public Service Commission

State of the Public Service, December 2022.

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

CLERK:

Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Monetary Policy Statement November 2022

report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the International treaty examination of the World Trade Organization Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation.

SPEAKER: The Monetary Policy Statement and the International Treaty Examination are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

CLERK:

Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill, introduction

Human Rights (Incitement on Ground of Religious Belief) Amendment Bill, introduction

Water Services Legislation Bill, introduction

Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Shared Leave) Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Education

1. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) to the Minister of Education: Has he received any reports on future options for Māori-medium and kaupapa Māori education in the past six months?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes.

Chris Baillie: Does the Minister agree with his officials who, in an August briefing to him, argued that the Government should “progress towards package four”, which means the Government would “establish an independent statutory entity to lead and steward the Māori-medium education and kaupapa Māori education system”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Associate Minister and I have not yet taken our proposals to Cabinet based on that advice; although the Minister and I have both previously said that we do not support the establishment of an independent Māori education authority.

Chris Baillie: Has the Minister requested any further policy work on developing package four, such as preparing a paper based on package four to take to Cabinet?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated in my previous answer, we are in the process of preparing further advice to Cabinet on the future of Māori education, and the way we will administer that. We’ve not yet done so, but, of course, that does involve preparing advice. But, as I also indicated in my previous answer, the establishment of a Māori education authority is not part of that.

Chris Baillie: In light of that answer, will the Minister rule out the current Government developing a separate statutory entity to manage Māori-medium education and kaupapa Māori education, alongside the Ministry of Education?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, that was a waste of a question, given I’ve just said that twice now.

Rawiri Waititi: Why has the Minister ruled out the establishment of a Māori education authority?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because there are better ways of achieving the Government’s objectives.

Rawiri Waititi: What are those?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, as I’ve indicated, we haven’t made decisions yet, and I’ll let the member know as soon as we do.

Chris Baillie: In light of that answer, if the Government wants to give Māori a greater say over education of Māori students, why doesn’t he use an established, successful idea that was supported by the Iwi Chairs Forum—partnership schools, also known as charter schools?

SPEAKER: There’s an assertion to that.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, there’s a huge assertion in that question. We don’t believe that Māori should have to adopt a privatised model of education in order to have a greater say over the future of Māori students.

Chris Baillie: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d like to table a report from the Ministry of Education on Māori-medium kaupapa Māori education options for a new framework, which was sent to the Hon Kelvin Davis, Chris Hipkins, and the Hon Jan Tinetti.

SPEAKER: Is it publicly available?

Chris Baillie: No.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose, is there any objection? There is none. It may be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Question No. 2—Children

2. TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Children: What recent announcements has the Government made about stopping children re-offending?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Earlier today, Ministers Hipkins and Sepuloni joined me in announcing the Government introduction of a circuit-breaker response aimed at quickly addressing the repeat offending of a small group of children and young people. While the justice system can act as a circuit-breaker for young people aged 14 to 17, there is a small number of children aged 10 to 13 who continue to reoffend at a high rate.

Terisa Ngobi: Why are these changes necessary?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: At the moment, when police make an arrest, children often end up placed back in the community with little support and few limitations on their behaviour until a more comprehensive plan is in place. This can lead to reoffending again before the process for the first offence even begins. By taking this approach, fast tracking it and applying it to a small group of 10- to 13-year-olds who are serious and persistent offenders, we can help address the recent spike in offending and continue to see the number of ram raids come down. Already, we’ve seen a reduction of nearly 80 percent over the past three months.

Terisa Ngobi: What impact will these changes have?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The new response will mean that when a child is identified or apprehended by police for offending behaviour, that information will be shared with Oranga Tamariki within 24 hours, with an agreed plan on how to deal with and support the young person confirmed in 48 hours. Approaches like this work. They are already used in various parts of the country, sometimes led by the community organisations and often in partnership with police.

Terisa Ngobi: What other actions is the Government taking to address youth offending?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We’re also going to expand part of that package, Kotahi te Whakaaro, to include 14- to 17-year-olds in South and West Auckland. This programme alone is seeing promising results, so far providing 104 children and 197 of their siblings with the support they need. In South Auckland, of the young people referred after committing a ram raid or other vehicle offence, just 14 percent have reoffended. We’re also doubling down on our efforts and supporting locally led solutions in Te Tai Tokerau, Tāmaki-makau-rau, Bay of Plenty, and Waikato. Support will be provided through regional Public Service leads to expand on or continue delivering services that are targeted at high-needs children and young people, as well as those apprehended as a result of ram raids.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, particularly the Government’s decision to increase the medicines budget by 43 percent since we took office, enabling Pharmac to make more than 200 medicines available for thousands of people. In addition to the announcement about the funding for Trikafta made at the weekend, Pharmac has also enabled funding for Spinraza for people under the age of 18. Spinraza is the first medicine for spinal muscular atrophy to be funded and has the potential to make a huge difference to the lives of the young people who receive it. Pharmac has also announced today that it is widening free access to the meningococcal B vaccine to include babies and young people living in places like hostels where they are in close contact with other people, and has confirmed it will fund other drugs to treat lung and breast cancer as well as some non-cancerous growths. This shows what a difference Government funding can make. When we came into office, the medicines budget, like other parts of the health system, had been starved of investment despite record population growth. In 2020, we promised that we would increase Pharmac’s budget by $200 million over four years. We’ve not only kept that promise but put in additional funding this year on top of that.

Nicola Willis: Did Cabinet agree on 30 May this year “that the Water Services Entities Bill should not entrench the privatisation provisions in the bill”, and is she satisfied that the Minister responsible for that bill acted in accordance with the Cabinet instructions?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes and yes.

Nicola Willis: Can she explain how the Minister in charge of that bill explicitly endorsing its entrenchment provision in this Parliament after the Cabinet instructed that that provision should not be included in the bill is not a breach of the Cabinet Manual?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, this matter was covered yesterday. The bill as introduced did not include that; an Opposition Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to do so did.

Nicola Willis: Is it the Government’s position that it’s fine to contravene Cabinet decisions as long as it’s through voting for another party’s SOP?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.

Nicola Willis: Well, then why did the Government vote for an SOP that explicitly contravened the instruction given by Cabinet?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, as has been covered numerous times in the House, the Government has acknowledged a mistake was made; the mistake was corrected. I note that the bill has now been passed without an entrenchment provision in it. I continue to invite the member and her party to commit to not selling off water assets, like they’ve done with other things.

Nicola Willis: Was the decision to vote for this entrenchment provision, described by her as a mistake, an accident or was it a deliberate decision by the Government, which they now regret?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, as I have described before, it was a mistake.

Nicola Willis: Was Minister Mahuta correct to blame this situation on the Labour Party members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee—Barbara Edmonds, Ingrid Leary, and Anna Lorck—for being aware of the proposed entrenchment but not telling the Minister how to vote according to Cabinet instructions?

SPEAKER: I’ll just warn members, first of all—reminding that questions are asked in silence.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the member is mischaracterising the comments of the Minister. On behalf of the Prime Minister, I have confidence in the Minister, because today she has shepherded through legislation that will mean New Zealanders will have clean water, more affordable water, and we will take on a problem that members over there have been part of kicking down the road for years and years. I know the member has decided to abandon the people of Karori, but she might want to notice the partially treated waste water notice that’s been issued today for the treatment plant going into the Karori Stream.

Nicola Willis: Why is the Prime Minister proud of a bill that has the support of no other party in Parliament, that confiscates local assets against the will of communities and councils, and that introduces a Byzantine co-governance scheme for which there is no mandate?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I disagree with all of the member’s characterisations, and the reason I am proud of this is that New Zealanders finally have a Government that takes seriously how much they’re going to have to pay for water in the future, the quality of the water that they get, and that those assets are well managed. This is a Government that doesn’t shy away from challenges or kick the can down the road. The member still can’t tell the House what National would do.

Nicola Willis: In a friendlier spirit, does she agree with Minister Michael Wood, who earlier this year stated that he wishes to see improvements made to New Zealand’s paid parental leave system, and, if so, will she commit to supporting my bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Shared Leave) Amendment Bill, drawn from the ballot today, which would modernise New Zealanders’ paid parental leave entitlements?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I am yet to have the opportunity to read the member’s bill.

Question No. 4—Energy and Resources

4. DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What has the Government’s Warmer Kiwi Homes programme achieved?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Since the launch of our Warmer Kiwi Homes programme in 2018, the Government has now delivered over 100,000 insulation and efficient heater installations in homes throughout New Zealand—100,000 retrofits in four years shows there was real need in the community. It’s fantastic that so many more New Zealanders are now enjoying warmer, dryer, healthier homes while reducing their energy costs.

Dan Rosewarne: How will these retrofits be helping Kiwis struggling with the cost of living?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Warmer Kiwi Homes directly assists low-income households to manage cost of living pressures. Motu’s independent evaluation of the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme released this morning found that heating retrofits reduced recipients’ electricity use by around 16 percent in winter. This kind of saving can be a game-changer for many families.

Dan Rosewarne: How are these retrofits improving health and wellbeing outcomes?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Low-income families, young children, and older Kiwis are especially vulnerable to the impacts of living in cold, damp homes. Warmer Kiwi Homes reduces risks of respiratory illness, and contributes to fewer doctors visits and hospitalisations being required. The evaluation found savings of over $15 million per year in avoided hospital costs. It’s good value for money. For every dollar spent in the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme, there is $4.36 of wellbeing and energy benefits. For heat pumps specifically, the evaluation found a return that is even higher, at $7.49.

Dan Rosewarne: Are these grants still available, and how can people access them?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There is plenty of funding available for eligible homeowners, through until June 2024. The grants are available to low-income owner-occupiers and are targeted in this way to ensure that Government funding is allocated to those where it will have the greatest impact, to those households in greatest need where there is the most significant benefit to be realised. I encourage people to apply.

Dan Rosewarne: How many Canterbury homes have been upgraded through the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Over 9,400 homes across the Canterbury region are warmer, drier, and more efficient as the result of this Government’s programme. In Canterbury, there have been over 7,000 insulation retrofits and over 2,300 heating upgrades.

Angela Roberts: How many installations have there been in Waikato?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Nearly 14,000 Waikato households have benefited from this programme since 2018, with over 9,600 homes receiving insulation upgrades, and over 4,300 getting an energy-efficient heat pump installed.

Tangi Utikere: How many installations have there been in Manawatū-Whanganui?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Over 9,600 households across Manawatū and Whanganui have received support through the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme, with more than 7,100 insulation installs and 2,500 homes receiving heat pumps.

Tāmati Coffey: How many households in the Waiariki - Bay of Plenty have access to the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme? [Multiple interjections]

SPEAKER: Order! Yeah, silence, please. Thank you. I want the question asked in silence.

Tāmati Coffey: How many households in the Waiariki - Bay of Plenty have access to the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Over 10,700 homes in the Bay of Plenty have been upgraded since 2018, with over 7,000 insulation retrofits and over 3,600 heating upgrades.

Question No. 5—Justice

5. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of Justice: What does the Ministry of Justice advice dated 11 April 2022 on entrenching sections of the Water Services Entities Bill that she received on 28 November 2022 say, and did she seek any advice on entrenchment in that bill earlier?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I’m advised that the Ministry of Justice provided advice on this matter to my predecessor. This advice was provided verbally in a meeting on 11 April 2022, and then in a written aide memoire on 12 April 2022. On 28 November, I sought key points from the Ministry of Justice on the entrenchment issue prior to Cabinet, which were received alongside a copy of the 12 April 2022 advice from the ministry. On entrenchment, the Ministry of Justice advised that they did not support entrenching provisions in the Water Services Entities Bill to protect against privatisation of water service infrastructure because it would have the same constitutional purpose as the existing entrenched provisions in the Electoral Act and Constitution Act.

Chris Bishop: Did the Minister of Local Government consult her about the entrenchment provision in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 285 on the Water Services Entities Bill, given the Cabinet Manual requirement to consult the Minister of Justice on all proposals affecting constitutional arrangements?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I did not have any discussions with the Minister of Local Government with respect to these provisions.

Chris Bishop: Has she expressed concern to the Minister of Local Government about her failure to consult her about the entrenchment provision in SOP 285, given the Cabinet Manual requirement to consult her as Minister of Justice on all proposals affecting constitutional arrangements?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I haven’t had that discussion with the Minister, but I have had it clearly be stated in this House that it was a mistake to enable that SOP to go through. We collectively took responsibility as a caucus for that mistake, we fixed that mistake, and, earlier today, that bill went through without the entrenchment provision.

Chris Bishop: On what date and at what time did she first learn about the Minister of Local Government’s comments in support of entrenchment during the committee stage of the Water Services Entities Bill, and what did she do when she learnt about them?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I don’t have a clear recollection of the exact time or date of those discussions. But what I do know is that when it became apparent that we were going to be having those discussions, I sought advice on 28 November, prior to Cabinet.

Chris Bishop: When did she first become aware of the 11 April 2022 advice to her predecessor about entrenching provisions of the Water Services Entities Bill?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: On 28 November 2022.

Chris Bishop: Will she ask the Ministry of Justice to make a submission to the Standing Orders Committee inquiry into entrenchment?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I certainly wouldn’t be opposed to that. As the Prime Minister has said this week, and last week as well, there is a need for a discussion about the use of entrenchment provisions. We look forward to that discussion being had at the Standing Orders Committee.

Chris Bishop: Will she now, as the Minister responsible for New Zealand’s constitution, be the first Minister in this Government to be upfront with the public about how this constitutional cluster of epic proportions actually came to be?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I reject the assertion of that question.

SPEAKER: Question No. 6—Dr Tracey McLellan—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Wow, eight supplementaries there.

SPEAKER: Order! Carmel Sepuloni, stand, withdraw, and apologise. That’s the second time you’ve interrupted a question.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I withdraw and apologise.

Question No. 6—Health

6. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has Pharmac advised him of in relation to funding more medicines for New Zealanders?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I’m pleased to say that, further to Pharmac’s announcement last Sunday—and, indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister’s answer to a question earlier today—Pharmac is commencing consultation over the funding of Trikafta. Pharmac has today confirmed that, following the consultation, it would be funding other important medicines. Firstly, Spinraza will be fully funded for New Zealanders under the age of 18. Spinraza is the first medicine to be publicly funded for the rare disorder spinal muscular atrophy. Secondly, access will be widened for babies and young people to receive the meningococcal B vaccine for free. Thirdly, a new chemotherapy treatment will be funded, too; this will benefit hundreds of cancer patients. [Sits and stands] Sorry, I haven’t finished yet.

SPEAKER: Well you have, actually. When you sit down, you’ve finished.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: He didn’t quite get down.

SPEAKER: No, he’s—you can ask another supplementary if you want.

Dr Tracey McLellan: What will the announcement on Spinraza mean for those suffering from spinal muscular atrophy?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The funding of Spinraza will help those who suffer from spinal muscular atrophy and help improve their quality of life. Spinal muscular atrophy is a rare genetic disorder which affects babies through to adults and can cause disability and even early death. Treating young people with this rare disorder will enable some parents and caregivers of those affected by spinal muscular atrophy to remain employed and not have to provide around-the-clock care.

Dr Tracey McLellan: What will today’s announcement mean for those undergoing cancer treatment?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: From 1 May next year, people with various cancers will have access to oral vinorelbine, a type of chemotherapy treatment. It’s used to treat lung cancer and breast cancer, as well as some non-cancerous growths. This will allow people to receive treatment from their community pharmacy and take their treatment in their own home, rather than having to travel to a hospital for intravenous chemotherapy. Making vinorelbine available as an oral treatment will be a real benefit to rural people in particular, who often find it difficult to get to places where intravenous treatments are offered.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why did Pharmac grant an exclusive to Patrick Gower from Newshub before informing cystic fibrosis patients and when it was a public health announcement?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The way, as Minister, that my relationship with Pharmac works is that I have no control over the decisions they take nor of the timing or manner of their announcements. They made those decisions; I have provided feedback to Pharmac about some aspects of their messaging of their announcements in relation to Trikafta.

Dr Tracey McLellan: How will this announcement help safeguard young people’s health?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The confirmation of widened access to the meningococcal B vaccine would be beneficial for more young people, including infants. From 1 March next year, all babies up to 12 months of age will receive this vaccine for free. Young people aged 13 to 25 in close living situations, such as hostels, will also receive the vaccine for free. Meningococcal disease has had an inequitable impact on Māori and Pacific children in particular. This widening of the eligibility has the potential to eliminate ethnic inequalities in meningococcal disease in New Zealand. Widening access to this vaccine will help save Māori and Pacific lives.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is part of the increase of Pharmac’s budget by 43 percent the transfer of the hospitals medicine budget of over $160 million?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Pharmac has been responsible for the hospitals medicines budget for some time; it’s the combined pharmaceutical budget. It’s that budget, whether it was held collectively by the district health boards or by Pharmac—the increase is on that aggregate amount.

Question No. 7—Transport

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to ask my question to the Minister of Finance, as lodged, as it is about a statement that he made that has financial implications.

SPEAKER: The Government can transfer questions to the Minister they think best appropriate to answer that question. So that’s what’s been done.

7. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by the Minister of Finance’s statement about half-price public transport, “this is a very expensive policy. And what it does is, it robs the fund that funds our roads”; if so, why?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I agree with the statement in its full context, which refers to the need to balance the benefits of our policies with the costs. Within that, our Government has focused strongly on maintaining the roading network, increasing investment in maintenance by nearly 50 percent after it was frozen by the previous Government. But, at the same time, we have invested hugely in public transport, lifting the National Land Transport Fund contribution to public transport from $1.9 billion in the 2015-18 period to $3.1 billion in the 2018-21 period, and $5 billion in the 2021-24 period. As the member will be aware, we have also committed to a permanent investment in the Community Connect scheme, which will provide permanent half-price public transport fares for the lowest-income New Zealanders from 2023.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he, then, agree that the reduction in fuel tax and road-user charges “robbed the National Land Transport Fund to a much greater extent as that costs ten times more that half-price public transport”?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I would not agree with that assessment, because as part of the policy to reduce fuel excise duty and road-user charges to provide financial support to New Zealanders, the Crown provided supplementary funding to ensure that the National Land Transport Fund is able to move forward on a fully funded basis.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he stand by the Minister of Finance’s comment that the half-price public transport policy is expensive, when its annual cost is less than 3 percent of the total annual transport budget, a tiny fraction of the money being spent on roads?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: It’s expensive to the extent that it’s likely to cost on an annual basis approximately $130 million to $150 million per year, so that is the kind of investment that we need to consider carefully. Again, I note for the member that the total public transport expenditure that is occurring under the current National Land Transport Fund is $5 billion over the current three-year period. Fare subsidy is not the only part of the public transport system that we put investment into, and we do need to balance those investments across the different needs in public transport. Yes, fares have a role to play and that’s why we’re moving forward with Community Connect. It’s also why we’ve invested $61 million in bus drivers’ pay and conditions—because there’s no public transport without bus drivers. That’s why we’ve invested $350 million, as we announced at the weekend, to make sure that more Kiwis have access to public transport in their communities though the Transport Choices package. So we will keep making those investments, including making sure that fares are struck at a fair and appropriate rate.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he agree that reducing public transport fares benefits not only those users during a time of high fuel costs and other high costs of living but also other road users because it helps reduce congestion and our emissions from transport?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I thank the member for her question. I agree with that assertion to the extent that reduced fares do play a role in achieving mode shift—that is, encouraging more people on to public transport. We do have to be rigorous and based on the evidence when we’re making these assessments. The evidence that Waka Kotahi has assessed through the course of the half-price public transport programme, which has been important in terms of addressing cost of living pressures, is that it may have increased public transport patronage by around about 7 to 8 percent, with roughly half of that coming from private vehicle users and half of it coming from walkers and cyclists. So, as we move forward and make challenging financial trade-offs and decisions, that is the kind of evidence we need to consider in terms of assessing whether that is the best investment for the public transport dollar or whether there are other parts of the system that are better placed to receive that investment.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Has he seen that not one but two polls of New Zealanders have confirmed 80 percent support for making half-price public transport permanent, and what does he say to those users who have massively benefited from this if he’s not going to extend it?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes, I have seen that poll and it’s no surprise to me that a policy that makes something cheaper for people will receive broad support, but as a Government we have to take the evidence into account and make sure that we’re getting the best value for money. We could ask in a poll, for example, for people to make the trade-off and the choice between lower fares for everyone versus, perhaps, lower fares for those who need it most and more money to deliver more services into communities that don’t have public transport. Those are the sort of real choices that we have to make with the investment we put into the public transport system.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: So can I just clarify that he’s really saying that $100 million to $120 million a year, less than 3 percent of the annual transport budget, is expensive, but that over a billion dollars subsidising petrol and driving is not and is a good and appropriate way to help New Zealanders?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No, that’s not an accurate characterisation of what I said. Of course, there isn’t a contention on the table from the member that we carry that part of the reductions forward, either. What I am saying is that the $130 million to $150 million estimated to carry that policy forward on a permanent basis is a significant investment and we need to consider carefully whether it is the best investment. What I’ve outlined in the course of these questions is some of the evidence we have before us. As I say, the evidence that has been put in front of me is that it achieves approximately a 7 percent to 8 percent mode shift, and some of the other evidence I’ve seen suggests that we can achieve a greater level of mode shift—that is, encouraging more people on to public transport—by better provision of reliable, frequent, and accessible services. Those are the kinds of difficult choices that we need to make, but we do continue to be sensitive to the impact of fares. That, as I say, is why we are targeting in the Community Connect scheme next year to give 1 million New Zealanders on the lowest incomes half-price public transport fares. I believe that is a good step forward. It will mean that people like me won’t get half-price public transport, but that Kiwis who need it most, will.

Question No. 8—Broadcasting and Media

8. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: What recent announcement has the Government made about supporting the New Zealand media sector?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Broadcasting and Media): The way we consume news in Aotearoa is changing, and it is critical that we support a viable and independent news media sector. I was pleased to announce, last weekend, that the Government will develop legislation to support our local media companies to be paid fairly for the use of their content online. This is about fairness. There is a power imbalance between local media and the big global players. We want to see fair negotiations and fair deals for New Zealand media companies, especially our small, regional, rural, Māori, ethnic, and Pacific media companies.

Glen Bennett: Why is the Government stepping up to support New Zealand media companies in this way?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Online digital platforms make money through advertising and data collection, and they benefit from the content on their platforms created by news media companies. The move online has contributed to the halving of the number of journalists in New Zealand, which means that less public interest content is produced. This is especially the case for local news and investigative journalism. While some commercial agreements have been reached, the progress has been slow and uneven. It is clear that the market isn’t working and there is a role for Government to support fair negotiations.

Glen Bennett: Why is it important for news companies to be paid for their content?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: This is about fairness and ensuring that New Zealand media companies have access to deals that are in line with what we are seeing globally. News content is expensive to make, and it is unfair that other companies profit from the work of our local media without paying. The big multinational companies have used their market power to ignore the creators of the news content that they profit from, and competition regulators around the world have acknowledged this bargaining imbalance.

Glen Bennett: What impact is this expected to have for local news media entities?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We’ve had huge support for this, and this is about some of the smaller players—the Northern Advocate, the Whanganui Chronicle, the Manukau Courier. It’s about helping to ensure we can keep producing New Zealand news and stories. What we’ve seen is that the big multinational players won’t come to the negotiating table. We anticipate this proposal could see an extra $30 million to $50 million annually for our news media companies, based on overseas experiences. The News Publishers’ Association, which represents a good portion of the publishing sector, has been negotiating with Google for more than 12 months and have not had an offer. The Commerce Commission has acknowledged these issues. So a regulatory backstop is needed to address the power imbalance, and this Government is backing New Zealand media to get fair deals.

Question No. 9—Broadcasting and Media

9. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: Does he stand by all the Government’s views and actions regarding Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Broadcasting and Media): As I’ve said before, we need to make the change to a new public media entity so that the New Zealand public media can work in the digital age, serve all New Zealanders better, and endure. These reforms are about valuing and protecting public media in New Zealand, giving it the best possible chance of thriving, and ensuring that all New Zealanders, young and old, can continue to access trusted news and information. So, in summary, yes.

Melissa Lee: Does the Minister stand by his statement that “The Prime Minister is 100 percent correct.” when the Prime Minister twice told this House that TVNZ’s revenue is “declining”?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Again, 100 percent yes.

Melissa Lee: Can he confirm that TVNZ revenue has increased for each of the last three years and that the financial year 2022 is the third-highest revenue in the last 16 years for TVNZ?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I can, for the sake of that member opposite, refer her to Television New Zealand’s own statement of intent, where in their own words they acknowledge declining revenue as a major risk. The undeniable fact is that linear advertising revenue has been declining for the last 10 years. Over the last decade, the operating revenue has declined. In 2008, they made over $390 million; in 2020, they made $310 million; and in 2021, they made $341 million—still under the $390 million of 2008. So have a look at the accounts, Melissa Lee.

Melissa Lee: Does the Minister think that having the Strong Public Media programme spending $1.2 million on office leases to accommodate consultants, and another $94,000 in technology fit-outs for consultants in the last year, is an acceptable use of taxpayer money during a cost of living crisis?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes.

Melissa Lee: Wow! Supplementary—sorry.

SPEAKER: You will risk losing questions.

Melissa Lee: Sorry. Does he think it’s acceptable for the Minister of broadcasting to criticise the TVNZ journalist for not helping to get Government policy passed?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I commented on that on Tuesday. As I’ve said, I have a few regrets in terms of that interview, and, no, I don’t think it’s appropriate.

Question No. 10—Youth

10. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister for Youth: What reports has she seen on young people’s re-engagement through the Ākonga fund?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for Youth): This Government remains committed to investing in our young people and supporting programmes that actually deliver results. Progress reports I have received indicate that, as of the end of term 3, over 6,200 ākonga had engaged with programmes funded through the Ākonga Youth Development Community Fund. This exceeds our original goal of 5,500 ākonga engaged with a programme by the end of 2022, with even more expected to engage in term 4. These are young people who are at risk of disengaging from education, or have already done so and are being supported to re-engage with education, training, or employment.

Tāmati Coffey: What outcomes is this fund delivering for ākonga?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Ninety-five percent of ākonga who have engaged with a programme have established strong connections with their communities. This means that these young people are now connected to various individuals in organisations that they trust, who can help them when needed; 83 percent have either gone back to school, entered some form of training, or found a job. Young people who have completed Ākonga-funded programmes tell us that these programmes have helped them develop social skills, self-confidence, a sense of purpose, and tangible skills that lead them to job opportunities and give them hope for their future. This means that they discover better pathways that give them opportunities for a brighter future.

Tāmati Coffey: What do providers attribute the success of these programmes to?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Providers have told us that there is no silver bullet and that one size doesn’t fit all. The key to success is when ākonga are central to the programmes and when they help determine the goals they want to achieve. That means programmes are tailored to their needs and are community-driven. Providers tell us it’s important they have strong connections to schools and other services so that they can provide wraparound support. There is also strong emphasis on bringing whānau on the journey with ākonga, offering opportunities for parents and carers of ākonga to participate in programmes when possible.

Tāmati Coffey: What actions has she taken to support ākonga, going forward?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: We recently announced that the Ākonga fund will be extended through to the end of 2023, which will mean support for up to 2,750 additional young people and their whānau. We’re proud to have helped thousands of at-risk young people into education, training, and employment. We know it’s making a real difference to people’s lives.

Question No. 11—Local Government

11. SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by her statement on entrenching provisions of the Water Services Entities Bill, “There is a moral obligation of people who believe that privatisation should not occur to support that particular SOP”; if so, how does she reconcile that with a Cabinet decision made on 30 May that “the Bill should not entrench the privatisation provisions in the Bill”?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Yes, including my earlier statement today in the House that this Government is 100 percent committed to ensuring our water assets remain in public ownership and we call on the Opposition to make the same commitment to New Zealanders.

Simon Watts: Why did she say that entrenchment at the 60 percent level was a “moral obligation”, when Cabinet had already ruled months earlier that entrenchment at any level should not be included in the bill?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I said that because it was a novel approach to another threshold of entrenchment being held. And I note Dave McGee commented that the reason why Standing Order 270 exists is to enable by a qualified majority to have an entrenchment provision included in legislation—like the National Party did in 1990 for the Flags, Anthems, Emblems and Names Protection Amendment Bill.

Simon Watts: Did she consult with Cabinet about the 60 percent entrenchment; if so, did she get support from Cabinet to deviate from the agreed position “that the bill should not entrench the privatisation provisions in the bill”?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 285 belongs to the Green Party. The advice that I sought and accepted in relation to the advice that was provided and included in the Cabinet paper—which I accepted—noted that there was a high constitutional threshold regarding entrenchment. That is why the Government did not include an entrenchment provision in the legislation.

Simon Watts: Did she receive authorisation from Cabinet to deviate from the agreed position “that the bill should not entrench the privatisation provisions in the bill”, and, if not, why did she go against that position by calling entrenchment “a moral obligation”?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Given that the bill has passed its third reading, there is no entrenchment provision in that particular bill. There was a mistake that was made, but, look, there’s no constitutional crisis. There is no entrenchment clause in the water services entities law, but there is a water crisis and pipes need to be fixed.

Simon Watts: Did she consult the Attorney-General on the 60 percent entrenchment set out in SOP 285, in light of his public comments, before or after she spoke in favour of it; if not, why?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The matter of a lower percentage threshold for entrenchment was raised in SOP 285, debated at the time, considered at the time, and has been rectified. There is no entrenchment clause in the legislation that passed in this House today.

Simon Watts: Did she receive authorisation from Cabinet to deviate from the agreed position “that the bill should not entrench the privatisation provisions in the bill”, and, if not, why did she go against that position by calling an entrenchment a moral obligation?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That mistake has been fixed. There is no entrenchment provisions in the water services entities law.

Question No. 12—Agriculture

12. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he stand by the Acting Minister of Agriculture’s statement made on 16 November 2022 that “specific mitigation technologies commercially available now include low-methane sheep genetics, the effluent pond treatment technology EcoPond, and urease inhibitor”; if so, how many commercial farms in New Zealand are currently utilising each of these technologies?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture: Yes. In the case of urease inhibitors, I am advised that 7,800 farms utilised this technology as of 2017. I don’t know the exact number of farms using EcoPond technology to reduce methane emissions from effluent ponds, but I suspect I know that if we asked farmers or directed them to require them to provide that information, the member would object.

Mark Cameron: How will dairy farmers be able to afford EcoPond technology, for which the first year’s cost is modelled at 14.7 percent of the average dairy farm’s net income, on top of the 6.7 percent of net income they will lose because of this Government’s emissions pricing proposals?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m not able to confirm the calculations that the member sets out to the House. I do note that, just in the last week or two, the Westpac NZ Agribusiness Climate Change Report predicted that outcomes from the transition to low-carbon agriculture in New Zealand include reduced on-farm production costs through resource efficiency and increased producer returns through a changing trade environment.

Mark Cameron: Why did the Acting Minister of Agriculture refer to low-methane sheep genetics as “commercially available” when, in response to written question No. 43014 (2022), the Minister of Agriculture identified that “low-methane sheep genetics are being trialled in a small number of commercial farms”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Because the Acting Minister probably understands, as I do, that methane emissions per unit of production in sheep production have increased by around 1 percent per annum for more than 20 years, including through improved genetics, which have reduced the time to first lamb and increased twins and triplets.

Dr Duncan Webb: What are the urease inhibitors mentioned in the primary question?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Urease inhibitors reduce the volatilisation losses of ammonia from urea and so maximise the nitrogen that is available for plant uptake. This means that less nitrogen needs to be used for the same production, and there is less nitrous oxide produced, which otherwise adds to climate warming. Urease inhibitors are an example of how climate mitigation can increase farm efficiency.

Mark Cameron: Why hasn’t the Minister considered adopting ACT’s policy of tying New Zealand’s agricultural emissions price to that of our five trading partners, instead of penalising our farmers, the most emissions-efficient farmers in the world, and leaking more emissions offshore?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Because the ACT policy is barking mad and would lead to increased emissions, whereas the Labour Party policy of increasing investment in science, partly funded by farmers, will increase farm efficiency as well as reduce emissions, which is a win for farmers and a win for the environment.

Offices of Parliament

Address to Governor-General

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That a respectful Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General commending to Her Excellency the alteration to the appropriation for the 2022/23 financial year in respect of Vote Audit.

[Members talking amongst themselves]

SPEAKER: Order! Votes are taken in silence, can you please be quiet.

Motion agreed to, and Address agreed to.

SPEAKER: The proposed Address is available on the Table of the House. The question is that the Address be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Address adopted.

Appointments

Judicial Conduct Commissioner

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That pursuant to sections 7 and 8A of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004, this House recommend Her Excellency the Governor-General appoint Alan Deans Ritchie as Judicial Conduct Commissioner for a term of two years.

Motion agreed to.

SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill, the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill, the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill, and the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill.

House in Committee

House in Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the House is in committee on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill, the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill, the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill, and the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill.

Bills

Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come first to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill. When we were last considering this bill, we were debating Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 53 and the Schedule, “Amendments to principal Act”. Once again, the question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Before the committee broke for the lunch break, I had a question in relation to a Government Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has a reference to herbal smoking products. I can inform the committee that the bill as originally drafted included in the definition herbal smoking products within the scope of the bill. The reason for that is to stop herbal smoking products becoming another way for nicotine to be added to those products—they just need to be notified under the bill. What the SOP does is tidy up the bill to make sure that there is time for those products to be notified and that aligns with the other notification provisions put through the bill, otherwise the distributors of those products would have to comply immediately, but there is a phase-in process for that.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 313 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 30; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Dr Shane Reti’s amendment to clause 13 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 312 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 40

New Zealand National 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 74

New Zealand Labour 64; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Dr Shane Reti’s amendment inserting new clause 49A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 315 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 40

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 74

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 40

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to other enactments

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): We now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 54 to 64, which are the amendments to other enactments. So the question is that Part 2 stand part.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 40

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.

Part 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to the Schedule set out on Supplementary Order Paper 313 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 30; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Dr Shane Reti’s amendments to the Schedule set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 40

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to our final debate, clauses 1 to 3, which is the debate on title, commencement, and principal Act. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 40

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 313 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 40

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 40

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 74

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

Noes 40

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 16 November.

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill. When we were last debating this bill, we were debating Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 4 to 43, “Amendments to the principal Act”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m now turning to Part 1 of the bill, and the critical clause of concern is clause 6, which is to replace new section 18B, which is the partial repeal of section 18B of the Oranga Tamariki Act, and that is in relation to “A person described in this section is a person who—(a) has been convicted under the Crimes Act of the murder, manslaughter, or infanticide of a child or young person who was in the person’s care or custody at the time of the child’s or young person’s death: (b) has been—(i) convicted under any of sections 188 to 204 of the Crimes Act of an offence involving the assault or injury of a child or young person who was in the person’s care or custody at the time of the offence;”. Now, I’m speaking to Supplementary Order Paper 275, which has been tabled in the name of ACT MP Karen Chhour. The SOP proposes to replace clause 6 and the partial repeal of section 18B.

So to put it into context, Madam Chair and Minister Kelvin Davis seated beside you, when we were last debating this issue in the committee, this Supplementary Order Paper was to appeal to the Minister and appeal to this Government that the partial repeal factor in the importance, the relevance, the timeliness, and the significance related to the most serious child abuse case leading to the death of Malachi Subecz—so this Supplementary Order Paper has been very much driven and motivated by the tragic death of this little one. It states that the partial repeal of section 18B is to not only factor in that a person described who should be accountable and held under the spotlight and the magnification, or the lens, of Oranga Tamariki, but that when it comes to investigating a subsequent child—which means a child who was born after a previous child has been taken into the care of Oranga Tamariki—the partial repeal focus, importantly, on a person who has been convicted of serious abuse against a child and also another person. So Karen Chhour’s Supplementary Order Paper 275 is appealing to the Minister, is appealing to the Government, and is appealing to parliamentarians that the partial repeal of section 18B is amended to note that a conviction of a person who has caused a grievous assault or abuse on another is on record as a person who should come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki in relation to any subsequent child in their care automatically.

I say to Madam Chair and to the Minister seated beside you that the timing is so critical. I have repeated in this House and I have repeated before the select committee that in relation to a child and in relation to any notification and subsequent follow-up of an investigation into a report of child abuse, a report of concern about a child in care, the timing of that is so relevant, significant, and important. In this House today, the timing is relevant, significant, and important, because the Government and the Minister are in receipt of findings of a review from Dame Karen Poutasi in relation to an investigation and finding that Malachi Subecz became a child invisible to the system. This Supplementary Order Paper will magnify, will highlight, and will intensify the importance that any subsequent child who comes to the notice of Oranga Tamariki and is in the care of a person convicted of assault should, as a result, automatically come into the care of Oranga Tamariki.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Thank you, Madam Chair. The member Harete Hipango is quite wrong. Malachi Subecz’s situation has nothing to do with a subsequent child, as the person who harmed him was not the child’s mother.

But I’d like to talk to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 311 in my name. I’ve tabled this. It seeks to address a technical error that has been identified in the current drafting of section 198 of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989. Section 198 applies when the Family Court is asked to make a care or protection order on the grounds that a child’s offending behaviour is significant enough to cause serious concern for their wellbeing. The current drafting of section 198 means that before any care and protection order can be made on the ground of the child’s offending, the court needs to be satisfied of the guilt of the child, beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the child knew that their actions were wrong, against the law. This means that section 198 applies to all care or protection orders, including interim orders, where children are placed in the interim custody of the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki. This does not reflect the original intention of the section, which was that it applied substantive care and protection orders—or declarations, under the old terminology—rather than interim orders.

This drafting error is an unintended consequence of changes made through the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Act 2017. Prior to that Act, there were different processes for declarations and interim orders. However, that 2017 Act repealed the declaration process and made consequential amendments to provisions that mentioned that process, such as section 198. This has had the unintended consequence in relation the scope of section 198, because now care or protection orders under the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 include interim orders. The SOP seeks to address this issue by clarifying that section 198 should not apply to interim orders.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll address Supplementary Order Paper 311, which Minister Kelvin Davis, has just spoken to, but for purposes of clarification, the Minister has taken out of context the point that I was making about timeliness in terms of child notifications. My point in relation to the tragic death of Malachi Subecz and the report and finding from Dame Karen Poutasi is that there is the importance and recognition that Malachi became deemed and viewed as an invisible child. The point that I was making was the importance of timeliness of responsiveness to that, and that relates to the Supplementary Order Paper that I was speaking about in terms of the importance of timeliness of response from this Government and from the Government’s child welfare, care, and protection agency, Oranga Tamariki, to address the issue relating to subsequent children.

The partial repeal that’s being addressed before the committee, which is of section 18B of the Oranga Tamariki Act, which is addressed under Supplementary Order Paper 275 from Karen Chhour, was recognising the importance that there needs to be an amendment to the partial repeal to factor in and take account of a person who has been convicted of a previous assault on a child or young person. I address this House also on the importance of recognising convictions for domestic violence. It’s about the timeliness of a response from this Government, to take heed and to address the Supplementary Order Paper, and the importance of this repeal to get it right, with the recognition that any subsequent child of a former child who has been taken into the custody, the oversight of care and protection of Oranga Tamariki—that that subsequent child, in a timely way, is addressed as being a child who is in need of that oversight and lens of Oranga Tamariki to ensure their wellbeing, their safety, and their care and protection. So that’s the context.

Now, I’m turning my eye to Supplementary Order Paper 311, which the Minister has put and proposed. I will need to consider that—it has just been tabled—and I will refer that as it correlates to the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill.

But, in closing, the importance of these amendments must be focused on the children—first, front, foremost—and section 4A of the Oranga Tamariki Act is the paramountcy provision. It is so important that the Government, in this debate, does not lose sight of the child-centric approach that must be taken in this debate, and an important element of child centricity is the timeliness of action and response.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister Davis, I am going to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 275 from my colleague Karen Chhour. I just want to speak a little bit to this, Minister, because what we’ve seen over the last few years, especially with our children, is a lot of hurt, a lot of harm, and a lot of abuse. When I read through our current legislation, which talks about the subsequent child policy, and I hear your argument for wanting to change it, I feel that we need to find a balance here, because what the Government is looking to do is to align the current legislation so that the subsequent child policy will not have any effect if a person is not convicted of either murdering a child or manslaughter of a child. But it doesn’t speak to a person or family member beating a child—beating a child to a point where they end up in hospital and could potentially be beaten over and over again.

When we look at what’s happening in our communities with ram raids and with youth crime, while we can say that part of youth crime is on the downside, we have this massive, 500 percent increase in ram raids, and what we all hear across this House is how we have to, together, unite to find the way to ensure that our children aren’t put into a situation where they do go out there and commit crime. One of the salient points that we always hear, even from the children themselves that are in police custody, is that they come from homes where they have been beaten and where they have been abused, and what concerns us, Minister, is that this particular clause does not protect the children in that sense, whereas my colleague Karen Chhour’s Supplementary Order Paper 275 does merely this. All it does is say that if anybody is convicted of a crime under the Crimes Act, between sections 188 and 204, and is imprisoned for three months or more, then they should fall under what is currently the subsequent child policy. That is a way that we feel will help to protect these kids that are then going on to perform the ram raids and some of the more serious crime.

Minister, I’ve heard you speak of somebody who may have been 18 years old and they’ve been convicted of a crime, and then, some time on, they should not have to go through the subsequent child policy. We totally get that—you know, when somebody is young, they should be given a second chance. But that is one example when there are many, many more examples of our kids being beaten and abused, and this policy does not protect them, but Karen Chhour’s SOP will go some way to helping that.

So, Minister, my question to you is: what is your plan for these kids that are being beaten and abused by parents who have lost a child to Oranga Tamariki for doing that exact same thing, because if we continue to allow this to happen, what we are breeding, effectively, is more crime—potential crime—from our youth, and it doesn’t help them or the next generation. So what is the Government’s plan there? Is it to let the kids be abused and be beaten, because if they’re not dead, that’s OK—because we don’t think that’s right, Minister. So “What is your plan?”, is my question. Thank you.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I’d also like to speak on behalf of my colleague Karen Chhour with regard to Supplementary Order Paper 276. It probably just needs clarifying for me and maybe an explanation.

New section 214A(2) in clause 29(2) reads, “If a child or young person appears before a court and the court considers the child’s or young person’s bail, no breach of a bail condition that occurred before the appearance may be used to support a subsequent arrest under this section.” Now, I’m reading that as saying that no previous breaches of bail can be used against the child or young person. That would seem to me to be really counter-productive in having young people have any sort of consequences for their actions, and in this case, it’s a consequence for breaching bail. Bail is set by a judge in a court. It’s often a Youth Court judge, who understands how young people work and has a lot of experience and, often, will know the family background of the young person. Really, we hear police, parents, and everyone in the community say that young people just have no consequences today, and I’m just wondering whether, if that is the case—I don’t know whether I’m reading it wrong—you’d consider this Supplementary Order Paper to delete that clause 29(2) and confirm with me that it’s not that the clock starts again after each recording of a breach of bail. Thank you.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I implore the Minister to stand and answer some questions around how this Government can say it’s OK under the Crimes Act, under “Assaults and injuries to the person”. Wounding with intent, injuring with intent, strangling or suffocation, injuring by unlawful act, aggravated wounding or injury, aggravated assault—these are just a few offences. It goes from section 188 to section 204. How, Minister, can we allow this to occur without having some consequence to the parents who will do this to a subsequent child?

This is really detailed criminal effect here, and while I do understand that we need to have that balance where—as you have said, and as I’ve mentioned before—an 18-year-old has been prosecuted, and then maybe in their thirties, with their having grown up a bit, there’s other legislation which also has to deal with people growing up. But taking away wounding with intent, assault, strangulation, and suffocation as being a consequence, or even a way of being able to look at whether a person is suitable to continue to have their child in their care—Minister, what is the answer to why we would get rid of this? But, more importantly, Minister, what is the answer to why we would not include it, as suggested by Karen Chhour’s Supplementary Order Paper 275?

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Before the Minister does stand to respond to the probing questions and submissions—quite properly, and quite timely also—Minister, I pick up and I carry on in relation to that, having practised in the area of child welfare and also in the criminal courts, labouring the point, if it needs to be laboured, that we will do that because our children and their safety is critical.

Supplementary Order Paper 275: my colleague Nicole McKee has outlined in detail those specific offences where a parent of a child has been convicted. I implore this Government, and labour the point with the Labour Government, on the necessity and importance that where any subsequent child has a parent or a caregiver convicted of these serious criminal offences, it must be a criteria and a factor under law for a subsequent child of a previous sibling taken into the custody, care, and protection of Oranga Tamariki for that subsequent child to automatically—automatically—and mandatorily be uplifted and taken into care.

I talked about timeliness. The timeliness of this follows on, and I labour the point again that Dame Karen Poutasi was talking about Malachi as not being seen as visible—named an invisible child—and, as a result of that, being lost in the system. So the relevance of this is that Dame Karen Poutasi’s recommendation, one of 14, is for mandatory reporting by professional organisations.

The point of this Supplementary Order Paper is that if there is a conviction of a caregiver or of a parent of a subsequent child of a former child in care, that is not just for a conviction for murder, manslaughter, or infanticide, but is for a conviction detailed under sections 188 to section 204 of the Crimes Act. My colleague has gone and detailed what those convictions are. The seriousness and the severity of those assaults on a child must be factored in by this Government in this law. I labour the point with the Labour Government to do so.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to address some of the points that have been raised: first of all, those crimes that have been read out from the Crimes Act are abhorrent crimes, and we need to make sure that we protect our children. But the point that is being made is that—and it was the example I gave when we previously debated this in the House. If there is a person—a young parent, say, in their late teens—who has had a child and has hurt their child in such a way that the child is removed from them, what the Supplementary Order Paper from the ACT Party does is it actually gives that parent no hope that they can ever have a child or start a family again, regardless of the changes that they have made in their lives. So that is exactly what they’re doing, and it, basically, removes the point of this bill, because we believe that people, given the right support, given the right opportunities, and given the right education, can make changes, and even though they’ve made terrible mistakes as a younger person, a younger adult, at some stage in their lives, they should be allowed to have another chance.

Nicole McKee did say—she used the words “Why would we do this so that a parent who will go on to hurt a subsequent child?” Well, who’s to say the person will go on to hurt a subsequent child? The point is nobody is saying that somebody who has an ongoing history of violence should be allowed to look after a subsequent child, but if there are people who have made those changes in their lives, why should they not be given a chance?

In terms of the comments about Malachi Subecz being an invisible child—yeah, I agree. No child should be invisible, and their needs should be—it is outside the scope of this bill to an extent, Madam Chair, but I thought I would address it anyway. The member Harete Hipango, who asked the question, needs to also realise that a member of her former profession—i.e., lawyers and lawyers for child—was one of the people who met with Malachi and the caregiver a couple of weeks after being informed that there were concerns, and failed to recognise that there was some harm caused. So there were a number of people, and Dame Karen Poutasi’s report was about making sure that if one group, one agency, one person missed the signs of abuse, there were safety nets across the system, and that the system was there to meet the needs of the child if there were gaps. What happened to him was totally unacceptable.

In terms of mandatory reporting, which was also raised by Harete Hipango, the previous National Government looked at and decided not to implement mandatory reporting, based on the white paper that said that there was no evidence that legislation in Australia was effective in preventing child abuse, and everyone is probably thinking, “Well, maybe Australia has just been examining this recently.” Well, the reality is that New South Wales has had mandatory reporting since 1977. If by 2014, which is some 30-something years later, there is still no evidence that mandatory reporting is effective, we have to ask the question and look carefully at whether there’s been evidence since 2012, 2013, 2014, or whenever that white paper came out, that mandatory reporting is effective.

So we’re not saying we’re not going to do it; we’re just saying that we need to really look at the evidence and make evidence-based decisions. Why would we invest in something that hasn’t got evidence after what, by now, is over 40 years? We’ve just got to make sure we make the right decisions and don’t just have a knee-jerk reaction. Thank you, Madam Chair.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am interested in the Minister’s response there, because I find it quite contradictory. I implore you to seek further information about the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that my colleague Karen Chhour has put to the House, because how the Minister has portrayed it is not what the SOP actually is. When the Minister stands and says that the crimes that have been read out by me—and I have not read them all out—are abhorrent, the fact is that the Minister is saying to this committee and to New Zealand, after we’ve had such horrid incidents occur with our children, including the deaths of our children, that it’s OK for a person to make a mistake in their youth. We get that, and we think that it is as well.

What we don’t understand is why the Government would say that it’s actually OK for a person who has had a child removed by Oranga Tamariki to then go on, potentially, and if they commit these crimes from sections 188 to 204 of the Crimes Act, some of which I’ve read out, and which include intent to injure, suffocation, using a firearm against a family member, and a whole range of really awful things that do happen in homes—that that’s OK? I don’t understand why the Government believes that it’s OK if a person has already had a child removed, and then, later on, whether it be three years or whether it be 20 years later on, they commit one of these heinous crimes against one of our children—that’s OK? That just does not make sense. When we’re trying to look after our kids and when we’re looking at the harm that is happening, it does not make sense.

All that the provision on SOP 275 does is say that if a person has lost a child to Oranga Tamariki and has then gone on at some time—and they don’t have to, Minister. That’s the thing: if they don’t commit these crimes, then they don’t come under this regime, and they can continue to have their children and keep their children, because they’re not committing these heinous crimes. But what happens, Minister, is that by not putting this in there, we’re saying it’s OK—it’s OK to go ahead and suffocate your children, to beat your children, and to threaten your children. That’s what you’re saying, because you’re not allowing this to go through as part of the bill, and I find that, personally, sad—sad for our tamariki, sad for the future, and sad for how we go about trying to fix the problem that we have with our youth of today if we cannot or if we refuse to protect them.

Karen Chhour’s SOP 275 wants to put in added protections for our children, and if parents are good parents, they won’t come under this regime, because they won’t be trying to attempt to kill their children. What the change is that the Government wants to do is to say that “Unless a child is dead”—unless they’re already dead—“we won’t take them away.” That in itself is sad, and I don’t agree with what the Minister has referred to in the way of what this SOP is trying to do. It’s not stopping any person from being a parent at any time unless they commit these heinous crimes, and I would implore the Government to support this to protect our children fully and to go about making sure that the future of New Zealand’s kids will be to grow up in a violence-free home, because the Government of the day has allowed clauses from Supplementary Order Paper 275 in to protect them. Minister, please have a read of SOP 275, because how you have portrayed it is not how it’s written on the Supplementary Order Paper.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): While assault offences against children and young people are serious—and the ones that were actually read out are very serious—the inclusion of these offences within the scope of the provisions would raise similar issues to those that currently impact on the provisions. Social workers currently have the tools and powers to be able to respond if they consider that there are risks to the safety and wellbeing of any child. Social workers are able to consider prior convictions or allegations of abuse that a parent or an adult in the household may have.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m somewhat perturbed by what I’m hearing from the Minister for Children. What I’ve been emphasising to the committee is that the children have to be front and centre, first and foremost, in relation to this debate.

I’ve heard the Minister negating the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that we’re talking to in recognising the subsequent child provision—in other words, the mandatory action by Oranga Tamariki to take into custody a subsequent child of an earlier child who has been put into permanent placement—should apply to more than just a person who has been convicted of murder, manslaughter, or infanticide. Those provisions under the Crimes Act, Minister, in sections 188 to 204, include being a parent who has been convicted of these serious offences of grievous assault, wounding with intent—that’s of a child or a young person—injuring with intent, and strangulation or suffocation. It’s well-known in domestic violence by those of us who have worked in that space that any attempt at suffocating and, particularly, a conviction is an indication of an untimely anticipated death. We should not be reacting to a child’s death in the way that Oranga Tamariki has that prompted the reviews and the investigations by not following through with the notification by whānau in relation to Malachi Subecz.

So Minister—I will go on to read—we are saying that where there is a conviction of a parent who has had an earlier child placed into permanent care, with regard to the subsequent child, it should automatically—it should be a mandatory requirement upon Oranga Tamariki to take oversight and action and to take the subsequent child into care where the parent has been convicted of injuring by unlawful act; aggravated wounding or injury; aggravated assault; assault with intent to injure; assault on a child or by a male on a female, and the list goes on, Minister. I understand that child welfare law and practice is complex, and I understand that the Minister does not have experience in that regard, but my expectation and the expectation of members in this House and in New Zealand should be that as Minister for Children, you are advocating for the interests of the child, the children, and the young persons, not for the parent who has had a child previously placed into permanent care. That has to be the expectation and the priority for you as the Minister for children and Oranga Tamariki.

Minister, I was also concerned when reference was made to what the National Government did. What the National Party is doing at the moment with ACT is reiterating and reinforcing the importance that children do have that oversight and blanket of protection from the State welfare agency and organisation, and the problem, Minister, as is well-known with recent reviews and the most recent recommendations from Dame Karen Poutasi, is the mandatory action and notifications of abuse from professional organisations. This very SOP 275 is about mandatory, automatic engagement by Oranga Tamariki on any subsequent child of a previous child who’s in permanent placement care and custody, so that the subsequent child will trigger, action, activate, and motivate Oranga Tamariki to put that child’s welfare, wellbeing, and best interests front, first, foremost, and paramount before those of a parent who has a conviction, not just for murder, manslaughter, or infanticide, but for all those grievous assaults and serious assaults that are outlined in sections 188 to 204 of the Crimes Act. Minister, the expectation is for you to protect our children.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Chief Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Minister, I’m going to ask questions around new section 144(1) in clause 17. This clause states that “(1) No agreement may be made under section 140 with respect to a child of or over the age of 12 years or a young person unless—(a) the child or young person consents to the making of the agreement; and (b) the consent is recorded.”

I’m just going to ask for the rationale behind that, with the concern that this clause may challenge the protection necessary for the child’s care and treatment plan in the absence of a child’s consent. For example, when an appointed lawyer for child and/or statutory custodial or guardianship status act representation of the child has been made, the age, maturity, cognitive functioning, and other relevant considerations of a child are accounted for in the representation of their views versus their best interests, but there’s an inherent tension between what a 12-year-old wants and what an adult custodian, guardian, or advocate deems to be in that child’s welfare and best interests.

There is a concern here that if the child or young person is required to consent and that consent has to be recorded, how will that be reconcilable with, say, a lawyer that has been appointed in the best interests of the child to make decisions in the best interests of that child, but which the child for various reasons may not agree with? So there is a concern there, Minister, and we would appreciate the Minister expanding on what that has been made and how it is going to address that specific issue—for example, if the advocate for the child seeks to make decisions in their best interests, but is unable to do so because of clause 17.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member for the question specific to clause 17, which is amending section 144. It’s a technical change. It is aimed at addressing issues where the framing of the section does not strengthen the rights of children and young people. In particular, the current wording of section 144 sets out that the consent from children and young people must be in writing. However, not all children are able to provide consent in writing. This clause will allow a child or a young person to give consent in ways other than in writing, so the change is aimed at improving children’s rights and their involvement in the process.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I’d really like clarification and an explanation on my last call. Does a young person’s bail start from scratch each time? Is bail just of no real significance?

Over the years, as a police officer, I’ve done hundreds and hundreds of bail checks. Each one of those bail checks that was breached was treated really seriously, and the person was dragged back to court and the judge really told them off or imposed something else on that person.

So bail breaches are regarded very seriously, and if the Minister is saying that for young people, they don’t actually matter and that there isn’t a consequence if you breach your bail, then the first time that that young person has a consequence will be when they offend as an adult—and I say “when” they offend as adult, because they will if they don’t receive any consequences for their earlier offending as a young person. I’d just really like to have clarification on the bail conditions imposed and whether the bail breaches are taken seriously. Thanks.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Thank you, Madam Chair. I should have addressed this, sorry, when the member Chris Baillie first asked. One of the first things we have to do, though, is make sure that we understand what bail breaches are. Sometimes a bail breach can be something as simple as a young person not getting home from football practice at the right time. They missed the bus or something, and so they don’t get in. They can be a couple of minutes late, and that’s a bail breach.

So the clause seeks to clarify the powers of enforcement officers under sections 214 and 214A by clarifying the relationship between the two sections. In particular, the clause clarifies two things. It clarifies when the count of bail breaches resets. When the young person has committed three bail breaches, the count will reset at their court appearance. After that, they would need to commit three more breaches to be arrested without warrant again. It clarifies when a young person can be arrested, when they are breaching the bail, or when they have recently breached bail. It does not otherwise change the powers of enforcement officers.

But the big thing we have to remember is that it’s easy to catastrophise that a bail breach means this kid has gone off on some sort of rampage. The reality is they could just be late home from a sporting thing or something—could have missed the bus. So we just have to make sure that we don’t sort of make this into something that it may not necessarily be.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister Davis, I just want to reflect on a statement that you made in answer to the last time that I stood to submit. With all due respect, Minister, you referred to social workers being able to look at some of the more heinous crimes that have the potential to take place under the Crimes Act, and you have made mention that social workers will be trained to ensure that they can understand, see, and identify when some of these things are happening. But, Minister, I have a lot of respect for our social workers, and they’ve been put in positions now where they’re probably seeing more violence than ever before and are trying to deal with it, but they’ve failed New Zealand in some cases. I feel that it’s our job as parliamentarians to help them, and we can help them if we ensure that people who have been convicted of these heinous crimes then have to look to the subsequent child policy to be approved.

Minister, our social workers have the ability already to look at those sections 188 to 204 in the Crimes Act and make those decisions—already they’ve had that ability—but they’ve not been able to utilise it in such a way as to protect some of our kids that have passed. So, Minister, I wonder, in reference to your comments that the social workers will be able to take care of this and be able to identify those situations where those crimes have taken place and then make their decisions, why are we not helping them with legislation so that it is black and white when the crimes mentioned are so serious and could have devastating effects not only on the children but the entire family environment?

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to pick up from my colleague Joseph Mooney in terms of the debate in relation to clause 17 of the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill, where section 144 is to be amended so that in section 140—that’s longer-term care agreements—an extended care of children and young person’s agreement is not to be made without the consent of a 12-year-old. The amendment states that no agreement may be made under section 140 in relation to an extended-care agreement for a child of or over the age of 12 years unless that child or young person consents to the making of the agreement and the consent is recorded.

Minister, I feel as though we’re battling uphill and shovelling up hill on this with most of this, because these discussions have already been had in select committee, and here we are before the committee of the whole House. The problem with this bill in this provision is that 12-year-olds, when they are taken into care or are under the purview and the oversight of Oranga Tamariki, are dealing with enough in their own right. We talk about children’s rights—yes, to a certain extent. A 12-year-old, it’s expected, when under either the custody or intervention of Oranga Tamariki, ought to have—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Can I just say to the member that it’s beginning to be repetitive on this particular clause. The Minister actually addressed it a little bit earlier on. So make your point, please, but do bring us some new material.

HARETE HIPANGO: The point, Madam Chair, is that a child who comes before Oranga Tamariki ought to or will have a lawyer representing them and taking the responsibility of addressing these issues. There is a fine balance between how much a child does have a say, and that’s for an adult or a guardian, or a court-appointed representative, to carry the burden of that responsibility and to engage with a 12-year-old. To put the total burden of responsibility on to a 12-year-old child to either consent, and, if they don’t, to extended care—where does that leave Oranga Tamariki, who has and is meant to have, by way of custodial status, either temporary, interim, or longer term, the decision-making responsibilities? The concern is the psychological burden and impact that is weighted on to a 12-year-old.

So, Minister, how is that addressed in terms of the balancing of a child’s wellbeing, welfare, and best interests, because that also was an issue in terms of the court having to address social-work practice with reverse uplifts. Psychological, physical, and emotional factors need to be taken into account. To burden a 12-year-old child with the responsibility to determine whether or not an agreement for their extended care rests with them solely adds an unreasonable expectation and weight and burden of responsibility on to them. Minister, how is this to be addressed?

NAISI CHEN (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 38

New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to clause 23 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 311 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 84

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

Noes 28

New Zealand National 28.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Karen Chhour’s amendments to clauses 5 and 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 275 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 38

New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 74

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Karen Chhour’s amendments to clause 29 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 276 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 38

New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.

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 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 74

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

Noes 38

New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Schedule 1AA of principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 44 and the Schedule—amendments to Schedule 1AA of the principal Act. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 38

New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 38

New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3—title, commencement, and the principal Act. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 38

New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 1 agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 38

New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 2 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 74

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

Noes 38

New Zealand National 28; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Natural Hazards Insurance Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 6 December.

Parts 1 to 6, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2 (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill. Members, when we were last debating this bill, we were debating Parts 1 to 6, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2. The question is that Parts 1 to 6, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This call seems to be unexpected by various of us, but we’re now on board. I hope I’ve got something worth turning on the microphone for, but we’ll soon see!

Obviously, at the committee stage, going through in some detail, in terms of the different provisions, it seems to me, though, helpful in the usual way for initial contributions to set the scene a little bit, albeit within the context of the parts that we’re examining first of all, obviously starting with Part 1 and moving forward from there. So perhaps in the absence of the Minister having done so—or not the “absence” of the Minister; without the Minister having done so—I might make a couple of reflections, in reasonably broad terms, to set the scene for the debate that will no doubt continue this afternoon for at least a little while.

It’s worth noting, of course, such an important context to these changes, and, obviously, “natural hazards” is a pretty innocuous-sounding phenomenon—obviously, we shouldn’t characterise this situation lightly at all, bearing in mind, of course, that we’re talking about no less a situation than earthquakes. In this country, we are, sadly, all too well aware of the damage that they can cause, and therefore the regime that’s needed to ensure that properties are properly insured, obviously, is of great importance. So the extent to which we are retaining the current arrangements—the EQC, or Earthquake Commission—obviously represents a certain amount of continuity, but, of course, proposals are being made and, of course, it’s in the nature of the amendments that this bill is making that we need to consider the extent to which these will help meet the objectives of the Government.

National has made its position clear that we support not only the intent but also the bill itself. No doubt, as we go through this committee stage, there will be opportunity to discuss the particular aspects that we think are most favourable to improving the regime and, obviously, any on which there are perhaps some questions—and, obviously, questions designed to just test the Government’s thinking about the way that the regime is put together. I think, nevertheless, it’s helpful if we have, in this House, as much as possible, a considered view that is going to represent good continuity for the system going forward. I don’t imagine anyone would regard it as helpful to have, as a political football, arrangements that are designed, by their very nature, to provide certainty in uncertain situations. What could be less certain, of course, than a “seismic event”? And, of course, that very phrase indicates, in our lexicon, generally, something unexpected but of considerable magnitude, which we face from time to time in these, the Shaky Isles.

So, with that, we’ll see whether other colleagues have particular points that are more specific than that to make, otherwise I’ll get to my feet gladly and do so myself.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): I just have to place on the record my ongoing admiration for my colleague Chris Penk and his ability to get up and speak incomparably well on a bill that I suspect he may not have even heard of or read until such time as right now!

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): That’s called giving your mate up, Ms Grigg.

NICOLA GRIGG: Look, to the Minister, thank you. It will be good to flesh this out. I think we’ve made it clear that we do support this bill. I, more than anyone, having lived through the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011, am all for anything that will streamline and reduce inconsistencies within this kind of insurance law.

We do agree that the Earthquake Commission (EQC) needs to be updated and upgraded, and to take into consideration the public inquiry and, I would also add to that, the various commissions of inquiry that occurred after those quakes, particularly in regard to the response.

I’ve seen firsthand, as a journalist, actually, working in Canterbury at the time, the divisions that were created, particularly with respect to people who would have been deeply impacted by the long arm of Government reaching into their lives. I would acknowledge those that lived in what we now know as the red zone—out in the eastern parts of Christchurch—who were deeply impacted by the sheer complexity and stress of the nature of making insurance claims, particularly through having to deal with both EQC and with private insurers at the same time, on shared driveways and in multiple complexes and multi-dwelling complexes and bodies corporate, etc., etc., etc. So we do support a bill that looks to streamline that.

But there are just a couple of questions that we have, Minister, where we did have some concern—and I can’t even find them at the moment; they’re so few and far between. We do think that there are some unintended consequences, some unintended equities, because of the nature of the insurance market and the tools that the industry uses to assess risk, and we’re talking about highly prone areas, those that are highly prone to earthquakes—for example, Canterbury; for example, parts of the West Coast, anywhere in and around the Southern Alps and the Alpine Fault. That group of people who live in those sorts of areas are obviously at the most risk, and therefore will result in higher excesses, and just the disparity to those living in areas where they are less likely to be affected by a natural disaster, somewhere possibly like Auckland, and, as a result of that, the offset of the premiums could mean that some people who are less likely to be affected could be paying up to $200 a household more for a scheme that they may not necessarily ever have to use or cash in. So I just wondered if the Minister’s put any thought to that, and is there any way that can be mitigated in future?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): I thank the member for that question. I think the question is a valuable and good one. Essentially, what we have is a social insurance scheme of a sort, and when the Earthquake Commission scheme itself was originally founded, the $100,000 that was covered was roughly the cost of building a whole new house. We haven’t gone quite that far in terms of rebalancing, but we have gone a good deal further than where we were.

Obviously, the costs of building these days are more expensive and, by setting that new cap around $300,000—obviously this has already been implemented, but this putting through into law is kind of cementing that on the law books and the process, how it will be funded from here.

Look, I think the reality is that people from Christchurch and Canterbury and Kaikōura and surrounds will know that we don’t always know earthquakes are going to strike, so there is real merit in having a social insurance scheme that covers, more broadly, the country. We are on the Shaky Isles and we know that, in those circumstances where we have unexpected events, the Government can end up picking up the tab—as we saw with AMI.

I’m looking forward to Mr Brownlee’s contribution—he’s got a good deal of experience in this area—but I do want to put on the record my thanks for the bipartisan way in which this bill has been approached, the constructive debate on the select committee. There were improvements that came through to this House, which I commented on in my initial contributions. It is appreciated.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): As the two previous speakers from this side of the House have said, we are supporting this bill, but we do have one or two things that we’d like to make comment on as we progress through it.

So the first point I’d make is that insurance per se is probably the best collision you’d ever see between a social outcome and a capitalist objective. It has served New Zealand pretty well up to this point, and I hope it does so for some time to come. So, while there will be and there are—and I’m very aware that there are—people who have had less than pleasant experiences, there are also tens of thousands who have got through all of this process in a state that has at least returned them to where they were prior to the natural disaster that can never be totally mitigated by any Government.

I’ve got a couple of concerns here and that is the bullish attitude that is starting to be developed by insurers. Now, let me make it very clear that, during the whole time of both the Canterbury and Kaikōura earthquakes, there was good discussion, good communication between the Government’s agent, the Earthquake Commission (EQC), which was subject to Government contribution through Treasury, and the insurers. A number of common positions were reached in order that things could move forward and a lot of the 89 different—what’s it called, reinstatement? Let me say that again. A lot of the 89 different reinstatement insurance covers that were in place were in fact able to be categorised into smaller numbers in order to get a good result, and always in the favour of the policyholder. Insurers chose to do that and work with the Government on that; that’s good.

But when I say that they’re getting a little bit bullish, I’m also aware of at least two claims. So I’m very aware of two claims here in Wellington that have resulted from weather activities both last year and this year, where EQC has a cover, and dealing with those claims is now contracted out to the private insurers. In neither case has the performance of the private insurers been, in my view, acceptable. Nor, it would seem, have the agents of those companies who are dealing with it had a proper understanding of the current Act and the obligations that it confers upon them. I think they’ve got into a mode where a lot of the information that might be available to claimants through the Official Information Act process, because they were dealing with EQC, is now remote from them because they’re dealing with the private insurer. And I think that puts them in a worse position than would have been intended when the arrangements between EQC and the private insurers—for the private insurers to be the first assessors—were put in place. I’m happy at some point to discuss that with anybody who wants to take that any further.

I’m also a little concerned by some of the statements that have been made publicly about this new change, by people in the insurance industry. One chief executive made the comment that, while this was a beautiful country, we have a severity of natural disasters that present themselves as kind of a smorgasbord of which one you’d like according to where you live. I think that’s all absolutely true. But he was suggesting that we move much more swiftly to risk-based pricing on almost a property by property basis. And there are elements of that included in this bill where we’re looking at people, perhaps in areas where there’s considered to be lower risk, ending up paying higher premiums than they do at the moment, and those in other areas seeing some reduction.

I think if we were to go to a totally risk-based pricing system, we would be denying the social benefit that can come from the collective approach that’s taken by EQC. Remember that the Government of New Zealand—in other words, the taxpayers’ representative body—has decided that it would be good to take the first $300,000 worth of loss, but the expenditure of that is, essentially, left in the hands of the private insurers. So I just think there is a natural tension there for virtually no property to go over cap—or to be a real, you would say, threshold; a very, very high bar set on a threshold for going over the cap—because as soon as an insurer does that, they are into their own retentions and expenditure, and that bothers me a bit as well.

It was, interestingly, one of the reasons that initially Treasury suggested not going to the higher cap levels when the first tranche of this reform was put in place a couple of years ago. Just so it’s understood what I mean by that: if, in fact, the cap as it was at $100,000 or is now at $150,000—we know that in the current market, it’s pretty easy to get to $150,000, and beyond that—it’s the private insurer’s responsibility to meet the obligations of the policy. If you go to $300,000, it gives a lot more room for the people who are making the assessment to perhaps not make as good an assessment as they should have. And one of the ongoing problems that still exists out of Christchurch is the number of cases where first assessments were not as good as they probably should have been.

That raises, also, the issue of: at what point does legislation in this country, for this type of thing, start to close off the opportunity for second, third, and fourth claims when there’s been a sale of the property—perhaps two or three times? The Government opened up a thing called the “as is, where is” fund. It’s still open and it seems to me that, if someone has bought a property as is, where is, the person selling it has taken a cash sum, not applied it to the repair of the property, not transferred it in the sale—as they can choose not to do—then the person buying recognises they’re buying something that is damaged and they will have to fix it. The idea that they simply then put their hand up, saying, “EQC, come back and pay us again.”, I think, is a little bit tough on the rest of the population who have reasonably contributed their payments for their insurance and should have some expectation that there’ll be a degree of high diligence used in the application of it.

So those are just a couple of points that I want to make. I hope the Minister is able to make some comment on it. I am particularly hot, I’ve got to say, on that performance from the private insurers who are now the guardians of EQC’s reputation. And no matter what we want to say about what happened in Canterbury or Kaikōura or anywhere else where there’s been a disaster and EQC have been involved, it has served people well. There’ll be others who’ll want to contest that, but the numbers speak for themselves. So to have that potential reputation in the hands of others who have a vested interest in protecting their own interests ahead of the State, I think could well be a bit of a problem.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): To address a few of the points raised by Mr Brownlee, which I think are really good and important things to be considering: some of them are within the bill, but it’s a wider discussion, actually, that I think is important to have about the model. Can I just, from the outset, note that the Official Information Act does apply to the private insurers and their dealings, in so far as they are agents of the Crown. So they are still captured; they are not off the hook. If they’re suggesting that they are, they’re in for a surprise. So we’ll see how that plays out—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can I respond to the Minister, as we’re able to do in these things? I know, I only—

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Certainly, well, I’m very happy—this is good conversation.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, the Minister’s now resumed his seat, so, Mr Brownlee.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Thank you, very much. This was supposed to be how this new committee structure worked, and I know that you used this yourself that way, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, not so much by interrupting, Mr Brownlee, but just flowing, shall we say.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, look, when someone’s heading down a track to fall over the end of a cliff, you just want to make sure you stop them. All I’m saying is that I raised that like that because I have four claimants’ emails from a private insurer saying they do not need to release that information. And I think that’s the problem we’ve got, that they are able to—as my initial contribution said, I think they don’t understand the full implications of the Act that they’re now required to administer.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): I thank the member for his contribution. That flow backwards and forwards—eight minutes one way, 30 seconds the other—we’ll get the balance. But I am delighted to have the conversation, and I’m happy to talk to the member about that in particular, because I do want this model to work well. I think there’s real merit in having all of those insurers available and part of the process. The private sector has a lot of offices across the country, and the ability to make it easier for people who are in a time of need to access help. They’ve got the existing relationship, we’ve got more offices on the ground, and we avoid that constriction point that we had when the Canterbury earthquake happened, and the Earthquake Commission (EQC) was a very small agency at that time. So I think the model itself, whilst new, will have some teething issues, and I’m keen to work through them with the member. I’m happy to take that offline, as well, in particular cases.

The member also spoke of the, perhaps, natural cap at the $300,000 level. The comment I’d make is that there is an assurance programme in place for all claims managed through that process, and there are joint assessments for the EQC portion and the insurer portion done under that model. So there is a collaborative working arrangement, if you like, behind the scenes. Again, all of this is relatively new, and, having said that, we’ve had some examples already where we’ve had this new model in action and we can observe it working. So I think it is a really good model—a good step forward—but there will be things that will need to be worked through.

Another of the member’s points was talking about the more general shift to a more granular risk-based pricing—letterbox-based pricing—for insurance policies. It’s something that the Government is very aware of. Well, the ability that some of the smaller companies have developed technologies for sooner than some of the bigger ones—it’s certainly something that was being talked about when I was a new MP nearly 12 years ago. I can remember having conversations in Opposition about the potential to move to a much more granular risk-based pricing model. Other things have intervened, including the COVID period—I think that’s, kind of, kept those insurance companies busy doing other things. But there is a global movement in this direction, and I think we are, as a Parliament, going to have to think about the responsibility.

I like the member’s characterisation of insurance being a collision between a social outcome and a capitalist objective—I wrote it down; I’m going to take it away. I think it’s a nice turn of phrase. It’s the challenge we’re trying to deal with here, with the fact that New Zealand, historically, has had a very high insurance coverage. That’s been in our national interest; it helps us come back from economic shocks or situations or natural disasters in a way that we want to continue into the future. And yet, we’ve seen global markets get jittery at times around the provision of insurance. We’ve got good cover here right now. The reinsurers like the kind of diversity that New Zealand risk represents in the global picture. So while things might be good there, we don’t want to take them for granted. We want to ensure high insurance uptake, and that means we need to look closely at the settings, at the way in which more granular risk-based pricing is coming into the market—whether there’s a role for Government there in ensuring that the social outcomes we want to achieve are achieved, all the while mindful that markets are very efficient ways of solving problems if the right regulatory structure is around them.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Minister, I thought we’d lost you there. It’s good that you’re back in the chair. Obviously, we’ll get to the Supplementary Order Paper, but I just wanted to make sure that you’re taking it through Cabinet, and the Prime Minister read it and it was all kosher.

Hon Andrew Little: Now, now, Damien.

DAMIEN SMITH: That’s a fair question after this week.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We are looking for a relevant point and question, Mr Smith.

DAMIEN SMITH: Yeah, it’s related.

One of the things that really kind of follows on from Mr Brownlee’s contribution—it is good to see that the Minister will have that conversation—is that between the Minister and his advisers, this is a hugely important bill. We wanted to make sure that you’re confident that everything’s been done by yourself to ensure stakeholders are happy with the bill and there won’t be any significant unintended consequences, because it’s a very complex bill. Some of the legalese in here is probably more parliamentarian than insurance-based. So there have been concerns throughout this process and I just wanted to seek the Minister’s assurance that he feels this is the best that can come out.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): I won’t repeat the kind of 10-minute introduction I made to this this committee stage late at night, because I will assume that members have worked through that. But I’ll repeat some of the assurances out of it, because I think it’s worth the committee hearing that this bill has come out of a process led by Dame Silvia Cartwright—an inquiry that made 70 recommendations. Most of those recommendations, or a good chunk of them, are being put into play through passing this bill through the Parliament. The other significant thing that’s changing as well, in response to those recommendations, are the fundamental changes to the Earthquake Commission’s operating model through the development of that natural disaster response model that Mr Brownlee and I have been discussing. So those are the two big areas where we see the workings of those 70 recommendations coming into effect.

I’m very confident in the thorough work of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, who went through this. I think they did make some useful suggestions on the way through. It’s been a good process; it’s been quite a long process. It’s not a process that sought to do a first-principles review. We’ve accepted that the broad foundations of the original legislation were right—the direction was right—but they needed clarity in a number of places, as Dame Silvia highlighted. Even in the drafting, more challenges came to light, or the need, desire, and—what’s the word?—desirability of cementing in current practice, to make sure that what has been established through convention now has a legal footing, because it’s the sensible way of dealing with things. So I am confident that we’re passing a very good bill through this committee, and I want to thank members across the Chamber for their contributions to making it so.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Now, in the select committee consideration, there was a mention made of hailstorm damage in Sydney earlier in the century, where uninsured people ended up getting higher payments for their damage than those who were insured, because they got their claim or their costs settled through some kind of benevolent fund or mayoral fund or some other such. It raised the issue of the moral hazard of under-insurance. And if you look at the situation of AMI and Ansvar—two sizable sort of insurers, particularly AMI; 40 percent of the market in Canterbury—it failed. It failed because it didn’t have sufficient funds in its retention fund to meet initial costs and it didn’t have sufficient reinsurance to cover the cost of the policies that had actually been sold.

So that raises the question of the role of the insurance regulator, and there’s nothing actually in this bill that deals with that. I’m wondering if the Minister can indicate whether or not, outside of this bill, there might be some work being done to consider or reconsider or to boot up the role of the insurance regulator. Because, I think, as much as we require certain capital ratios for banks, there is a case to be said that if you want to offer insurance—whether such a huge contribution potentially from the State and ultimately a liability being accepted by the State where there is failure—then there should be some pretty clear ratios of cover available relative to the potential costs of all of those claims coming home to roost at one time.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): That’s obviously outside of the scope of this bill, but a very valid question. My understanding—and I’ve just checked that with officials—is that the Reserve Bank capital requirements are now a one-in-1,000-year event. So that is a change that’s happened. It’s important that those companies do have sufficient capital behind them, and obviously the Financial Markets Authority has another role, as well, in overseeing those markets.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Yeah, thank you very much, Mr Chair. Just following on from the Hon Gerry Brownlee, I wanted to move into a section of the bill in Part 5, Subpart 3, clause 138. This is in regards to some new and extended provisions in regards to information sharing, information collection. While we are, obviously, supportive of this bill overall—wherever there are aspects of legislation which are looking to extend the ability of the State to be able to gather information from those constituents who are impacted by this legislation—one does need to have assurance that those powers are reasonable and appropriate in regards to the mechanisms which will result.

So my questions for the Minister are as follows: why does the Minister believe that the information-gathering powers that are in the bill are necessary, and who, in terms of the extent of the individuals or groups or entities, does the Minister believe that these powers are going to extend to? The second question in regards to the information gathering is: what assurance, if any, has the Minister received from officials in terms of the scope and ability to gather such information? I think, on assessment of what is here—and I was a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which, obviously, did review this bill. But I think it’s worthwhile revisiting this, because it is important in terms of there is some assessment that, actually, the powers included within this bill could be seen or deemed by some as being reasonably unfettered, and there are risks and concerns around that regard.

The last question I have in regards to this area is in regards to the guidance that the Minister’s received in terms of, again, the appropriateness of those provisions, but probably more importantly in this context are the implications on other aspects or other ministries or other unintended consequences as a result of this information. We’ve had a number of instances, again, even in the last 10 days, in terms of cyber-security issues around access of private information. So the concern always will remain from the public: “Do I really need to be providing this information through the Government? What is it going to be used for? How is it going to be used, and is that appropriate in regards to being a threshold of what is necessary in order for the Government organisations to undertake their job, and not over and above what is actually required in order to fulfil that purpose?” So I’d appreciate a little bit of context in regards to that aspect.

While I’ve got a little bit of time, the other aspect is in regards to clause 24(1)(b)(i), and this is in regards to the definitions around imminent damage. So clause 24(1)(b)(i), in regards to some clarity from the Ministers, is around when assessment is undertaken and the assessment that it’s, and I quote, “more likely than not to occur in the next 12 months.” This is, obviously, a change. I know it was discussed at some length in the select committee process, but, again, a little bit of substantiation, I guess, in terms of how that 12-month aspect was determined and on what basis or what precedent does the Minister believe that period is appropriate? I mean, any forecast into the future, even tomorrow, is a challenging one. So having a window of 12 months, in terms of being able to make an assessment of whether it’s more likely than not for damage or imminent damage to occur, does place the decision-making power quite squarely on, no doubt, technical specialists and experts. But there does come with that quite a significant degree of latitude, which would, depending on the decision, result in the fiscal implication to the Crown. So I’m looking for confidence around why we deem that to be appropriate.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): I will respond to the first of the member’s questions; I’m just seeking clarification on the second so that I can absolutely make sure I’m getting it right, for the sake of the committee. The information-sharing provisions, indeed, reflect the current powers in the current Act. So I want to give the committee that assurance. They do reflect the current powers. They do provide for the ability for information to be requested in certain formats and in certain timing so that it can be useful information, and, obviously, members can see—those following the debate at home might not be able to—that also in that section is a codification of the appropriate ways to handle information, the responsibilities that surround it, and the authorisations, which are also really important to have outlined in the law.

Primarily, those powers will be used for information-sharing between the Earthquake Commission and the insurers, and the same powers are in place where it concerns providing information publicly.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Just one brief question. I’ve been reading through some of the notes provided to analyse the bill. There’s a line that sort of talks about the insurer’s contractual obligation in the case of a full reinstatement, and it is only to rebuild to a former state, without mitigation measures. Now, I can understand if that meant putting in a bund or putting in some sort of other protection—that would be fair enough. But does it mean that under this bill, the requirement for a reinstatement to be reinstated at today’s building codes is still in place, or has it been set aside?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): Can I just get the member to clarify: is the question—could I get the member to repeat the question, please? Sorry.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Yes. So, currently, as I understand it, if someone makes a claim for natural hazard damage and it requires a dwelling, for example—well, in the case of the Earthquake Commission, it will always be a dwelling—to be fully reinstated, or, in other words, it’s written off, it’s going to be demolished, and it’s going to be replaced, and the insurers had covered the balance of the $300,000 through their replacement policy or their sum insured, does it mean that if the insurer is taking over that job, the new house has to be built to current code, or simply to the code that existed at the time that the original property was built?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): Sorry, I apologise. I didn’t quite understand the member’s question originally. Yes—to the current code.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, just a technical point on page 15 for the advisers: do you think this definition of “mixed-use building” is overly complicated? Secondly, obtaining this information would be extremely hard, and is there a simpler formula to be applied to this type of mixed-use building?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): I would just comment that it’s as complicated as it would need to be.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Minister, for the feedback in regards to questions previously. Two further questions, if I may.

The bill includes changes of removing the commissioner’s discretion discount levies, payable to the commission by private insurers, and my question in regards to that aspect is around the implication or removal of that commissioner discretion and what is likely to be the implication, potentially, in regards to that aspect. Because, obviously, the ability for the commissioner to have some scope in terms of making such assessments, I think, is deemed appropriate—but a little bit of context around that.

The last aspect is—because, obviously, conscious of time and we’re getting near to the end of my list—the introduction of the new offence for insurers who fail to comply with their obligations to pay a levy to the commission is a new implication within the bill.

Obviously while there is a recognition in regards to an offence regime, I’m wanting to get some assurance from the Minister in regards to making sure that that new ability to be able to, in effect, apply an offence is going to be appropriately measured in the context that we’re going to be aware that there may be people that are going to try and push the limits a little bit. But, again, how do we get those checks and balances to make sure that that new offence is fair and reasonable in the context of what will be applied? Thank you.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): I’ll answer the first of the member’s questions. I’m not sure—he might need to point me to the part in the bill in respect of the second.

But the discretion to discount levies, that commissioner discretion, is an unusual thing—it doesn’t exist in other sectors; it’s an unusual practice. Obviously, there’ll be greater information-sharing over time; I think there’ll be appropriate arrangements in place.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 297, be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 to 6, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2, as amended, agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill

In Committee

Parts 1 to 7, the Schedule, and clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill. We come first to the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 7 and the Schedule, “Preliminary provisions” The question is that Part 1 stand part.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There’s no objection. We will hear this as one part. The question is that Parts 1 to 7, the Schedule, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications): In an increasingly digital world, it is important that people can prove who they are online in a trusted and consistent way. Digital identity services give people the ability to securely share information about themselves, such as their date of birth and name, and that enables access to services like setting up a bank account online or providing a new employer with information. However, the digital identity environment currently lacks consistent standards, making it difficult to provide genuine and secure services.

This bill introduces a new regulatory framework, being the trust framework, which will establish standards for the provision of secure digital identity services. These standards will give people more control over their own data. That includes what they choose to share about themselves and who they share it with. Digital identity is essential to the development of more effective and efficient online services, making us as a society more resilient.

If a digital identity service provider wants to become accredited, they will have to meet the requirements under the trust framework. The trust framework introduced in this bill will be opt-in, and I do want to stress that for the committee. There has been a degree of dis- and misinformation about this, which I know the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee heard too. This is an opt-in framework. So if consumers want to use digital identity services, they will be able to choose to use a regulated service marked with a trust mark that assures their information has been stored and shared in a way that protects their privacy and security.

Importantly, for people who don’t have access to or choose not to use digital identity services, the Government will continue to make in-person services available. We had a debate on that in the House earlier this year. I want to acknowledge the Citizens Advice Bureau, who often are there on behalf of folk who either don’t want to or are unable to be online currently.

The trust framework doesn’t establish a centralised identity system. It doesn’t create any new powers for the Government to collect or share people’s information without their consent. It’s really important to be clear on that. If they authorise it, information about a person’s identity will be verified against the information recorded in the Births, Deaths and Marriages registry, similar to how identity is currently verified when applying for a passport. Personal information cannot be accessed or shared without the person’s consent. Information will only be stored for as long as it’s needed, and it will be securely encrypted while stored and in use. Information cannot be sold on to third parties.

There has been confusion over the technical operation of the trust framework, and I would like to take this opportunity to dispel it. There has been an increase in online services which require proof of identity—accessing a bank account, applying for a student loan, or completing a rental application are a few examples that come to mind. Consumers want to be able to provide this information easily and securely. Businesses want to be able to use this information to make decisions about eligibility and entitlement with a high level of confidence. A secure digital identity credential will enable these services to be provided online without the need for personal information, such as a passport, to be shared. This makes the transaction more secure, with it being encrypted and only necessary information being provided—for example, a proof of identity may not always need to include a person’s birth date. This system will enable sharing of only the minimum information needed, and nothing more.

Valuable and personal and organisational information exists in a range of locations across the public and private sector. Some of these locations are the authoritative source of information they hold, such as the Births, Deaths and Marriages registry; other sources may hold non-authoritative information, such as a utility company holding on to a person’s address—they have a level of confidence that the person lives at the address, but the utility company is not the authority for addresses in New Zealand. Any organisations holding information may choose to participate in the trust framework as an information provider. Under the trust framework system, this information will remain where it is currently stored, and there will be no centralised data repository.

I might leave my initial contribution there. There is a lot to say about this. I’m looking forward to members’ contributions as we set up something that will be of great use to New Zealand citizens.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I want to actually start with the question of disinformation—a very important topic because, in the last 20 minutes, coming across my newsfeed is information saying Dr David Clark may be not coming back after the election in 2023. I want to know if that’s disinformation or not, because he’s been a good man in this House, and I just want him to acknowledge that is true and not disinformation. To acknowledge, in all seriousness, his work, and, obviously, he’s got things in the future, but to just acknowledge him in that announcement today. If that be true, he’s allowed to sit me down for dis- or misinformation.

Look, this is a large bill—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): So tempting, Mr O’Connor.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Carry on.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I was being nice for a change, Mr Chair.

Hon Member: Who is this guy?

SIMON O’CONNOR: “Who is this?”, that’s right!

Barbara Edmonds: For a change.

SIMON O’CONNOR: For a change. That’s right; I don’t want to mislead the committee.

Look, a couple of very basic questions, and I want to admit to the Minister, I’m not an expert in this space. So first and foremost: which is going to be the primary ministry responsible for overseeing this? I take on board what the Minister’s indicated. This is not one great central database which the Crown is controlling; it’s a framework of a set of regulations which, if I heard correctly, outside organisations can, if you will, accredit to and follow through. But it would be interesting to know which is going to be the primary ministry, if that is even in the correct question.

Secondly: who actually, ultimately, owns the data? I suppose, fundamentally, it’s up to each organisation with their terms and conditions. I certainly know in the medical space, we—the patient, I understand—are meant to own our own records, even though a doctor, for example, or medical practice might manage it. So that may not be a particularly relevant question.

Coming out of that, because I expect it’s not specifically in this legislation: as this framework is set up, can he give the committee some confidence that he’s already engaging with his ministerial colleagues, with their responsibilities, that Crown agencies will be signing up to this framework? Is that something we expect, Minister, Government agencies will be signing up to? So I acknowledge the Minister of Health here; would we be seeing Health New Zealand swiftly signing up to this framework or do they already work within their own? I genuinely don’t know. But it would be good to give us some surety that if this framework is in place—we would imagine some in the private sector, for example, would accredit themselves to it. Is there work being done to swiftly bring on the likes of Health New Zealand and other entities?

Then the broader question—and it’s something that I’ve seen in the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee report; you referenced it, Minister, in your opening comments. There’s a lot of misunderstanding out here around what all parts of this bill do. A lot of people think this is, again, about a massive central repository of information, and I think it would help me and help the committee if the Minister could speak to that misunderstanding. I want to be really, really clear: it’s the misunderstanding of some in the public; it’s not the misunderstanding of the Minister, the select committee, myself, or the House. But I think it would be useful if the Minister could just elaborate on how this is not a central repository of information.

And if it’s not overloading the Minister and his officials at 7 minutes to 5, what’s going to happen to the likes of RealMe? I know that is more of a singular Government-run system. Is that going to continue in parallel or will we see a whole new system, in his mind, coming into being that this not so much replaces it but sets in a new framework? Can RealMe continue on or should some other work be developing? Thank you.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications): I thank the member for many of his questions. Look, in terms of the governance arrangements, I do want to discuss them, but I’ll first—just about RealMe. Some of the tools involved in RealMe will actually, I guess, be recycled into this framework, some of the protection mechanisms that are enabled through the framework. So some of that technology will contribute to this.

I think it’s fair to say that that mechanism is not as contemporary as others out there. It is effective, and it is secure. Today, people share data online all the time using Facebook and social media and on various platforms out there. Having a secure mechanism for doing that in a modern way is what this is attempting to do and to ensure that the person whose data it is is in control of that sharing, rather than it being permission between Government agencies or whatever; that the person whose data it is owns that data and gets to say who gets to use it and what parts of it—I think that’s a really important principle for privacy reasons. It is something that is now possible because of the way that technologies have developed.

In terms of where does this sit, does this sit in a Government department and so on, I think that’s important to explain to the House. The Trust Framework Board is described in Part 4 of the bill. There are three bodies responsible for overseeing different aspects of the trust framework. This work has been driven out of the Department of Internal Affairs, and I do want to acknowledge and thank the officials who’ve done the hard work, first, of bringing me up to speed on it when I was a new Minister in this portfolio—I thank them for their patience. I also acknowledge the expertise that sits there in the development of this framework.

The Trust Framework Board develops the trust framework rules that service providers will need to comply with. There’s a Māori Advisory Group established, as well, which will advise the board on Māori interests and knowledge on digital identity and the operation of the trust framework. So that’s an advisory board that sits alongside.

There’s also the Trust Framework Authority which is responsible for accrediting organisations against the rules, so it’s a more operational, if you like, aspect of it; monitoring, enforcing compliance of the rules, and complaints and dispute resolution.

So there’s quite a structure around it; that’s important. We want to get the thing right in principle. We want there to be a board that oversees, governs, this new mechanism we’re putting in place, and we also want some real operational muscle in there as well.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

Report of committee of the whole House

Report of committee of the whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill and reports progress. I move, That the reports be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Reports adopted.

SPEAKER: Members, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 13 December 2022. Kia ora mai tātou.

The House adjourned at 4.57 p.m.