Tuesday, 13 December 2022

TUESDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2022

TUESDAY, 13 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.

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

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

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

CLERK:

Petition of the Free Speech Union requesting that the House remove clause 15 from the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill

petition of Jake Roos on behalf of Low Carbon Kāpiti requesting that the House urge the Minister of Energy and Resources to drop plans for a proposed biofuels obligation.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

2021-22 annual reports for the:

Classification Office

Cadastral Surveyors Licensing Board of New Zealand

New Zealand Trade and Enterprise

Office of the Children’s Commissioner, and

Climate Change Commission

2022-26 strategic intentions for the Ministry of Health

Notice of declaration of inconsistency: Voting age, in the Electoral Act 1993 and the Local Electoral Act 2001.

SPEAKER: I present the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament: Summary of amendments to annual returns and initial returns of newly elected members, December 2022. I also present the following reports of the Controller and Auditor-General, entitled:

Observations from our central government audits, 2021-22

Insights into Local Government 2021, and

Coordination of all-of-Government response to the COVID-19 pandemic to 2020.

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

CLERK:

Reports of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the

petition of Barnabas Fund New Zealand

two petitions of Greenpeace Aotearoa

petition of Nigel Woodley

report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Amendment Bill

reports of the Petitions Committee on the petitions of

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere

Angelo Dumlao

Jan Logie MP

Jo Millar on behalf of Grey Power Otago Incorporated

Maarten Wagenaar

Maryam Ghadery

Pete Young

Robert Forsyth

Vince Siemer, and

Brian Borland

report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General Inquiry into the Ministry of Social Development’s funding of private rental properties for emergency housing.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. The report on the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General is set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The construction sector is continuing to grow. Statistics New Zealand reported that the volume of building activity rose 3.8 percent in the September quarter. Residential construction rose 3.1 percent, while industrial and commercial building activity increased 4.9 percent. The result was above economists’ expectations, and has led them to revise upwards their forecast for GDP in the September quarter. The economy is expected to grow solidly in the September quarter, if not as strong as in the previous June period when the economy expanded 1.7 percent. We know that 2023 is going to be a difficult year for the global economy and that this will affect New Zealand’s prospects, but New Zealand finds itself in a strong starting position, with unemployment near record lows, exports growing, and tourists returning in greater numbers.

Barbara Edmonds: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Momentum in the economy is expected to continue into the December quarter, though activity has shown signs of slowing. Statistics New Zealand report that the New Zealand activity index, a composite index of activity across the economy, rose 3.1 percent in October, compared to the same period a year ago. Activity indicators were up in electronic card transaction activity, grid demand, and job advertisements, together with a reduction in job seeker numbers. Both the activity outlook and the BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index fell.

Barbara Edmonds: What reports has he seen on net migration, and how is it impacting on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Statistics New Zealand reported that there was a net gain of 3,300 people arriving in October, with an estimated 11,400 arrivals, and 8,100 departures. Our immigration reset is working and attracting the overseas workers with the skills that businesses require to rebuild the economy. Yesterday’s announcement to expand the Green List will further support businesses to recruit internationally to fill the shortages we have.

Barbara Edmonds: What reports has he seen on the international context for the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Global factory output fell widely in November. In the United States, its manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index, or PMI, fell to 49, below the 50 level that marks growth in activity. In Europe, its manufacturing PMI stood at 46.4, while in the UK and China, manufacturing activity shrank for a fourth month in a row. The deteriorating global economy is affecting New Zealand’s prospects as we head into next year. We’ll be facing a period of high inflation, which is then forecast to be followed by a shallow recession. New Zealand does find itself well positioned to deal with what the world throws at us, with the Government’s books in good shape and our debt levels among the lowest in the world. We will continue to carefully and responsibly prioritise our spending without unnecessarily adding to inflation. This is a balanced approach that gives us choices and flexibility to respond and support New Zealanders as the global environment changes.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly this Government’s continued action to support businesses to recruit new workers internationally to fill critical skills shortages. The whole world is experiencing labour shortages. We have approved over 94,000 job positions for international recruitment. We’ve granted over 40,000 working holiday visas. We’ve reopened the Pacific Access category and Samoa quota. We’ve delivered the largest increase in a decade to the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme, and we’ve resumed the skilled migrant category and parent category, to strengthen our international offering. But there is more that we can do. That is why we have expanded the Green List settings to include more professions in our healthcare, education, and construction sectors, but, as you can see, there is a global workforce shortage. New Zealand continues to do all it can to remain competitive.

Christopher Luxon: Did Minister Mahuta inform her about the proposed three waters entrenchment Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) after she received advice about it in October, and, if not, why is she still a Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said in this House and publicly many times, the SOP that was passed through the committee stage was tabled after caucus. Also, this is an issue that we ensured was fixed before the final bill passed. We’ve acknowledged it was a mistake.

Christopher Luxon: Why is Nanaia Mahuta still a Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because Nanaia Mahuta is an excellent Minister, and I will stand by that Minister for the work that she does on our behalf on the world stage, for the work that she does at home, fixing infrastructure that Governments time and time again ignored we had a massive deficit in. It has been a contributing factor to the housing crisis we have. It is one of the reasons that you cannot swim in Auckland beaches right now and why we have boil water notices in towns up and down this country. Minister Mahuta finally stood up and did something about it, and I stand firm with her.

Christopher Luxon: Is she honestly saying that she considers a Minister holding up a Whittaker’s chocolate bar for social media to be a breach of the Cabinet Manual, but yet a Minister deliberately flouting a clear Cabinet decision on entrenchment is not?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member’s last past of the question is incorrect; the Minister did not.

Christopher Luxon: How does she think Kiwis who have spent months on surgical wait-lists because of her inability to admit her mistakes are going to feel now that, seven months later, she has suddenly realised New Zealand has a nursing shortage?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have had 2,900 nurses come into this country during the pandemic. We have had, this year, 4,500 internationally trained nurses—4,500 internationally trained nurses—register with the Nursing Council. We’ve had 900 in November alone—record numbers. The change we made yesterday is about maintaining our competitive edge and attracting health workers whilst many other countries experience a similar shortage, and I stand by that.

Christopher Luxon: Why couldn’t she just admit she got it wrong and offer nurses immediate residency seven months ago, as National and the whole health sector was calling for?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member continually mischaracterises what we did in the first place, which was to fast-track nurses from the position they had under National to residency, and it demonstrates the difference it made with the record numbers that we had seeking registration with the Nursing Council. We want to stay one step ahead of a globally competitive environment, and that’s why we made the changes we have.

Hon Michael Wood: Does the Prime Minister agree with public comments that have been recently made that New Zealand’s borders should have been fully opened in November last year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Sorry, could you just repeat the question.

Hon Michael Wood: Does the Prime Minister agree with public comments recently made that the Government should have fully reopened the borders in November of last year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I stand by every decision that we have made, including the member’s decisions on bringing back in and expediting the visa processing for those where we’ve had shortages. I also stand by the member’s immigration rebalance work, which has meant we are recruiting for 90,000 places right now. I also stand by Minister Little’s work to improve nurses’ pay, because it’s not just about visas; it’s also about attracting people with the working conditions. I stand by this Government’s work on those shortages.

Christopher Luxon: Oh, goodness. She said she’s finally planning to tell her Ministers to focus and start prioritising. Does that mean that she’s also now planning to U-turn on the TVNZ-RNZ merger, her farm emissions overreach, and the jobs tax?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I stand by that statement. I’ve asked members to go away and, over summer, make sure that in 2023, we continue to focus on the economy, on supporting New Zealanders through what will be a difficult time, through an economically volatile period—just in the same way that we have already reduced fuel at the pump, the cost of living payment, and the increase in the family tax credit. All of this, we know, has already made a difference to low and middle income earners; compare that with the one idea the National Party has had, which they may or may not have reversed.

Christopher Luxon: Isn’t it the case that she’s totally lost control of her Cabinet, she cannot admit when she’s wrong, and she’s now just desperately cancelling her agenda in response to bad polls and bad press?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Question No. 3—Housing

3. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: What actions has the Government taken to achieve better housing outcomes for the people of Rotorua?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): On Friday, we signed the Rotorua Housing accord with Rotorua Lakes Council and Te Arawa iwi. The accord renews the commitment by all parties to work collaboratively on addressing Rotorua’s chronic housing shortage and improve emergency housing. The accord builds on the significant progress already made as of November 2022, including that the number of motels used for emergency housing has fallen by 20 since November 2021, and we plan to have only three mixed-use motels left by Christmas. The number of households in emergency housing was 372 households in December 2021, and that has now fallen to 168 households as at November 2022. We’ve brought on 230 public housing places since 2017, and we are seeing increasing private developments, with 390 new building consents issued in the year to October 2022, compared to 64 consents in the year to June 2014.

Tāmati Coffey: What does the accord seek to achieve?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The accord signifies the strong, ongoing commitment for central government, local government, and iwi to build a better housing future for Rotorua. Rotorua’s population increased by over 9,000 people after 2013, but only 1,200 private homes were built. Rotorua also suffered a net loss of 42 public homes under the last Government. Specifically, the accord seeks to reduce the reliance on emergency housing, it seeks to provide better support and care for people in emergency housing, and, importantly, increase housing supply to ensure more Rotorua people have access to safe, dry, warm, permanent homes.

Tāmati Coffey: How does the accord complement work already under way in Rotorua?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In mid-2021, through the Rotorua Housing Taskforce, we established Te Pokapū, the Rotorua Housing Hub. We contacted emergency accommodation for families and whānau with children and provided additional wraparound social support services. We’ve also invested in housing and infrastructure, including around 330 public and transitional homes under construction or in planning by Kāinga Ora community housing providers and iwi and Māori, and over $139 million for transport and water infrastructure through the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund and shovel-ready funding.

Tāmati Coffey: What feedback has she heard about the accord?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Rotorua mayor Tania Tapsell says the accord responds to the urgent need to end mixed-use tourism accommodation and deliver better housing solutions for those in need. Mayor Tapsell also said the accord was a huge win for us here in Rotorua and we will see visible changes within a year. Rawiri Waru, the chairman of Te Arawa working party, responding to the emergency housing, said, “We agree that housing development, which is environmentally friendly and sustainable, is desperately needed in Rotorua. … [The] accord recognises our collaborative duty to address the chronic housing crisis and tackle the many issues that have emerged from it.”

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and policies?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. I was especially delighted to see the support on the forecourt today from across the House for our world champion Black Ferns, and I stand by the support that we as a Government have provided this and other major women’s sporting events—2023 will be a very big year.

David Seymour: When will she show some leadership and sack Nanaia Mahuta?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, as I’ve already said in this House, I have no such intention.

David Seymour: How will New Zealand become a more peaceful and united country from the introduction of a law that allows people to be fined or jailed for “Insulting a religion”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As we have debated and discussed in this House many times before, we already have provision in our Human Rights Act to prevent incitement based on ethnicity or race. What we have simply done is add the word “religion”. If the member has a fundamental issue with the human rights legislation as it stands, that’s a matter for the member. Obviously, on this side of the House, we support the existing legislation but believe it should be extended.

David Seymour: So is the Prime Minister’s position that this addition of religion to the Human Rights Act will make no difference, or that it will actually allow people to be prosecuted for insulting religions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. My argument is not that it will make no difference; my argument is that we already have an existing framework in which the legal parameters can already be tested around issues like, for instance, race, and we have added now the additional word of “religion”. That is based, of course, on the experience that we’ve had in New Zealand—the sad experience we’ve had in New Zealand—and the recommendation of the royal commission. The royal commission did make suggestion that some of those definitions, more broadly, should be altered. A consultation document was put out on that. It received a lot of feedback. Then, we’ve asked the Law Commission to support wider work because our aspiration remains to get cross-party consensus.

David Seymour: Does she stand by her various statements blaming foreign factors for inflation when home-grown food just increased 10.7 percent year on year in New Zealand according to Stats New Zealand yesterday?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.

David Seymour: Does she stand by her various statements that other countries have it worse, when a net 15,000 New Zealanders chose to vote with their feet and move to other countries in the year to November?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member has already heard me talk about the net positive growth we’ve had when it comes to migration. I’ve not for a moment diminished the experience that New Zealanders are having as a result of inflation. What I have done is put into context the fact that we are not having that experience alone, and, relative to other countries, our experience is not as significant—we’re in the lower half of the 38 OECD nations.

David Seymour: How can the Prime Minister say that her immigration policy is working when more people are leaving than coming?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because the member is incorrect. As I already said in the House, if you look at the data, monthly migrants arriving are higher than departures, and this has been the trend over the past few months. The member can simply look at the numbers.

David Seymour: Does she realise New Zealanders having to tighten their belts in a cost of living crisis are getting increasingly angry when they see her Government increase its own expenditure by $40 billion on pre-COVID levels, even next year and the year after that?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member, again, is incorrect. Our spending as a reflection of a percentage of GDP has decreased from 34 percent down to 31 percent, where, traditionally, you tend to see those numbers trend across different Governments. We absolutely acknowledge the times that we are in, and we are acting accordingly.

David Seymour: So if this Government inherited spending at around 28 percent of GDP and will soon settle at 31 percent, has this Government increased spending as a percentage of GDP or decreased it?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I said, it brings us back broadly into line with the trends that we have seen, with, of course, the interruption—not insignificant—of a one-in-100-year pandemic, where most members in this House supported the additional expenditure that was put in place by this Government to support business. It’s one of the reasons we have one of the lowest unemployment rates that we have seen, at 3.3 percent, and it is one of the reasons we have such low unemployment for Māori, for Pacific, and for women, and we stand by that record.

David Seymour: Why has her Government convicted only three parents in five years for kids not attending school, when there are thousands of unexplained absences from New Zealand schools every day?

Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Government doesn’t convict anybody.

SPEAKER: That’s a fair point. The member should reword his question.

David Seymour: Why have there been only three convictions of parents for students not attending school in the period of this Government, when there are thousands of kids absent from school unexplained every day?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The first point I would make is my recollection of the statistics; that is roughly the rate of conviction that you will have seen over a number of years, not just under this Government. It has not been a tool that is frequently used, and that, in part, is because of its level of effectiveness. The second point I’d make is that—putting aside the fact that during COVID, of course, those were abnormal years—I don’t believe anyone in this House would think that it would make much sense to make judgments around absence when we had the highest levels of flu season and a requirement to stay home if sick in the past few years; but keeping in mind, since 2015, we have seen a trend of increasing absence. If you look at some of the survey data, one of the issues that we’ve seen grow is that some New Zealand families believe that it is OK to withdraw your child for large significant occasions or family holidays. We have a job to do across the board in reminding all families how important school attendance is, to boost the funding of attendance services—as we have—and continue to work at a community level to bring children back into school.

David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister give an example of her making a mistake, apologising for it properly, and fixing it?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: There’s been a number of occasions where we acknowledge that we will not have perfect responses. We’ve openly said that, for instance, managed isolation and quarantine was something that was very difficult at the time and that there were people affected by it and that we would do things differently if we were ever confronted with that again. But I stand by the work that we’ve done as a Government over this last year and over this past term—we’ve always made decisions that we believe to be in the best interests of New Zealand at the time. [Prime Minister resumes seat] He’s such an arrogant prick.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Has he been instructed by the Prime Minister to look through the things he has on his agenda to ask himself whether “either from a spending perspective and investment perspective, or just from a focus perspective, those are things that we should be prioritising at this point in time”; if so, what initiatives, if any, has he identified should no longer be prioritised?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, the Prime Minister has indeed asked that of all Ministers to consider, over the summer period, these matters. Given the beautiful Wellington day that we have today, which indicated summer has started, I have identified some areas that I won’t be prioritising. I won’t be prioritising selling off State houses, I won’t be prioritising cutting public services or under-investing in hospitals or schools, I won’t be prioritising not paying nurses and teachers what they deserve, and I won’t be prioritising a tax cut for the wealthiest New Zealanders.

Nicola Willis: Does he think the Government’s planned multimillion-dollar merger of Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand should be prioritised while Kiwis are being squeezed by a cost of living crisis?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This Government is very proud of what we have done to support New Zealanders through the cost of living pressures that they’re facing, such as lifting benefits in 2020, 2021, and 2022, lifting the family tax credit, lifting childcare support, and providing the cost of living payment. We are able to do those things and also invest in other things as well.

Nicola Willis: So can he just confirm for the House that the TVNZ-RNZ merger is on the chopping block—it’s gone?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm no such thing, but what really interests me—what really interests me—is that members across the House somehow seem to think that we can go into the future with public broadcasting with no funding whatsoever. But, actually, come to think of it, that’s what they did for Radio New Zealand when they were in office.

Nicola Willis: Does he think his proposal to impose a new jobs tax on every worker to pay for a gold-plated unemployment scheme will meet the Prime Minister’s new test, or is the income insurance scheme set for the chop too?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member’s characterisation of the New Zealand Income Insurance Scheme is completely, wildly inaccurate, and she might like to have a chat to Gerry Brownlee and others who were part of a Government that introduced almost exactly the same payment for people in the wake of the Canterbury earthquakes.

Nicola Willis: Does the Minister think the jobs tax will survive the summer, or is the Prime Minister after it?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is talking about something that doesn’t exist. The New Zealand Income Insurance Scheme—[Interruption] Well, here we go. Everything’s a tax over there, except the tax cut that they wanted to give to the highest-income New Zealanders. On this side of the House, we will always look for ways to support New Zealanders to get through a cost of living crisis. We actually care about what happens to New Zealanders when they lose their jobs, unlike that lot over there.

Nicola Willis: When did the Prime Minister first instruct him to do a line-by-line, initiative-by-initiative review, and was it before or after Minister Wood told The AM Show last week that he had not been asked to do anything of the sort?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Prime Minister issues quite a few instructions, and I have in front of me here the Budget 2021 savings initiatives and the Budget 2022 savings initiatives. We take very seriously our job as responsible fiscal managers, and every day of the week we look to see what savings and reprioritisations we can make.

Question No. 6—Education

6. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What reports has he seen about numbers of people undertaking vocational education and training?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I’m pleased to report that more than 240,000 New Zealanders have received free vocational training through the Targeted Training and Apprenticeships Fund since it was introduced in 2020 to encourage people into vocational education and training in high-demand industries. It includes more than 106,000 apprentices.

Camilla Belich: What was the purpose of the Targeted Training and Apprenticeships Fund?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Targeted Training and Apprenticeships Fund, or TTAF, which finishes at the end of this month, began in July 2020 and was part of the Government’s response to COVID-19. It was designed to make it easier for those who wanted to train in strategically important industries where demand was expected to grow. COVID-19 resulted in many New Zealanders looking to retrain, and at the same time employers in key sectors were calling out for more skilled people. By removing fees, the extra funding gave many people the chance and the confidence to get into vocational training, to take on life-changing skills, and to help grow our workforce in ways that will benefit the country for decades to come.

Camilla Belich: What groups and skill areas have particularly benefited from TTAF?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The biggest areas of study were construction, at 30 percent; community support, at 19 percent; and our primary industries, at 18 percent. Māori represented around 20 percent of TTAF learners, while Asian learners were at around 15 percent and Pacific people around 9 percent of the total.

Camilla Belich: What impact has he seen on apprenticeship numbers overall?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Our investment in the Targeted Training and Apprenticeships Fund, as well as the Apprenticeship Boost initiative—which has been extended until the end of next year—is paying off. We’ve seen large increases in apprentice numbers and people of all ages from across the community engaged in vocational education. The largest group of learners are aged 25 to 39, but a quarter are aged over 40, proving that the lifelong learning message is being heard.

Camilla Belich: What options are available for people wanting to undertake vocational training in 2023?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is this really a good question today?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Whilst the Targeted Training and Apprenticeships Fund is finishing next year, Kiwi learners might still be able to get free vocational education under the Fees-free scheme in 2023, even if they have received free training under TTAF. There’s hope for you yet, Mr Brownlee—there’s future career opportunities out there for you. I encourage everyone already in training or thinking about vocational education to check it out at feesfree.govt.nz.

Question No. 7—Justice

7. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: Is she confident the Government has the correct priorities in Justice?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Yes, which include responding to law and order issues through an evidence-based approach; improving access to justice in tackling delays; supporting victims in the stewardship of the overall justice system, which include a wide range of areas from civil law to electoral law.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can she be confident the Government has the correct justice policies when violent crime is on track to increase by almost 40 percent since 2017?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: We have, on this side of the House as a Government, put record levels of police on to the beach. We are tackling violent crime by giving police more powers to go after organised criminals and their assets, and increasing the consequences of their offending.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Following the Prime Minister’s instruction for Cabinet Ministers to be looking through things that are on the agenda and just asking ourselves whether or not, either from a spending perspective or an investment perspective or just from a focus perspective, those are things we should be prioritising at this point in time, is she going to jettison hate speech legislation and shift her focus on to reducing violent crime?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: As previously stated, we have a broad range of priorities and one of those was responding to the royal commission. We’re progressing with a carefully considered two-stage approach with a focused law change in response to that commission, which the member is well aware of. In addition, I can confirm that we will not be cutting costs on some of those key priorities, such as investing in victims. We have doubled the amount of support for the victims assistance scheme. That’s one example of the many priorities that we have under way.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has she asked the Prime Minister if she still thinks the Government should be bringing forward legislation to reduce the voting age to 16, now that she wants Ministers focused and carefully prioritising their efforts?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: As the member will be well aware, this Parliament is obliged to consider that issue as a consequence of the Supreme Court’s ruling, and we should do so absolutely seriously.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does it still make sense to prioritise reducing the prison population when violent crime is rising, creating new victims with every crime?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Look, this is one of many priorities. It’s making sure that we get the settings right for our justice system. We have a broad range of targets and the member will be aware: 126 non-financial targets that are in the annual report—many of those are focused towards victims, in supporting victims; and that is indeed one of our key priorities.

Question No. 8—Tourism

8. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Tourism: What reports has he seen on New Zealand’s tourism recovery?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Tourism): Data released from the International Visitor Survey shows that spend from all international visitors totalled over a billion dollars in the September quarter. I’ve always been confident that once New Zealand’s borders reopened, international tourists would return and spend throughout our regions and boost our economy. This survey shows that the world is still drawn to our fantastic country, and international tourists are happy to pay for what New Zealand has to offer.

Naisi Chen: How are our regions benefiting from the return of international visitors?

Hon STUART NASH: Tourists are coming to New Zealand, and they’re coming to the regions. Tourism electronic card transaction spend in eight regions was higher than pre-COVID levels. International spend in Gisborne had the greatest increase, up by 47 percent, closely followed by Hawke’s Bay, up by 45 percent—go the mighty East Coast. The regions are truly driving our tourism recovery, and it’s fantastic to see that tourists are getting off the beaten track, spending money, and our regional economies are benefiting.

Naisi Chen: How are tourists spending compared to other international visitors?

Hon STUART NASH: International tourists spent $200 million more than international visitors who had come to see friends and relatives, despite making up similar volumes of arrivals. What this data tells us is that our value proposition to international tourists remains incredibly strong. International tourists are staying longer, spending more, and enjoying all that this fantastic country has to offer.

Naisi Chen: What recognition has New Zealand received internationally?

Hon STUART NASH: Earlier this month, New Zealand received two highly coveted international tourism awards: Best Country: Long-Haul in the National Geographic Reader Awards 2022 and Auckland as the first destination listed on the Condé Nast Traveler’s The 23 Best Places to Go in 2023—even though that probably should have been Napier. I know these accolades will be welcomed by our amazing tourism operators up and down the country as they gear up for a bumper summer season. My vision for tourism is for New Zealand to be one of the top three aspirational destinations for the world’s most discerning travellers, and it’s playing out better than planned.

Question No. 9—Immigration

9. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Immigration: Why were nurses and midwives not placed on the straight-to-residence pathway of the Green List in May, and on what date did he first receive advice, if at all, that the retention rates of migrant nurses and midwives are no longer a concern?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): When we launched the green list, we had some of the most competitive settings in the world for nurses and midwives, offering both groups a pathway to residence that did not exist for many of them under the previous Government. Since May, we have seen large numbers of nurses and midwives arrive in New Zealand, building on the thousands of health workers who have arrived since the pandemic began—around about 3,500 nurses over that time. But, in recent months, we’ve seen countries that we compete with strengthen their offering for skilled migrants, particularly in the health sector, where there is a global labour shortage. Our targeted adjustments to the green list announced yesterday will ensure that we remain internationally competitive and attractive to these migrants. To the second part of the member’s question, it is a simple fact that once someone has attained residency in New Zealand, whether that is a nurse or any other profession, for that matter, they have the ability then to work in other professions. Overall, the judgment that the Government has made, within light of those international factors, is that it is desirable to have an offer that is as attractive and as simple as possible. We’re focused on tackling immediate workforce shortages, and we have a simple message for any offshore nurses and midwives: come to New Zealand.

Erica Stanford: Does he now concede that the rationale for making nurses wait two years for residence—that they might suddenly decide to stop nursing—never made any sense; and why didn’t he, when he first became the Minister, in June, take that opportunity to U-turn on a policy that no one in the health sector supported, rather than waiting another six months?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I reject a number of assertions in the member’s question. When the Government put in place the green list policy, we gave all 13 occupational groups of nurses a clear pathway to residency that did not exist previously. We have further streamlined and simplified that now. It’s not a U-turn; it’s an acceleration, and I think it will assist us in respect of the offer of nurses to come to New Zealand. What I note further is that the Government has worked closely with the health sector, not just to assess the situation of nurses and midwives but also to offer a streamlined residency pathway for other clinical workers and allied health workers. So this is a bigger package of changes to help our health sector.

Erica Stanford: Can the Minister describe the difference between a U-turn and an acceleration?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: A U-turn would be having a policy to give big tax cuts to the wealthiest New Zealanders and then dropping it; an acceleration would be a policy of having a two-year pathway to residence, which was an improvement on the previous situation, and then making it straight to residency—something that has been welcomed by nearly every health sector group. The only people who seem to want to politicise it are the National Party.

Erica Stanford: Does he stand by his response, on the topic of nurses on Newstalk ZB yesterday, when asked, “Here’s the thing, Minister: you guys are either stupid or stubborn”, when he said, “Hmm, well, you can hardly call us stubborn.”?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I encourage anyone to listen to my interview on Newstalk ZB last night, but it wasn’t the most productive of conversations. The member opposite and I have had far more productive conversations most Friday mornings. If I can respond to that question, which Heather du Plessis-Allan didn’t actually allow me to answer on Newstalk ZB, what I would say is that we have consistently said over the last few months, as we’ve worked through these genuine issues of workforce shortages in health, which everyone acknowledges and every country around the world is dealing with, is that we would keep an open mind, that we would look at the settings, that we would continue talking to the sector, and that what we have done as a result of that hasn’t just been, as the member has spoken about in question time today, to make changes to the settings around nurses and midwives; we have made more fundamental changes, which are going to be of significant assistance to the health sector. That is the opposite of being stubborn. That is listening and working with the sector.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about futureproofing New Zealand’s transport system?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Over the past few weeks, we’ve made several key announcements about futureproofing our transport system. The week before last, I announced the projects that will be funded by the Transport Choices package, which will make our towns and cities more people-friendly places to live, work, and visit, by investing in public transport, walking, and cycling in 46 councils across New Zealand. Then on Friday, I confirmed the Government’s investment in the Eastern Busway extension, which has been warmly welcomed by people in Auckland and the eastern suburbs. This will provide reliable, high-frequency service to those people, saving customers about 20 minutes on their bus or train trip between Botany town centre and Britomart. And on Saturday, construction began on O Mahurangi – Penlink, a vital connection for North Auckland, linking the Whangaparāoa peninsula with the wider Auckland region and providing residents with safer and more sustainable transport choices. The direction of travel is clear. We’re getting on with delivering projects or upgrading transport connections for Kiwis while reducing congestion and greenhouse emissions.

Helen White: What are some of the key projects being funded by the Transport Choices package?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Transport Choices is about funding quick-win projects that will be delivered over the next two years in councils all around New Zealand. To name just three, in Taupō, we’re funding the district council to build separated cycleways from the town to Acacia Bay, giving more transport options across the bridge, improving outcomes for new developments in the north, and upgrading cycle connections in a number of schools in the area. In Tauranga, we’re investing in the Arataki multi-modal corridor—very much welcomed by the commissioner of Tauranga, the Hon Anne Tolley—with improved pedestrian crossing facilities, a separated cycleway, and better links for schools in the area. And in Auckland, we’re investing to vastly improve travel times by upgrading feeder routes for the Northwestern busway, which will include 45 new bus stops, up to nine kilometres of special vehicle lanes—

Simeon Brown: Bus stops won’t win an election.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: —and up to 10 new pedestrian crossings. And the member opposite’s bench mate should also be very pleased about the investments in the Waimakariri district.

Naisi Chen: How will the Eastern Busway improve travel connections for East Aucklanders?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government’s announcement of a $200 million investment in the Eastern Busway extension, which builds on stage one, which we’ve already delivered in this term of Government, will cut travel times for residents of East Auckland in places like Pakuranga and Botany for those people who need to get into the city, while reducing congestion around the Pakuranga town centre. By 2028, the busway will carry up to 14,000 passengers per day, more than four times the 3,700 bus passengers prior to COVID-19. By 2048, that is expected to increase to up to 24,000 passengers per day. This is a game-changer for the people of the eastern suburbs of Auckland and it’s been warmly welcomed by them.

Marja Lubeck: What benefits will O Mahurangi – Penlink deliver for residents in North Auckland?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As more people live and work in Silverdale, Whangaparāoa, and the Hibiscus Coast, this new two-lane road and shared path will provide improved travel times and choices for a growing part of Auckland. The project will not simply support the surrounding community through more lanes for cars, as a separated, shared user path means people will be able to safely walk or travel or bike or scooter, helping to support our response to climate change. The project will also support much stronger public transport connections to the successful Northern Busway. Penklink is funded by the New Zealand Upgrade Programme, which now has $3 billion worth of projects in pre-construction works, with even more major projects set to get under way next year. Our Government is getting on and delivering the projects that matter to Kiwis in the transport system, and will reduce our emissions and give more transport choices.

Question No. 4 to Minister

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order , Mr Speaker. With great regret, I raise this matter at the earliest possible convenience that I’ve been informed about it. At the end of question 4, the Prime Minister made an exceedingly unparliamentary remark, which journalists are reporting from the on-demand video. I ask that you ask her to withdraw and apologise for that remark.

SPEAKER: The member’s well aware of the correct procedure of raising—if it’s not raised at the time, you know, in my position now, I’d need to go back and have a look at the record and then I’ll make a decision about it.

David Seymour: Point of order, just to clarify—

SPEAKER: A new point of order?

David Seymour: Well—

SPEAKER: Or are you just going to disagree with—

David Seymour: Well, I—

SPEAKER: Well, I follow what’s recorded in the Hansard, not what’s reported to the House via the member from the media. You know, if you’re asking me, basically, saying, “Trust me; I’m going to do that on behalf of the House.”, well, I’m not going to.

David Seymour: Well, Mr Speaker, you’re required to do that.

SPEAKER: Yes, and I’ve told the House that I will look at Hansard to deal with it.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order. It’s quite usual—

SPEAKER: I’ve actually ruled, so you can’t speak to that point of order. If you’re raising a new point of order, you can do that.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I’m just being helpful, Mr Speaker. I’m just letting you know that it’s not uncommon in circumstances like this for the Speaker to ask the person accused of making the unparliamentary statement if they had in fact made that statement, and to withdraw and apologise if they had.

SPEAKER: That’s correct, and if the member looked across the House, you would be able to see that I am not able to ask that member.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, but it was an interesting response, because I didn’t want to talk about the Prime Minister not being here.

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s the last comment that I’m going to entertain. To do so would be to break the Standing Orders myself; I’m not going to do that.

Question No. 11—Local Government

11. SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Local Government: Did she receive advice from the Department of Internal Affairs on 25 October raising the possibility that Hon Eugenie Sage would pursue entrenchment of provisions in the Water Services Entities Bill via Supplementary Order Paper and stating the Government would need to decide whether to support it; if so, how does she reconcile that with her answer to me in oral questions on 6 December, “We were made aware of the details of the SOP at the same time as he was”?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Yes, I received advice from Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) in response to a letter received from Hon Eugenie Sage on 20 October 2022 that covered a range of their party’s concerns related to the water reforms, such as stormwater, co-governance, funding, and privatisation. I can reconcile this with my response to the member’s oral question on 6 December because it was related more specifically to a matter foreshadowed in that letter and then subsequently set out at a later date and tabled in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 285.

Simon Watts: Did she send advice received on SOP 285 on 22 November relating to entrenchment, to any other Ministers; if so, who?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That SOP was tabled by Hon Eugenie Sage in the House. It was a very dynamic debate. I saw that SOP at the same time and then subsequently sought advice on it.

Chris Bishop: Point of order. That wasn’t the question. The question was about the advice that the Minister received on that SOP and whether or not that advice was sent to other Ministers.

SPEAKER: That’s not quite how I heard it—but Simon Watts, if you could ask the question again, because I thought it was different to that, but away you go.

Simon Watts: Did she send advice received on Supplementary Order Paper 285 on 22 November relating to entrenchment, to any other Ministers; if so, who?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: As I said, there was a dynamic debate that occurred in the House. I saw that SOP when it was tabled, and then subsequently sought advice.

SPEAKER: Sorry, I’ll give the member an additional question.

Simon Watts: Did she receive advice on Supplementary Order Paper 285 on 22 November relating to entrenchment, and did she send that advice to any other Ministers?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The advice that I sought was in relation to the discussions in relation to an entrenchment provision at a threshold of 75 percent. In that regard, we did not have a provision within the bill, as introduced, because of decisions that were made at Cabinet.

David Seymour: Point of order. It was a very reasonable question about advice received and shared on a particular day. The advice that the Minister was referring to occurred months beforehand. How can she get out of addressing the question of, “Did she receive advice on that amendment on that day; and if so, did she share it with anyone?” That wasn’t remotely addressed.

SPEAKER: Can the member ask the question once more?

Simon Watts: Did she receive advice on SOP 285 on 22 November relating to entrenchment, and did she send that advice to any other Ministers?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The advice that I requested and received was in relation to an entrenchment provision of 75 percent. As I say, that is the advice upon which I acted on. The fact that Standing Order 270 enables a lower threshold of entrenchment to be considered was a matter for the Clerk to determine whether or not it was in or out of scope within the context of the debate that we had.

Chris Bishop: Point of order. Again, that just does not address the very direct and simple question that my colleague, Simon Watts, is asking. It just goes nowhere to address that question.

SPEAKER: Well, having heard the answer a second time, the answer covered the information that the Minister requested, which was different to the information that the member asked about. So the member can read into that whatever he wishes.

Simon Watts: Who did she send that advice to?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I acted on the advice—to the extent that I sought advice in relation to the entrenchment provision at a 75 percent threshold, and acted accordingly, and the bill was not introduced with an entrenchment provision. In relation to SOP 285, we have already had the debate—a mistake was made that has been rectified; we have the water service entities law without any entrenchment provision.

Simon Watts: Point of order. My question was clearly “who” did she send the advice to; I don’t believe that question was answered.

SPEAKER: I’ll ask the member to ask that once more.

Simon Watts: Who did she send that advice to?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: In relation to the advice I received regarding a 75 percent threshold of entrenchment, there was no need to forward on that advice because we’d already made a decision in relation to that particular matter.

David Seymour: Does the Minister for Local Government stand by her statement just now that it was a mistake to support Supplementary Order Paper 285 entrenching three waters provisions or does she stand by her statement to the committee of the whole House at the time, that members had a “moral obligation” to support it—what was it, a moral obligation or a mistake?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: We’ve rectified that matter. It was a mistake; it has been resolved, there is no constitutional crisis and there is no entrenchment provision in the water services entities law.

Simon Watts: Why did she seek advice if she had already made a decision?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That SOP was introduced by another member in the House; it was a very dynamic debate. It’s not entirely the case that on every SOP—that could be tendered by any member in this House—that it wouldn’t be debated or considered in a very dynamic environment. In regards to SOP 285, an admission has been made that a mistake did occur; we rectified it, the water services entities law does not include an entrenchment provision.

Question No. 12—Education

12. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister of Education: Does he think the wages of rural school bus drivers in Aotearoa are fair?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I appreciate the valuable work that all bus drivers do to ensure children and young people are transported to and from school safely. I note that the Government’s made additional funding available to support better terms and conditions, to attract and retain public transport bus drivers. I’m committed to ensuring that rural communities are not disadvantaged by the additional support provided to public transport bus drivers.

Teanau Tuiono: Is he aware of a discrepancy in wages between rural school bus drivers and urban bus drivers, and, if so, what is this discrepancy?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated in my primary answer, yes, I am aware of the current discrepancy.

Teanau Tuiono: Is he confident that no tamariki will be left outside their farm gates at the beginning of term one next year as drivers seek better pay in other parts of the bus industry?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I am confident that those who’ve contracted to delivering bus services will continue to deliver them. We’ve just recently gone through a contracting round for school bus services, and there was a particular emphasis, during that contracting round, on improving the employment conditions of bus drivers, including on improving their wages. Obviously, the decisions the Government has taken around public transport bus drivers postdate that recent contracting round for school bus services, and therefore we are considering how best to deal with the flow-on consequences of that.

Teanau Tuiono: Does the $61 million allocated in Budget 2022 to standardise minimum base-wage rates apply to rural bus drivers, and, if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, because they are funded through two entirely different funding sources.

Teanau Tuiono: Why does the Ministry of Education not set a wage floor or base rate for its school transport services?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One of the conditions in the contract is around making sure that bus drivers are appropriately treated. It doesn’t specifically have a wage floor, but it does have provisions within the contract—and it was used as one of the criteria in determining who was allocated contracts.

Teanau Tuiono: How will he ensure rural school bus drivers are paid fair wages without having to wait until fair pay agreements have come into force?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated, one of the things that the Government is considering at the moment is the implication of the recent moves to increase public transport bus driver wages—we’re considering the flow-on implications of that to school bus drivers.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into the morning of Wednesday, 14 December for the third reading of the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill; the first readings and referral to select committee of the Water Services Legislation Bill, the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill, the Human Rights (Incitement on Ground of Religious Belief) Amendment Bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill, and the Therapeutic Products Bill; and the third reading of the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill.

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

Ayes 76

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill

Third Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I present a legislative statement on the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill.

SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.

At this point, I would ordinarily have welcomed members of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua to the House. They are on their way. They travelled from Tāmaki nui-a-Rua right through Wairarapa down to Wellington today by steam train, and, would you believe it, the steam train was late, so it took a while to arrive at Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara, and then their buses were waylaid by some activity out the front of Parliament by some people who are opposed to blood transfusions from people whose blood hasn’t been cleared of vaccinations. So they are making their way to the House.

But, nevertheless, it’s an honour to be able to lead the third reading of this bill to the House. I want to be very clear, too, because this has been a troubled process, certainly in the last five years or so, and I’ll come back to that shortly, but I want to say that the message from Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa, and, indeed, some fellow iwi across the motu, has been very clear: that it is time, Ngāti Kahungunu says, to move forward. Ngāti Kahungunu want to take back control of their destiny. The Crown is determined to be a better partner, to be a respectful Treaty partner. As I said, I’ll come back to some of the issues that have been prevalent in the last few years, but I ask that while we debate this bill, we don’t lose sight of those very important objectives of Treaty redress, which is the ability for iwi to take back control and determine their future and for the Crown to truly honour its obligations under Te Tiriti.

The Treaty process is not a perfect one, and it requires compromise. It often requires painful decisions and tough conversations. It does not and it cannot fully address the pain and suffering that iwi across the country have had to endure at the hands of the Crown. However, the agreements reached, once they are reached, are a step in the right direction. They provide valuable resources, and we have seen over the years how iwi have been able to grow and support their people through the benefits of Treaty redress.

The Ngāti Kahungunu negotiators in this case have done an outstanding job at holding the Crown to account and negotiating a package for their people. I’d like to acknowledge their hard work and to recognise the difficult position they are put in. Navigating Crown policy while considering the expectations of their people and the weight of the mamae passed down for generations—it’s an extraordinarily difficult balancing act. The Ngāti Kahungunu negotiators and advisers of past and present have done an exceptional job, and in this respect I acknowledge the Hon Ron Mark, Ian Perry, Robin Potangaroa, Hayden Hape, Haami Te Whaiti, Marama Tuuta, and Rawiri Smith. Nei rā te mihi ki a koutou. I know you have high ambitions for your people, and the job has only just begun. But I hope they are able to take a moment to appreciate the fruits of their labour and, eventually, to enjoy a well-earned rest.

I’d like to also acknowledge the work of Lee Grey, Wi Tako Love, Andrew Sharrock, Mike Colson, Jennifer Braithwaite, and Monique van Alphen Fyfe. I also mihi to the settlement trust trustees of past and present, who have also been putting in the hard work to get their people to this day.

I want to take a moment to talk about the challenges of the last few years. Shortly after the settlement trust reached settlement, there was a remedies application by a group, the Wairarapa Moana ki Pouākani Incorporation, for resumption of land, the Pouākani land. That’s the land that’s in Waikato. Part of the history was that the Crown, having pushed Ngāti Kahungunu off its land and undermined its cultural rights in respect of Lake Wairarapa and Lake Onoke, then having, frankly, nicked land off Raukawa and Tūwharetoa, gifted that land to Ngāti Kahungunu in some sort of compensation, then later, in the 1940s, took a chunk of that land back under the Public Works Act to build the Maraetai hydro power station. The remedies application was to get back the land that the Crown had seized under the Public Works Act and hand it back to at least somebody representing Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa.

The tribunal in March 2020 made some preliminary findings, and those preliminary findings included that it would order resumption—it would order the resumption of the Pouākani land claimed and that it would make sure that Ngāti Kahungunu in that respect was properly compensated for what had happened. But it is interesting to note these comments that the tribunal made in its extensive preliminary determination in March 2020, specifically in relation to one of the then claimants for those remedies, and that was the incorporation, the Wairarapa Moana ki Pouākani Incorporation—bearing in mind that by this time the settlement trust had also replicated the claim for remedies in order to preserve its position. But in relation to the question of who should receive any land ordered back to Ngāti Kahungunu, the tribunal said this: “We do not consider we should recommend the return to them”—that is, the Wairarapa Moana Ki Pouākani Incorporation—“of the 787 acres, however, because the value of that land and the assets located there is not proportionate to the prejudice they suffered as shareholders in 1949.”

The tribunal went on to say that “Even if we considered that the prejudice that the shareholders suffered from the compulsory acquisition alone might justify the return of part of the land to them, we do not favour the exercise of our discretion in that way.” The tribunal goes on to talk about learning about the shareholders of Wairarapa Moana ki Pouākani Incorporation and that there was a variety of size of shareholders but that, in any event, they weren’t representative. The tribunal said, for the reasons they’ve outlined, “We are satisfied that the return of land to the incorporation would not be a just outcome.” and went on to say, “The recipient entity of the lands they do award must be demonstrably representative of and exist for the benefit of those who suffered prejudice in respect of the well-founded claims. The incorporation is not that kind of recipient.”

It is very clear that the tribunal, when it made its extensive determination ruling, had no intention of returning the land to the incorporation. Nevertheless, the tribunal’s decision was the subject of an appeal, or at least a judicial review to the High Court. The High Court focused on a question of mana whenua and whether the lack of it was a disqualifying factor for the order of resumption. The High Court ruled in favour of the Crown and Mercury Energy and Raukawa and a number of others. That decision was then appealed not to the Court of Appeal, as it ordinarily would’ve been, but to the Supreme Court, and last week the Supreme Court made a decision. Interestingly, the Supreme Court said its decision would not affect the bill before the House, although that is somewhat inconsistent with later statements in the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court took a different view on mana whenua and also laid out its expectation about how the tribunal would consider the issue of mana whenua in the future.

Against that, I as Minister have made a judgment about proceeding with the bill, and the reason I’ve made that judgment is because I, as Minister representing the Crown, have to consider a whole variety of interests, not just the interests of the incorporation, who took the appeal and about whom the tribunal said they would not order resumption, but the interests of Ngāti Kahungunu, the only mandated entity for Wairarapa, who’ve gone out to their people, sought their support, had a vote, had not just one ratification vote on settlement but two, after they renegotiated their settlement, had it modified—that is to say, improved—and won the support to proceed. It was Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Settlement Trust who has said, “We want to proceed because we want to face the future with certainty and with confidence, and we’re confident that we can restore our relationship with the Crown.” Raukawa says, “We do not want to be dragged into years and years of litigation defending our mana whenua rights anymore.”, and Ngāti Tūwharetoa supports the continuation of the legislation as well.

The bill contains a variety of redress and compensation as well—$115 million of compensation along cultural revitalisation as well. The time has come to bring the benefits of comprehensive Treaty of Waitangi settlement redress to all of Ngāti Kahungunu. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

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

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare hurinoa i te Whare nei e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Tēnei te mihi, nau mai haere mai te iwi o Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-rua. Nō reira, mauria mai ō whakaako ki te kaupapa i huihui ā-tākata, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker, and greetings to everyone in the House. Greetings and welcome to Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-rua. And so, bring your lessons to this issue in person. Greetings to you all.]

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and, to all those who are watching, welcome. It is my role today as the National Party spokesperson on Treaty negotiations to rise and to take this call.

The Kahungunu hapū and whānau of Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-a-Rua have been waiting 180 years for justice, rising from the Crown’s breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi. Those breaches included the Crown taking tens of thousands of acres of their whenua. Later, their tīpuna were forced to give up tuku whenua leasehold arrangements with Pākehā settlers and, instead, sell the land.

By 1854, the Crown had taken 1.5 million acres in exchange for very small sums. By 1900, 90 percent of their land within the Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-a-Rua was gone. In the 20th century, purchasing for public works took much of what remained, leaving only 1.5 percent, or 35,000 acres, of the original whenua in their hands. They were rendered virtually landless, which is the position they are in now, and which this bill seeks to address.

The treatment of Wairarapa Moana is especially distressing—a living taonga treasured by their tīpuna for its abundant supply of food and other customary resources traditionally harvested and traded for the benefit of people from nearby and from afar. Big challenges arose between the settlers and those in Wairarapa Moana, and after 30 years of fighting to protect Wairarapa Moana, their tīpuna relented and gifted it to the Crown in the spirit of rangatira ki te rangatira. This tuku rangatira was intended to end the discord between Māori, and the Crown and Europeans. The Crown was supposed to protect their interests in the lake and set aside ample reserves to ensure ongoing access to the lake as a source of food and other traditional reserves. However, it did not do so. After 20 years, the Crown gave them land at Pouākani, which was far from the Wairarapa, inaccessible by road or rail, and within another iwi’s rohe, or area.

Those breaches have been recognised by the Crown as having created real and lasting prejudice, undermining their economic, social, and cultural wellbeing. Through this settlement, the Crown and the trust endeavour to recognise those wrongs. It cannot right all of them, but it intends to try to put right some of those wrongs. Ngāti Kahungunu has written to members of the House, asking that this process is not prolonged and the prejudice is not continued, and saying that settling now is in the best interests of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua as a whole, in the best interests of hapū and whānau to provide for their cultural, social, and economic welfare, and in the best interests of protecting the welfare of the environment of the rohe.

This has been 180 years in coming. In the most recent times, it represents 34 years of hard work, which has seen many kaumātua pass on before reaching this settlement today.

Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua have advised that this ushers in a new dawn, one that involves a productive working relationship with the Crown, offering cultural redress and financial and commercial redress, as well as a Crown apology. They say that they welcome this redress for their people, just as they welcome a strengthened Te Tiriti relationship with the Crown, local government, and many other agencies that will come with it.

A key element is the ability to purchase the Wairio and Rangedale stations and to return that land to Ngāti Kahungunu. These lands are culturally significant, and having rangatiratanga over their whenua will allow the aspirations of the tīpuna to at last be fulfilled. It also includes over 9,000 hectares of culturally significant lands being returned as cultural redress. Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua are particularly looking forward to the sense of pride that will come with having that whenua returned to them.

Importantly, there will be a Crown apology for breaches and the struggles of their ancestors. This has yet to be delivered due to COVID-19 restrictions, but it will take place in the future when it can be done kanohi ki te kanohi, or face to face, to the hapū and whānau.

This bill has raised some significant challenges, and, in fact, the Supreme Court delivered a ruling only last week. As the Minister has said, the majority of the Supreme Court said that the decision of the court did not affect the Treaty bill currently before the House, and that was on the basis that the role of the courts was only to look at the legislation that exists at the time of the decision, not the legislation that may exist in the future, even if it’s the week following the release of that decision.

This has been something we have very, very carefully considered, because the Wairarapa Moana Inc. has had application for this on foot for some time before the Waitangi Tribunal, which had been appealed by a number of parties to the High Court, and then further to the Supreme Court. The primary issue that the Supreme Court dealt with was the definition of mana whenua, and mana whenua relates to lands that are not traditionally in the rohe of the iwi. But the Supreme Court also went a little bit further than the issues that were on appeal to it and that opened the door, potentially, for a fresh application to be made by Wairarapa Moana Inc. in the Waitangi Tribunal, although the Supreme Court recognised that the Waitangi Tribunal would have to change its original determination on the appropriate recipient if a resumption order were made.

This has been something we have considered very, very carefully. We recognise the mamae that this does bring to Wairarapa Moana Inc. and those it represents, and it is something that we haven’t taken lightly. We have looked very carefully at Ngāti Kahungunu and the representatives of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua and their wish to bring these proceedings to an end and to have a final Treaty settlement that enables them to provide for their tamariki and create a new dawn for their people. I do note that the point was made that there is Haronga litigation concerning the resumption applications of the Mangatu blocks in Muriwhenua, which began in the High Court in 2009, and since that date, the matter has been heard in the Supreme Court in 2011, it went back to the Waitangi Tribunal, it was heard again in the High Court and the Court of Appeal in 2014 and 2016, it went back to the Waitangi Tribunal for further decisions following those judgments, and I understand it is working its way through the courts again. So it will be a long time before there’s a final decision on that issue, and certainly one of the concerns that has been raised is the very likely prospect of ongoing litigation, with no certainty about when that litigation would come to completion.

The National Party is very keen for Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua to be able, after 180 years and 34 years in this particular journey, to get to this settlement point and be able to come to a point of completion so that they can look into that new dawn that provides for them and their people. Importantly, these settlements are ultimately not just about what has happened in the past and the present, but it’s about the aspirations and the mana and the success of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua now and into the future, and that is something that we very much wish to support.

I should also touch on one other point, which has been something we also have very carefully considered, and that is the claimant definition of Ngāti Hāmua and Ngāti Te Rangiwhaka-ewa. In this settlement, there has been an inability to get agreements between Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu over the claimant definition, and the Crown has come to the final position that it’s not its role to determine whakapapa on behalf of iwi. As a result, the claimant definition for the settlement legislation for both Rangitāne o Tāmaki nui-a-Rua and Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua includes both hapū in their claimant definitions, because that is what both Rangitāne and Ngāti Kahungunu say is correct. So that is the way that this has been addressed.

In the limited time available to me, I say that I look forward to the completion of this settlement and the new future this brings for all of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua, and I trust that the internal challenges will be able to be resolved so that all can benefit from this bill now and into the future. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour):

Karanga, karanga ki a Ranginui e tū iho nei

Karanga, karanga ki a Papatūānuku e takoto nei

Huakina atu rā te tatau o te whare kōrero

Uhia te kōrero

Uhia te whakaaro

Uhia ki te ao mārama

E rongo, whakairia ki runga

Haumi e, hui e, taiki e.

E te Māngai o tēnei Whare, he hononga tata i waenga i a mātou o Te Arawa, ki a koutou, ki a rātou o Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa. Ko Pūhaorangi te tangata kua puta ko Ohomairangi, ko Muturangi, ko Taunga, ko Atua Matua, ko Houmaitawhiti, ko Tama te Kapua, ko Kahu-mata-momoe, ko Tawaki-moe-tahanga, ko Uenuku-mai-rarotonga, ā, ko Rangitihi. Ka moe a Rangitihi ki a Papawharanui, ka puta ko Tūhourangi. Ka moe a Tūhourangi ki a Rongomai-papa, ka puta ko Uenukukōpako, anei a Uenukukōpaka e mihi atu nei ki a koutou.

Ko Rongomai-papa te tamāhine o Rongomaiwahine, te wahine tapairu o Te Tai Rāwhiti me tōna pāpā, a Kahungunu, nō reira ki a koutou o Ngāti Kahungunu, anei a Te Arawa e mihi atu nei ki a koutou.

[Call, summon universal space

Call and summon solid matter

Open the doors of the house of dialogue

Lay out the dialogue

Lay out the thought

Lay out to gain enlightenment

Rongo uplift these words

Gather … affirm!

To the Speaker of the House, there is a strong link between Te Arawa and those of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa. From Pūhaorangi came Ohomairangi, Muturangi, Taunga, Atua Matua, Houmaitawhiti, Tama te Kapua, Kahu-mata-momoe, Tawaki-moe-tahanga, Uenuku-mai-rarotonga, and Rangitihi. Rangitihi married Papawharanui, and produced Tūhourangi. Tūhourangi married Rongomai-papa, and produced Uenukukōpako. As a descendant of Uenukukōpaka, I acknowledge you all.

Rongomai-papa was the daughter of the East Coast chieftainess Rongomaiwahine and her husband Kahungunu, so therefore, Ngāti Kahungunu, here stands Te Arawa to greet you.]

Can I start by acknowledging my recent visit to Hurunui-ō-Rangi in the Wairarapa. My auntie died, and we made the trip down to the marae there; we got to see the beautiful papa kāinga kei te kite i a koe Marama, tēnei te mihi nui ki a koe me tō māmā. [village and we saw you, Marama. Warm greetings to you and your mother.]

We got to meet, we got to hang out, and we got to hear a little bit about the kōrero that’s gone on around there. It’s nothing different to what we heard during the submissions process on the select committee. There was a lot of hurt that came through in the select committee process, and I want to acknowledge that.

This isn’t a new battle; in fact, the iwi had been battling this for a long time. The journey to settlement dates back decades. The first historical Treaty claim, lodged in 1989; years later in 2004 and 2005, the claims were presented to the Waitangi Tribunal; and in 2010, the report released at Te Ore Ore marae in Masterton concluded that, overwhelmingly, they had claims that were very well founded. The historical claims date back to the 19th century. The mamae is still felt over centuries, impacting whānau continually today.

While this settlement does not right the wrongs of the past, it ushers in, as my previous colleague said, a new dawn; one that involves a productive working relationship with the Crown. The redress is of importance to the iwi and to the settlement trust. The acquisition of Wairio Station and Rangedale Station as part as part of the settlement—they have ownership that is going to be reinstated on their whenua, around Wairarapa Moana, which will allow the aspirations of the tīpuna to be fulfilled in a meaningful way. Included in that settlement is 9,000 hectares of culturally significant land, and Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua is looking forward to an enhanced sense of pride that comes with such important whenua being returned.

I mentioned in the second reading speech in the House here on this particular bill one of the submissions that really struck to my heart. We had a really lengthy day of submission hearings, covering all manner of issues, but I found this submission, and I want to attribute it to Paul Te Huki, who actually got up and sat there, he brought photos, and he said, “I make this submission on behalf of My father Renata Paora Tuhokairangi, My older Twin brothers Raymond John Te Huki and Stephen Douglas Te Huki, My Uncle Joe Todd and Aunty Pauline Todd, Uncle Stephen Todd, Aunty Maise Harrison, Aunty Deli Wilson, Aunty Moana Te Huki, Aunty Bobby and Kani Reiri, Aunty Hine and Mike Nikora who have all passed during this [very] long journey.”

He went on in his submission to say, “This was my immediate family who grew up on or around Whiti Te Ra marae in Tāmaki-nui-a-Rua since the early 1940’s, and”—in his words—“now it is up to my generation to make it happen which I find is a heavy burden to carry. … I ask that on behalf of my father who passed away on the 14th June [this year] at the [grand] age of 84 who signed an agreement with Minister Finlayson and then again with Minister Little who after signing sat down and had a meal to celebrate and his world meant the deal is done.”

His recommendation to us, the committee, was to honour the agreements that his father had signed, to pass their settlement through Parliament ASAP before any more whānau pass, to let them keep their mana intact and “stop making us beg for our rightful compensation for the Crowns wrong doing”, and to “Regain the Crowns Mana by Honouring the agreements my Dad signed.” I want to thank Paul for his contribution to the committee and to everybody else that put forward their submissions.

I want to also take the opportunity to read a couple of the paragraphs of the apology. The apology is a big part of any Treaty settlement, and usually what iwi have to do is wait until we travel to the marae to hear a bit of that apology. But I want to read it today. I think that it is especially pertinent, and I acknowledge the long wait that their iwi have had to get to this point right now.

The first paragraph of the apology, in English, goes like this: “The Crown pays tribute to the struggles of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua and your ancestors in pursuit of justice for the Crown’s wrongs and especially to those [of you] who have not survived to see this settlement completed. To you, the people of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua, to your tīpuna and [to] your mokopuna, the Crown offers this apology.

“The Crown unreservedly apologises for not honouring its obligations to respect te tino rangatiratanga o Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua through repeated breaches of te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. The Crown profoundly regrets the damage and hurt [that] these breaches have caused to the hapū and whānau of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua.

“The Crown is deeply sorry that it began its relationship with Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua in 1845 by prejudging their guilt in a dispute with settlers and depriving Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua of tens of thousands of acres by forcing them to cede this land with threats of armed violence.

“The Crown profoundly regrets that it threatened to end Pākehā settlement in Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-a-Rua unless your tīpuna sold their land to the Crown, giving up the pastoral leases they had negotiated with Pākehā which had provided [the iwi]”—[Turns page]—the rest is in the bill. I thought it was on the other side.

Look, I just want to say, it speaks to the position that we have as members of Parliament, here in 2022, that we have to stand here, on behalf of the Crown, apologising for injustices that were done a long time ago, but where the hurt still remains.

I stand here today, as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, as a member of the New Zealand Labour Party, and as a member of the Labour Māori caucus, acknowledging the hurt and the pain that the Crown have caused to your iwi for a very long time. I wish you the best. I wish you all the best as you track through what the future looks like, because at some point, we have to move past this.

Today, what we’re doing is we’re giving that opportunity to get this out of the parliamentary system so that we can put the money in your bank and so that you can go on to determine what the oranga for your iwi looks like. If that looks like some kind of hauora or health centre in Masterton, if it looks like something else for your tamariki, mokopuna kei te heke mai [for your children and grandchildren to come], then kei a koutou te tikanga—that’s yours to decide. We in this House stand proudly next to you on the journey, we acknowledge the pain and the hurt from the past, but we are also aspirational and hopeful in our hearts that your future is bright and that you go on to make some really good decisions on behalf of your children, your mokopuna, and your mokomoko that are still to come, and you place them in the front and the centre when you go to make decisions after what happens here today.

Nō reira, ki a koutou e te whanaunga a te whānau whānui o Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-rua, nei rā te mihi ki a koutou katoa.

[So, to the relatives of the wider family of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-rua, greetings, greetings to you all.]

Dr SHANE RETI (National): E rau rangatira mā e ngā iwi kia ora mai tātou. Ko tēnei te mihi e tuku ana ki a koutou. Nau mai, haere mai ki tēnei Whare, te Whare Pāremata mō tēnei mahi hirahira, nō reira kia ora mai tātou.

[To all the chiefly authorities and the tribes, greetings one and all. This is my acknowledgment to you. Welcome to the House of Parliament for this important work, therefore be well one and all.]

National will be supporting this bill at its third and final reading, the third reading of the Ngāti Kahungunu settlement bill known as the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill. This bill has taken a long time to reach this point, and I want to thank the claimants, the negotiators, the Office of Treaty Settlements, and the Māori Affairs Committee for their work. This bill has had a complicated path, one that over the past week became more complicated with various announcements. The Government has a majority and has the ability to vote out other views, regardless of what we may think, and the Government’s vote of support here today, while welcome, is clearly with the consent of their Labour Māori caucus. We too have sought a collective view from our caucus, from the National Party caucus, and presented to them a balance of views—the best balance that we possibly could.

We note that the passage of this bill will extinguish the claims of Wairarapa Moana. We have a great sadness with that. And our team had a range of views on this very issue. We note our colleagues’ proposal for a Supplementary Order Paper that would allow further debate of the Wai 85 Wairarapa Moana claim and explore its extraction and putting aside. This is not possible, with the committee of the whole House not sitting. What may have happened may have been that we would have had a more thorough debate and, possibly, we would have reached a conclusion, but that is now past this point.

National is supporting this bill, which we believe, on balance, provides a pathway forward. On balance was a balance of many things—that initially Wairarapa Moana was determined not to be the correct claim holder; that Ngāti Kahungunu removed the contested Pouākani claim from its settlement to facilitate progress; that in this format the settlement is supported by local iwi Ngāti Raukawa and Ngāti Tūwharetoa. The recent court case raised issues that could change all of these stated positions. It was determined that it was not moot that Wairarapa Moana was not an appropriate claim holder. It was determined that the description of mana whenua was not nuanced enough and that Ngāti Kahungunu may further explore mana whenua status over the claim. If these were to be pursued, support from Ngāti Raukawa and Ngāti Tūwharetoa could also be compromised. The pathway to resolution would seem to be back to the Waitangi Tribunal, a pathway that would likely take many years and further hold back this settlement. These are some of the many things that National has spent much time on, and much anguish and much deliberation, and we have done our very best to balance these matters.

It is not as if recent decisions have made determinative judgments and recommended an appropriate claim holder or recommended who might have mana whenua status. What has been determined, then, is what things are not and not what they may be, and, in our view, further deliberation seems to point to a prolonged return to the Waitangi Tribunal. Ngāti Raukawa stated to us, “We’re obviously disappointed that the Supreme Court decision hasn’t brought any finality to this issue. Instead, it has breathed life back into it without significantly changing the position of the parties at all.” On balance, we believe that a return to the Waitangi Tribunal would be unnecessarily and unreasonably onerous. We understand that there are harms with either path that we take today, and we have done our very best to weigh these up.

We support the Ngāti Kahungunu settlement bill. We note Ngāti Kahungunu writing to us, “If this bill was not to proceed, we would be irretrievably prejudiced and consigned to a deeply uncertain future, if the Crown now does not pass our settlement legislation. You would be putting us in the worst possible position—no settlement and no viable litigation option. You would have made us give up that litigation option for a promised settlement that you then did not give us. That would perpetuate yet further Te Tiriti breaches on Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua, compounding the historic breaches from which we already suffer.” We support wholly the integrity of Ngāti Kahungunu—that they too have balanced up many things to be here today, and that, going forward as a settled iwi, they will continue to seek a path forward that best accommodates as many of these competing interests as possible.

In conclusion, we are privileged here today to advance the legislative process that enables a settlement, an enablement that apologises, an enablement that acknowledges, an enablement that advances the hopes and aspirations of Ngāti Kahungunu, and the National Party wishes them well. Kia ora mai tātou.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou katoa, ngā uri o Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa. Ngā mihi mahana ki a koutou.

[Greetings to you all, to the descendants of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa. Warm greetings to you all.]

I rise to speak in support of this settlement and of this legislation, but also, as the deputy chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, to report back to this House on the extra work that the Māori Affairs Committee undertook to make sure that we were finding the right balance in reaching a supportive position of this legislation and taking into account the 173 submissions that the committee received on this bill since May this year.

First, I want to congratulate the members of the settlement trust who have represented their claims with a great deal of dignity and ambition for their people, and to thank everyone here who has come to listen to the debate today and to support those members who have done this bravely and should be proud of the result that we will celebrate later this evening.

First, let me just canvass the hara that has occurred that the Crown has come to the table to address with the settlement trust: the forced cession of tens of thousands of acres of land at Maungaroa through threats of armed violence; the Crown’s failure to obtain the consent of key rights-holders when purchasing land in the Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-a-Rua regions; and the purchase of more than half of Wairarapa and Tāmaki nui-a-Rua, which virtually destroyed what was the base of Ngāti Kahungunu in that area. But not only that, it has considered, in this bill, the failure to address and provide for many of the education, health, and economic benefits which Ngāti Kahungunu had been led to expect as true payment for their land, and the failure to give suitable lakeside reserves in exchange for the tuku rangatira of Wairarapa Moana in 1896. Those are grave breaches of the expectations of the iwi and of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and it’s right that in this Treaty settlement process the Crown has come to understand the cost to the iwi of that, and what it means to right this in the future.

Treaty settlement bills are important because they don’t just go to the issues of land, the issue of a quantum of the settlement, they also go to the future relationships. Things in this bill, like the taonga tūturu protocols, for example, are important to enact today because they create a package of rights for the iwi to claim kō, and things which are discovered in land, that are taonga that should be protected by the iwi. It’s important that that set of protocols, which is given effect in this Treaty settlement bill and is often not discussed in the Treaty settlement process, is put in place today so that that cultural, that artistic, history is able to be celebrated from now, and that it’s not put off.

I also want to touch on the work that the Māori Affairs Committee did to understand the purpose of what was joint redress for Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa and Rangitāne in Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill. That was a separate bill that this Parliament has been considering, and it gives effect to specific cultural redress shared by Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua and Rangitāne o Wairarapa and Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-Rua, and it’s provided in specific deeds of settlement. That was considered separately by this House because the nature of that joint settlement is that there does need to be agreement around that, and that all through that process the committee heard from the two groups about the aspirations to work together. We worked through areas which were still under discussion, but I absolutely have faith that today and in the coming years the leadership of both iwi will be able to come together on that joint settlement redress that has an impact also on this settlement.

Now, Madam Speaker, if you’ll let me talk to the two claims, Wai 85 and Wai 429, which the committee looked into really carefully. We sought further advice from our officials, we sought further comment from the parties involved, and we did really listen carefully to the oral submissions and carefully consider the written submissions of those parties.

Wai 85 and Wai 429 claims are within the Waitangi Tribunal. Wai 85 is the claim about Pouākani in Southern Waikato, and it was brought on behalf of the Wairarapa Moana Incorporation. Wai 429 involves Ngāumu Crown Forest land in Southern Wairarapa, sought on behalf of Ngāi Tūmapuhia-ā-Rangi, and both claims were at issue right the way through the select committee’s process and have been before the courts.

I raise these because I want to be really clear that the committee’s extra work in these areas was about not only really understanding any rights which might be affected by this bill but also about providing an opportunity for committee members to come to a degree of consensus and a degree of shared understanding about what this legislation would have an impact on for that discussion of what rights might exist, and it was important for us to be able to go through that process. And I think that my colleagues around the committee did a very careful job at examining on behalf of the House what those rights were, and we came to a view—which is within the select committee report—that the most important thing for us was for the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to be very, very clear with Parliament about the reasons that he and his Cabinet colleagues might make a call to proceed with this sort of settlement. And that is what he has done in no uncertain terms today.

So let me take you through those reasons that we heard. The Minister said today that he made that call, and the understanding of the select committee was that one of the reasons it was done was that the settlement trust made an informed decision to proceed to settlement and continued to support this settlement legislation being introduced before the hearing, and that a clear majority of the Ngāti Kahungunu claimant community who engaged in the vote on the enhanced settlement package voted in support of proceeding to settlement. Those are important considerations when we consider those who would lose out of Parliament delaying a decision around this settlement bill. Further to the point of delay, there has already been a three year delay since progress with the deed of settlement was deferred to allow the Wai 85 and Wai 429 claims to be heard by the tribunal. This was also really important to the committee when we consider both what is lost in the return of the cultural assets and in the value of the commercial redress.

Particularly important to me and one that I had plenty of questions for submitters and counsel on was the tribunal’s preliminary determination that it should not recommend the return of the land to the two claimants—Wai 85 and Wai 429 claimants. Instead it preferred an iwi representative group, and further to that, there was no challenge seeking a judicial review of that determination, and the High Court expressly noted the continued relevance of the tribunal’s preliminary determinations on both of those claims. My point there is to bring the House’s attention to when we think of how these claims might progress in the courts in future and who might lose and who might gain from that. The tribunal already made determinations which found that it was very unlikely that resumption of the value of the assets would be returned to that one particular incorporation.

I think, as well, it’s useful for the House to have on record some of the committee’s discussions around the process of settlement for the Crown. The Crown here needed to balance a range of often competing interests, including the prejudice that further delay would cause to the interests of the broader iwi who support the settlements, and Rangitāne and others such as Raukawa who are affected by the ongoing litigation. And I come back to the comments of Shane Reti at the last reading of the joint redress bill, which I very much support, that we are looking to reach a position where we can enjoy the peace and prosperity for this iwi that settlement would bring. I think it’s really important for the Crown here to be able to step back at this point, to hand over this settlement and this process to the people who it is for. And I thank them for their leadership. And that’s why I support this bill.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Tēnā rā koutou i raro i te mana o Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-rua, ngā hapū, ngā whānau, te iwi whānui hei hāpai i tēnei kaupapa. Kāore e kore, he huarahi roa, he huarahi uaua tēnei, engari kua ea, kua tae te wā hei whakatā.

[Greetings to you all under the authority of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-rua, the subtribes, the families and the wider tribe who support this issue. Undoubtedly, this has been a long and difficult road, but you have succeeded, and the time has come to take some rest.]

I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill in its third and final reading. It gives effect to the final settlement of the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims between Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua and the Crown.

We heard how the succession of Crown actions over nearly 180 years have left them virtually landless and impacted on every aspect of their lives and development ever since. A fulsome apology from the Crown is the absolute minimum that should be expected for everything it has done and failed to do. Unfortunately, the Crown has not stopped causing harm, and it has meant that Kahungunu has also been subject to dealing with claims within its claim.

Now, the Greens—we have struggled with how to position ourselves here. We are always here to stand on behalf of the most marginalised in our society amongst our people. And while we have supported the need for Kahungunu to settle, we have also spoken to the issues raised by Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā, Wairarapa Moana ki Pouākani, Ngāi Tūmāpuhi-a-rangi. I know that has not made us popular in some circumstances, and if people still want to have hui and discuss those things that have been said, I am absolutely up for that, but kei te mamae mātou mō ngā hohounga i whati i tēnei mahi [we are hurting because of the broken connections caused by this process].

The Crown has long maintained that Wai 85 had no legal pathway for its claim—and that’s the claim taken by Wairarapa Moana ki Pouākani. However, the Waitangi Tribunal and now the Supreme Court has begged to differ. In a different world, the Crown perhaps could have taken that section in much the same way as the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill was done: to have all those parties together, including Ngāti Raukawa, and just sort that out in a way that did not affect or did not in any way slow down the passage of this bill. They could have allowed that due process and natural justice and the time required to do it properly without affecting the settlement of this.

In that world, though, that did not happen. In this world, the Minister and the Crown have decided to extinguish the rights of Wairarapa Moana Pouākani. Not only that, it appears that he has made this bill contingent on it—so that was never an option. There is such a clear conflict of interest: moving the bill forward in this way saves the Crown millions and millions of dollars. That is really worrying—worrying implications for some constitutional arrangements for every other hapū and iwi who has yet to settle. But that is why the Greens have abstained on this bill so far: in response to the behaviour—the astounding and dangerous behaviour—of the Crown.

So having said all of that, we are supporting this bill today because this is Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua’s day. Finally, after all of this time, after over 180 years, 33 years since the first historical Treaty claim was lodged—so much work; so many people lost—the claim is settled. In a few short speeches, this bill will be done. The Greens have always said that we support Kahungunu settling, along with the appropriate cultural, financial, and commercial redress that is meant to come with it to enable the uri of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua to start rebuilding and creating a better future for them and their mokopuna. And this is not to say that this is not what you are already doing. This gives you more resource, it gives you the whenua to build, perhaps, your own houses for your own people—it gives you that resource to go bigger, to build things so much more long-lasting.

So do I believe this redress is the absolute best the negotiation team could negotiate? I have no doubt—I have no doubt—that those negotiators bled, as all our negotiation teams across the country have bled for our people. Is the redress appropriate? Absolutely not. It is a tiny percentage of what Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua is owed and deserves.

During the select committee process, the Settlement Trust spoke on how this bill will allow them to achieve many aspirations for their people. From Turakirae in the south, to Dannevirke in the North, to Cape Turnagain in the East, it will enable them to care for the taonga on their spiritually significant whenua, and protect those taonga for their tamariki, for their mokopuna, now and into the future. It will lead to that enhanced sense of pride that comes when you have your own whenua. They look forward to growing their working relationship with the Crown while always remembering the path their tūpuna forged for them. The Greens wish all of this.

Kei te tūmanako ka whakatinana i ō moemoeā katoa mō te oranga o te iwi o Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-rua, tēnā rā koutou katoa.

[It is hoped that all your dreams will be fulfilled for the benefit of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-rua. Greetings to you all.]

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and take a short call on the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill. I’ve stood a few times when it comes to settlement bills and stated that these are not really my areas of expertise, and my understanding of the processes is very limited. But what I do understand is that they are a necessity to help people move forward and have a better future. So ACT is supportive of the settlement processes.

I would like to just put forward my admiration at the absolute commitment that the elders and the generations that came after have stood firm and fought for what is right, and I hope today, when this settlement is full and final, that you can stand with pride and say that we have done right by those who have passed and those who are to come. And I hope that that is a possibility after today.

This bill addresses in good faith the repeated breaches of the Treaty by successive Governments. Governments in the 19th century failed to ensure that the core lands of the Wairarapa Māori were protected. An especially egregious breach was on property rights and the rangatiratanga guaranteed to them under article 2. Wairarapa moana, an important source of food for Wairarapa Māori, was taken from them. Wairarapa Māori fought through the courts and the political system to have the roles put right. But a deal between the Government and Wairarapa Māori for compensation of Lake Wairarapa was not honoured, and that is not good enough and that needs to be addressed. It needs to be stated here that that was not good enough, and I hope that the apologies that you’re hearing today from those of us here are helpful for you to move forward.

The Ngāti Kahungunu settlement trust, or the settlement trust, and the Government began negotiations a long time ago, and I’m actually quite hurt myself seeing how long this process has taken. I think I have stated a few times that when you’re a victim and you’ve been wronged, having to go over and over and over how you’ve been wronged can actually be harmful and hurtful in itself, and each time we are re-traumatising ourselves with the stories of the past and with that hurt. I really, really want to stand here—and it may not be my place—and say “I’m sorry. I’m really sorry. You should never have been put through that, and I hope that some peace can come from this.”

Now, the settlement process started and both parties deserve credit for negotiating good faith in the beginning. And, from what I understand, a settlement deed was agreed to in 2018. A majority of the tribe agreed and voted and agreed upon that, but, unfortunately, some groups did not agree and sought their own settlements, from my understanding. But, as a result of this, a new settlement was negotiated and there was an increase from the $93 million to $115 million and an offer of a further $5 million for enhancements of the lake’s environment, and this was ratified, again, by the majority of the settlement trust members who voted.

So, today, I would just like to say I kind of find that the courts process that has happened recently—ACT finds it to be quite unhelpful, because we want to in good faith make sure that we can move forward and we can allow Ngāti Kahungunu to take ownership and control again over their futures and not have to worry about this carrying on and on and on, and re-traumatising this generation and future generations to come if it continues.

So I would like to just finish by saying, if this settlement has produced an apology, we must have an apology from the Crown for the breaches, cultural redress, and protocols with the local government, a return of a number of blocks of land in the Wairarapa, including the Remutaka summit and blocks of Lake Wairarapa. More than $115 million, and other redresses not in the bill—and I’d just like to say, hopefully the people sitting here today and listening today can agree that this was made in good faith, and I wish Wairarapa and Ngāti Kahungunu a blessed future for your next generation and generations to come. And I know that the future will be bright. Thank you.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Tēnā koe te Māngai o te Whare. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou ngā whānau o Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-rua, e mihi atu nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou.

[Greetings to you all, the families of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-rua. This is my acknowledgment to you.]

It’s an absolute pleasure to be in the House for the third reading of the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill. And can I just acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Andrew Little—I know, even at the last minute, our kōrerorero around ensuring that today happened in an appropriate and peaceful fashion, and in the spirit of the Treaty settlement process, we can come together in the House today and ensure that this piece of legislation is passed through the final barrier.

I’m a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, and every settlement claim that comes to the committee has its own mamae; its own reflection of a process or a time line that, in this case, stretches decades back, and I’m reminded of the mamae for this Treaty settlement. And I look back to when they first lodged their claim in 1989—years later, the claim was presented to the Waitangi Tribunal, and so on and so on. I stand here today and look through and read back on some of the information about the time line and the process to where we are today, and I reflect on the other settlements that this committee and this House has been part of, and unfortunately it’s all too familiar, in terms of—and the previous speaker, Karen Chhour, I thought captured it well: having to go back and retell your story in the same levels of detail, to a different group of people, to a different group of decision makers, all in hope that someone, somewhere, one day is going to say, “Yes, we can proceed”. And the good news—and that’s why today is a great day—is there’s only a few speakers to go, whānau, and your settlement is there.

Rawiri Waititi: Hurry up, I’m waiting my turn!

PAUL EAGLE: I know what you mean—the chief whip said 10 minutes, I’m trying to cut a deal on two!

Hon Member: Or eight.

PAUL EAGLE: Or eight. But what I want to say is, we give this the dignity of the House and acknowledge the process—and I think, after all of this time, we need to take the time to acknowledge such a process. Today, the package includes the Crown apology redress, the cultural redress, and the commercial redress of some $150 million that others have talked through, and so that’s the package that others have also expressed. But I want to just pick up a couple of things that have been spoken about, and that’s that one of the key bits of information or one of the structures of the cultural redress that I’m a real fan of, is the protocols—the Crown minerals protocol and the taonga tūturu protocol, and I find that these will be the sorts of mechanisms that, in the future, Ngāti Kahungunu will be able to carry out the work, when they interact with agencies and consult on those statutory duties and functions in a way that gives this the mana that it deserves. Because I know that too often, sometimes these sorts of protocols and the way people work together—which is essentially what a protocol is—are quickly forgotten about, but this installs it into the settlement and ensures that the way that people interact and behave and work together in the future on addressing some of the issues that have had many years of mamae are done in a way that gives this the mana it deserves.

The other thing I wanted to talk about was place names. I know, in the patch of the world that I look after—which includes the Chatham Islands—place names are important, and I’m really glad that this bill talks about 30 place names that are listed in the bill, because I think we must get that right. There are place names, and too often these come up—and we’ve seen it in media recently, even with street names in major New Zealand cities—but I think getting place names right and using this process to recognise these is really important.

I want to just finish now by looking at the commercial redress. I think, in terms of giving the right of first refusal to land within the area is important; I know that these mechanisms will come in handy for the post-settlement or the commercial arm or the asset holdings company of this—that these mechanisms enable those transactions to take place.

I’m going to finish there and wish our whānau all the very best as we count down—literally—to the final speakers, and say well done to Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua. Kia ora.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Ka meahia taku pōtae ki runga i te tēpū a David Seymour kia ngū ia!

Tēnā tātou. Tēnā tātou Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki-nui-a-rua kua whakawhāiti nei ki roto i tēnei Whare o tātou i tēnei rā.

Tangihia ō tātou mate, ngā mate putuputu o te wā, rātou ngā kaipīkau o tēnei kaupapa i roto i ngā tau maha kua hipa ake, kāore i konei i tēnei rā. Kei te tangi tonu, kei te poroporoaki tonu, kei te mihi tonu. Nō reira ngā mate putuputu o te wā, ki runga i tēnā marae, ki tēnā marae o tātou, haere, haere, whakangaro atu rā.

Ki ngā pakeke kua tae mai nei i tēnei rā, tērā pea, tamariki tonu ana koutou i te wā i heipū nei tēnei kaupapa ki runga i a koutou, ā, i tēnei rā kua hinahina te māhunga, kua wherū ki ngā taha, kua mamae ngā waewae, engari kei te koi tonu te hinengaro ki te kite i tēnei rangi mā koutou, haere mai, haere mai. Ā, ki ngā kaiwhakahaere o tēnei kerēme, ki ngā rangatira o ngā hapū, ngā upoko ariki kua tae mai nei i tēnei rā, e te whānau e ngā hapū e te iwi o Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-rua, nei rā te mihi atu ki a koutou.

[I will place my hat on David Seymour’s table to keep him quiet!

Greetings one and all. Greetings, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-rua gathered in this House of ours today.

We must grieve our dead, the frequent deaths of the time, those who have borne this issue over the many years that have passed and who are not here today. We grieve you still, we farewell you still, and we acknowledge you still. So, to the frequent deaths of the time on each and every marae of ours, go, go to the unseen realm.

To the elders who have come here today, you were possibly still children when this issue came to you, and, today your hair has greyed, your flanks are weary and your legs are aching but your mind is still sharp to see this day of yours, welcome, welcome.

And to the people who have managed this claim, to the leaders of the subtribes, to the paramount chiefs who have come here today, to the families, the subtribes, to Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-rua, this is my greeting to you.]

I want to acknowledge the mamae that the Crown has caused throughout this process, including their steam train on their train tracks that made you late today. We know too well the divide and rule tactics of the Crown, ignoring the sidelining of whānau and attempting to pit them against one another. There is only one party to blame for the division caused among our people, and that is the Government. Whether successive or current, how dare the Government divide our people? How dare the Government continue to create more hurt and pain on our people? How dare the Government create breaches well after 1992 and expect to get away with it? How dare the Government create division between the relationships and whakapapa of our people? Whakapapa is about connection. Hapū and iwi boundaries are about connection, but this Pākehā process is about division. It’s absolutely racist.

Kahungunu, your loss of whenua, loss of culture, and the severing of whakapapa has only been further entrenched in the Treaty settlement process. This mamae has only intensified in the last two years. Te Paati Māori will always maintain that Treaty settlements are never full and final. Your people have waited 180 years for justice, only to be repaid with further injustice that is deeply entrenched in the settlement process. This injustice rests with the Crown, and the Crown alone. They rendered your tīpuna virtually landless, leaving less than 1.5 percent. They abused your moana, and have continued to abuse your mana and that of your whanaunga who were displaced and moved to another iwi entirely, which created trauma and breaches to that iwi, as they lost iwi land.

I have likened it to the trail of tears, the genocide and displacement of the First Nations people at the hands of the United States Government, Government to Government. Even the Waitangi Tribunal were in disbelief at your treatment, stating, “So much that took place now seems barely credible, so manifestly unfair was it to tangata whenua of the region, who, by contrast, seem to have conducted themselves throughout with remarkable restraint, dignity, and honour.”

Nothing can take away the pain, the suffering, and the trauma that your people have endured and still endure today. No settlement will right the wrongs of State-sponsored terrorism at the hand of the Crown and the Government. Te Paati Māori does not accept that the settlements are full and final. Our trauma does not lie in the past, and today’s settlement is a clear example of that. Inequity, poverty, and the desecration of whenua and the separation of whānau and whakapapa is happening in the present and will continue to be our future if we continue down this track.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is not for settling; it is for honouring. Full and final settlement is not what Te Tiriti is about. Te Tiriti was signed before it was breached. Our people had tino rangatiratanga before Te Tiriti o Waitangi arrived here. After 34 years, we celebrate this day with you, but there should not be winners and losers today. Instead, it is a shameful day for both major parties who have been part of this process based on intimidation and Crown-engineered Treaty exhaustion.

The Government can solve all of these problems by adopting our mana motuhake policy. This would include establishing a Māori Parliament and implementing Mātike Mai recommendations for constitutional transformation, and I acknowledge Moana Jackson today. Now, if the Government adopted our mana motuhake policy, there wouldn’t be an issue today with the parties, because we would establish our own Māori Parliament. Pākōwhai, tēnā koutou.

[Pākōwhai, I acknowledge you.]

Implement all Mātike Mai recommendations, overhaul the Tiriti settlement process, and end the fiscal envelope. How dare we still be tied to the fiscal envelope, which was based on the fiscal numbers in 1992? This is 2022. Insert relativity causes into Te Tiriti settlements to ensure all iwi have parity with Ngāi Tahu and Waikato-Tainui. We mihi to them for opening the door for us, but it should be open to all of us. Make Waitangi Tribunal recommendations binding on the Crown and implement all unaddressed Wai claims recommendations. Abolish full and final settlements and the large natural groupings approach to recognise mana whenua groups. Return conservation land to whānau, hapū, and iwi. Introduce a first right of refusal policy for mana whenua when private land of historical significance comes up for sale. This would fix everything, and we invite the Government or any Government in the future to adopt that policy. This can only happen if our people stop putting their faith in Pākehā parties, but put our faith in ourselves to ensure we are in a stronger position to fight these racist processes. It’s time to decolonise ourselves, jump off the Endeavour, and re-indigenise ourselves back on the Tākitimu, eh Auntie Frances?

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is not for settling; it is for honouring. Full and final, like we said, should never ever be the be-all and end-all. You get 1 percent of your total due. Our tamariki, mokopuna should be fighting for the rest of their lives for the 99 percent that we are owed. The only way this nation can work is when Māori assert their rights to self-management, self-determination, and self-governance over all of our domains. It’s time to ditch the Treaty settlement process and give mana back to tangata whenua so that we can set up our own processes for getting our land back.

We will never ever settle, like we said. Te Paati Māori will not stand in the way of our people’s development today, but we sympathise with all the parties for the continued breaches the Government continued to endure on our people.

Ngāti Kahungunu, nā koutou tēnei rā, engari kei te aroha tonu ki te noho wehewehetanga i roto i a koutou anō. Ehara nā koutou te hē. Nā te Kāwanatanga, nā te Karauna te hē. Te whakawehewehe i a tātou, koinā hoki tā rātou mahi i ngā wā katoa. Kia kaha ki a koutou ki te whakawhirinaki i a koutou. Kia kaha ki a koutou ki te whakatōpū i a koutou. Kia kaha ki a koutou kia tū māia i roto i tō Kahungunutanga, kia māia, kia ngāwari te hīkoinga o āu mokopuna ki roto i tēnei ao hurihuri.

[Ngāti Kahungunu, this is your day, but I sympathise with your having been separated. This was not your fault. It was the Government’s fault, it was the Crown’s fault. Divide and separate—that has always been their modus operandi. Be strong in your support of one another. Be strong in gathering together. Be strong in standing confidently in your Kahungunu-ness, so that your grandchildren can be confident and relaxed in their journey in this changing world.]

I acknowledge the National Party for giving us an extra five minutes. They may have regretted it after that speech, but we only get five minutes; we had 10 today. Because of the importance and the highlight and the spotlight of this particular Treaty claim, we wanted to give it some due time. So anei, like we said, you can see the House is partly empty, e hika mā, but there’s only one party here 100 percent in attendance today and that is Te Paati Māori.

Nō reira, e hika mā, kāore tēnei e whakatōroa i ngā kōrero, kia kaha ki a koutou. Anei rā tō mokopuna, anei rā a Kahukura Mihiata i moe i a Apanui, anei te mokopuna e tū nei, e mihi nei, e tangi nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[And so, friends, I don’t want to prolong my speech; be strong. Here stands your grandchild, here stands Kahukura Mihiata who married Apanui, here stands your grandchild acknowledging you, grieving. Greetings to you all. Be well, one and all.]

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. E koa ana te ngākau e tū i konei kōrero ai ki te Pire Whakataunga Kēreme a Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-rua. Tuatahi iho, me mihi ki ngā uri o Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-rua, he mihi aroha ki a koutou i tēnei rā.

[I am pleased to stand here to talk to the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-rua Claims Settlement Bill. Firstly, I must acknowledge the descendants of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-rua. This is my compassionate greeting to you today.] And I’m real pleased that your train made it here on time today.

As I’ve learnt about your history—as I’ve learnt about your claim—through the process of this bill proceeding through the House, through being on the select committee and hearing submissions, it has brought home sharply to me that the actions and the wrongdoings of the Crown not only harm and damage relationships with Māori and the Crown but also harm and damage relationships between Māori and Māori, and that is sad for us and our country.

I would like to acknowledge the fact that we have reached this far in the House today, and I would like to acknowledge the fact that all parties in this House are voting for this bill. It’s an important tradition that we have had in Treaty settlement bills that we all support, and it’s really good to see that continuing today.

The Treaty settlement process is imperfect. But sometimes, on afternoons like this, when the House sits and has a Treaty bill, where we have te reo Māori, where we have waiata, where we have karanga coming out, and where we speak to the gallery and not to the Speaker, it feels just a little bit more like a marae and not so much like a Pākehā institution that it is. I wish that change to keep evolving and keep changing as we continue to adapt and change as a country, and we continue to reaffirm our Treaty partnership.

The Ngāti Kahungunu settlement package will finally and comprehensively settle all remaining Ngāti Kahungunu historical Treaty of Waitangi claims. The settlement package includes a Crown apology, the redress and cultural redress, and financial and commercial redress of $115 million plus interest.

The Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua legislation will settle all historical claims. The Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Act will give effect to the specific cultural redress shared between Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne o Wairarapa and Rangitāne o Tamaki nui-ā-rua, and provide for their respective deeds of settlement.

Ka hoki au ki aku kōrero i te pānuitanga tuatahi mō tēnei pire. He roa, he kōpikopiko te huarahi ki te whakataunga, ā, he huhua hoki ngā tukituki i runga i tēnei huarahi. E rongona tahi ana tātou i ngā nawe e whakapā tonu ana i te mamae i te kinikini i te rangi nei.

Koia tēnei ko te hiahia o te Karauna kia tohua ki te whakataunga kei te aonga o tētahi rangi hou mō te whakahoanga o Ngāti Kahungunu me te Karauna. Ko te kaupapa o tēnei rā ko te mihi i te onamata me te tahuri ki te anamata. He roa te haerenga, āe, tae noa ki tēnei rā. E kore e ea i tēnei mea te whakataunga ko ngā mahi hē a te Karauna ko te mamae rānei e pā ki a Ngāti Kahungunu. Engari e tūmanako ana taku ngākau ka noho te whakataunga nei hei tīmatanga mō te whakahoanga pakari kē i waenga i a Ngāti Kahungunu me te Karauna, he whakahoanga e takea ana i te whakapono o tētahi ki tētahi, te mahi tahi me te whakaute i te Tiriti me ōna mātāpono. Ka tautoko au i tēnei pire ki te Whare.

Nō reira, e te iwi, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[I return to what I said during the first reading of this bill. It has been a long and winding road to reach this settlement, and there have been many stumbling blocks along the way. Together we have heard about the grievances that still cause pain and gnaw away to this very day.

The desire of the Crown is this—to indicate by way of this settlement that a new day dawns with this partnership between Ngāti Kahungunu and the Crown. Today’s purpose is to acknowledge the past but turn towards the future. Yes, it has been a long road to arrive at this day. This settlement will never take away the deceitful actions of the Crown or the pain felt by Ngāti Kahungunu. But it is my heartfelt hope that the settlement will stand as a beginning to this strong relationship between Ngāti Kahungunu and the Crown, a relationship stemming from trust of each other, one of collaboration and one focused on upholding the Treaty and its principles. I commend this bill to the House.

Therefore, to the tribe, greetings to you. Greetings, greetings one and all.]

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to take a call on this bill. I’m not going to replicate the election speech of my colleague down the front here, but I’m going to congratulate him and also Ngāti Kahungunu on the importance they must have in this House because the Māori Party have full representation here this afternoon.

But aside from that, it is a privilege to take a call on these Treaty bills. I often get to speak on Treaty bills in the House; never having sat or having the privilege of sitting on the Māori Affairs Committee. I think it’s a particularly difficult issue, really, for the House to deal with. Also I think it’s extraordinarily difficult for those people who, effectively, are negotiating away not their rights so much as negotiating away the challenges of almost 200 years in this case, and in many other cases, where, effectively, you’re coming to an agreement on some issues that have occurred over virtually 200 years, and settling, I suppose, in the best interests of both the iwi and of New Zealand in general, because we need to find a way through this.

When you look around the world—and there’s been some reference to this in the House already this afternoon—these challenges are almost universal around the world in one form or another. I think, as the Minister said earlier, there’s no perfect way of getting to the end of a Treaty settlement. It’ll never be perfect and we can’t expect it to be perfect, but at least those people who put their energy and effort into trying to make it perfect, I think, are pretty special. They’re taking quite a risk, when you think about it, because, effectively, they’re committing future generations of their whānau, their family, their iwi to, I guess, resolve a piece of history that’s gone before them.

I want to talk about one of those people very briefly this afternoon, because I had the privilege of sitting beside him this morning. I just want to speak about the Hon Ron Mark, who might not be the biggest man who’s ever existed in this House, but none the less in many ways he’s very large. And the reason I want to talk about him is because he makes quite a mark on New Zealand history, when you think about it. He’s intimately involved in this agreement today. This morning we welcomed the Poseidon P-8s to Ōhākea, which is actually my neighbour in the Rangitīkei, and he was there. He, of course, was the Minister of Defence at the time those planes were ordered. And tomorrow morning he’ll be back in the Wairarapa as the Mayor of Carterton; he’s been the Mayor of Carterton before. I think that’s typical of the type of people who get involved in these processes. Right throughout New Zealand, and particularly in the north of my electorate, you see many people who have a lot of influence not in political life so much as community life in New Zealand who are involved in these Treaty settlement negotiations, and I think that reflects to a large extent the importance that is placed on these negotiations.

I just want to speak very briefly about some issues that Dr Reti raised earlier in his speech, and we spoke about it in a bill last week in the House related to Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne in the Wairarapa, where there’s some disagreement on a number of issues. There’s always going to be disagreement on these in the back of these negotiations. It’s inevitable because, as I said earlier, we’re dealing with 200 years of history—very difficult to deal with in any other manner. And so I think it’s important in this instance that Ngāti Kahungunu had the right to settle this process and get it out of the way—not get it out of the way from their perspective but get to a resolution in it, because I think my friend from the Māori Party mentioned earlier that every day you delay these things devalues the value of the settlement to some extent. And I think that’s a challenge for us all as well.

I just wanted to read two things out of a media release, or a release that came out at the time of the bill coming to the House for its first reading, and it typifies almost every Treaty settlement bill that I’ve been part of. It seems extraordinary to me that Governments of the past did what they did, and I think it’s also extraordinary that we continue to do these things today. I suppose in 50 years’ time we’ll look back and think what we did today wasn’t right. So you can never be right, but I just want to read this very quickly: “In 1853, the government promised Ngāti Kahungunu that it would set up a fund with the profits made from land sales. This, it said, would provide education, health and economic benefits. The fund never arrived, and neither did any benefits.” And the second thing I want to read is: “In 1896, to protect and preserve Wairarapa Moana, Ngāti Kahungunu gifted the lake to the Crown on the promise that it would create a reserve surrounding it. But this promise was also never fulfilled.” Of course, that was part of last week’s discussion and the bill we dealt with last week.

So I think that it’s a pretty special day in any of these Treaty settlement processes when we get to the third reading. And I want to congratulate Ngāti Kahungunu and their negotiators and the people involved with them on getting to this point. I think, as I’ve said, you go into these things with significant trepidation, and that’s where we get to.

I just want to very briefly mention one other point of these settlement bills, which I think are quite special and have a lot of opportunity, and I’ll quote a little opportunity out of the Rangitīkei in a minute. But I noticed that part of this settlement are two Landcorp farms: one is Range View, which my own family farm very close to. And that farm is now in trees. I’m sort of hoping that Range View won’t end up all in pine trees one day too, because it’s some beautiful farmland on Range View, and I would hope that that doesn’t happen to it, as has happened to some of that country in that part of New Zealand. The reason I quoted that is because in my very own electorate Flock House, which also was part of my family historically, is now called Te Hou and is a beautifully farmed farm. And it was part of a Treaty settlement process—came out of AgResearch, actually. The Hon Chris Finlayson negotiated that with Ngāti Apa. But the reason I use that example is because it shows the advantage that can be gained from these Treaty settlements if suitable land is made available through them. And Range View, in my view, is the one I know a little bit about, and I think that’s certainly suitable land.

So I just want to commend the way that this negotiation has taken place. Despite what some members of the House have said, I hope that at least it provides some resolution to Ngāti Kahungunu and I have no problem commending this bill to the House.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs):

Tuku whakarererere

Ngā roimata i aku kamo

Rite tonu ki te rere

O te awa o Ngaruroro

Kore rawa e mutu

Te āroharoha i a au

Haere rā ai e ngā mate

Āroharoha nui

Anei rā te whānau

A Hineahuone

E mihi tangi atu nei

Ki a koutou e te iwi.

Tānenuiārangi

Te Whare Tūpuna

Anei rā ngā mokopuna

Āroharoha nui

E ngā mana, ōku rau rangatira mā, e kui mā, e koro mā, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou i runga i te kaupapa whakahirahira i te ahiahi nei. Anei ngā aroha ki a koutou katoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Just like the flow

Of the Ngaruroro River

So flow the tears

From my eyes.

My sadness

Is never ending

As I farewell my dead,

With deep sadness.

Here stand the family

Of Hineahuone

Grieving and weeping

For your tribe.

Tānenuiārangi

Is the meeting house

Here stand his descendants,

With deep sadness.

To all authorities, to all chiefly peoples, to the elders, I acknowledge you. Greetings, greetings and welcome to these important discussions this afternoon. I greet you all with compassion and love.]

The significance of that waiata was that it was penned by my great-grandfather Ihakara Rapana—or, to the Pākehā—Ike Robin. He wrote that lament because he lost his younger son, my grandfather, at the age of 42, and it talks about losing his son. He was proudly Kahungunu, from Wairoa but raised on the banks of the Ngaruroro River, at Kohupātiki marae. I share that because my cousin, his mokopuna, Hayden Hape is one of the negotiators who has been acknowledged in this. So I mihi to my cousin and to my Hape whānau of Tāmaki nui-a-Rua. The second part of that song was penned by my grandmother Ruruhira Robin, who was the daughter-in-law of Ihakara Robin, and I frame that because she is also one of many large shareholders in Wairarapa Moana.

So I stand here proudly in acknowledging this significant day. It has been a hard road, it has been a complex road, but we are here today, and I want to honour all those who have come to pay witness to this third and final reading; to all those who are no longer here with us, who know that we are doing the right thing. So I want to acknowledge not only my cousin Hayden but also Ron Mark. I want to acknowledge Uncle Haami Te Whaiti, Robin Potangaroa, Marama Tuuta, Ra Smith, and, of course, Ian Perry and all those who have guided our people over these trying years of final settlement. It is not an easy road. As a former negotiator, you get knives in the front of you, you get knives in the back of you, you get knives on all sorts, but you’ve got to trust that, at some point, we as a people have to move, and in celebrating and acknowledging the third and final reading I am being quite honest that it is not a fair deal—it is not; it is fraught with a whole lot of challenges—but it is something the iwi themselves want to proceed with. And who are we in this House to stand in opposition to that desire, knowing that we have our own whanaunga taking claims to prevent this progression. I want to acknowledge that, and I said that because my grandmother is a shareholder and I have been asked to help and try and stop the claim, and I did actually say to this one person who asked me to stop the claim, “It’s a brave person that tries to get in the middle of a Treaty settlement.”

So I want to make sure that those here in the House acknowledging this third reading know it wasn’t an easy undertaking, and I want to acknowledge my colleague the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Andrew Little. He has been steadfast in supporting the process of this Treaty settlement bill despite, like we all, getting letters from—I’m being very careful in choosing my language. You have major players, and then you have side players, and it’s amazing how, in Treaty settlements, all the side players all determine that they need to be major players when, really, when you strip it back, in Treaty settlements, there are major players—they are the affected iwi and the Crown. Those are the major players, and in this settlement it was very clear that the iwi was represented by Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua. That was the iwi, and they were mandated to go to negotiate with the Crown. And of course you get others, and of course it wasn’t their doing that the Crown gave them whenua in Pouākani. It wasn’t their fault; it was the Crown’s. And so it was the Crown’s obligation to rectify it. So with the blessing of the iwi, who wanted to proceed with this third and final reading, despite all the challenges, despite all the hiccoughs, I actually think it’s the right thing to do.

So to all the parties in this House, who have unanimously stood up in support of the third and final reading of the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-a-Rua Claims Settlement Bill, it gives me great honour as the local MP for this electorate, for the final Kahungunu settlement bill—because we’ve got six; we’ve got six, proudly six—that this is the last of a suite of the Kahungunu large natural groupings that cover the Wairarapa into Tāmaki nui-a-Rua. And it gives me real pleasure to stand and say a few words in support of the people in the public gallery, those watching at home, those who are no longer here with us, on the significance of this final chapter and the exciting journey that I know they’re already embarking on. This legitimises who they are—who they are in Wairarapa and who they are in Tāmaki nui-a-Rua—to continue the good work that I know those negotiators have laid the platform, and the leaderships that are yet to come through, to ensure that the settlement today is not only for the living now but for our future yet to come, and it is an exciting time to stand in support 100 percent with this settlement.

So, Madam Speaker, with those few words, can I say thank you to all those that have been involved, thank you for the perseverance, thank you for the sacrifice, because it isn’t everything that got taken from us. I want to pay tribute to our whānau in Pouākani. I want to pay particular acknowledgment to our whānau in Pouākani that we have not forgotten them, and we will continue to embrace them as we go forward, because they are us and we are them. And despite us being apart, many, many kilometres away, through no fault of our own, it is incumbent on us, as we pass this final bill, that we extend that arm of aroha to the many Kahungunu whānau that still live in Pouākani. They are Kahungunu and we are Kahungunu, and with this passing of the bill, I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Waiata

Bills

Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): I present a legislative statement on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I move, That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I want to start this speech, not in the words of my own, but in the words of 12-year-old Pōtatau, who submitted to the Health Committee’s hearing in Tāmaki-maka-rau, and this is what he said. He said, “Why do you, the Government, support businesses that sell tobacco that kills Māori, that makes us very sick? That is wrong. You can make it right and make businesses stop selling tobacco.”

My message to Pōtatau is this: you’re right. There is no good reason to allow a product to be sold that kills half the people that use it. I can tell you that we will end this in future as we pass this legislation.

This bill will create generational change, and it will leave a legacy of better health for our youth. It will allow New Zealanders to enjoy more quality years with their whānau and friends. They will have healthier pregnancies. Babies will be born at term and stay in their mother’s arms rather than be snatched away to neonatal intensive care. It will reduce hospitalisations and reduce the burden of smoking-related illness. It will save thousands of lives and billions for the future health system.

Sadly, most people have a story about someone they know who has been harmed by tobacco, and that is reflected in the many stories submitted to the Health Committee. One submitter spoke of being a teenager and witnessing smoking-related illness and death in their whānau. A nurse described her distress at caring for people with chronic lung disease. Another submitter said, “A lot of my whānau and very close friends have passed away through cancer and because of smoking. Eighty percent of the people in our urupa died of cancer.” And one, who saw “the three most important people to me, the pillars of my whanaunga, the matriarchs of our whānau, all died of lung cancer, smoking, health issues. I cared for most of them in their dying days, and it was hard to see, hard to witness”. So she wants a better future for her daughter.

These stories ring true to me because they are the sort of stories that I heard day in and day out as a doctor in our health system. I met people coming back into the emergency department, week after week, as a result of their chronic lung conditions; struggling for breath, knowing that they couldn’t give up smoking, even while they knew that it was killing them. I met people whose gangrene I tried to treat, but when I couldn’t, they had to go to a surgeon for amputations. I sat with people while I told them about their lung cancer diagnosis, and then again, later, as they died.

Tobacco causes so much harm for our community. By voting for this bill, we are saying we’re not prepared to let our people be sacrificed for vested interests like the tobacco industry. We’re saying no to the tobacco industry loading up their product with nicotine to keep people hooked. We’re getting tobacco out of communities, particularly low-income communities, where retail outlets cluster.

This legislation accelerates our progress towards a smoke-free future, and it is a future that is close, within reach; our smoking rate is 8 percent. We know that Pākehā New Zealanders are well on the way to reaching that target of 5 percent smoking, but we have to do the measures in this bill to create an equitable outcome, to make sure that Māori and Pasifika also reach that goal and share in that better future with us.

While thinking about the future, it is also important to reflect on how we have come to this point and how we are able to make this decision today. Over 30 years, Aotearoa has made history as one of the first countries to take bold action to save its people from the harms of tobacco. I want to acknowledge the work of Helen Clark, who was health Minister at the time and brought in the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990. It was a historic measure. Today, we can celebrate another historic moment again, with the passing of this legislation.

It has been 12 years since the Māori Affairs Committee inquiry presented its recommendations for the Government. In fact, it was that inquiry that set a target of the smoke-free goal that was adopted by the Government, and it’s that goal that is a foundation of this bill.

We are 70 years now from when cigarettes were first identified as one of the leading causes of cancer. Aotearoa New Zealand, today passing this legislation, is saying that we are going to stop the harm that tobacco causes.

I want to note that smoke-free has previously attracted bipartisan support in this House. Initially, the National Party was supporting this bill. Well, what has changed? Are there new political opportunities open to the National Party, and are they prepared to let thousands of New Zealanders die to pursue those opportunities? Dr Reti, I know you know better; you have the opportunity to put yourself and your party on the right side of history, and I say to you—I say to you again—vote for this bill or renounce your oath.

One of the key outcomes of this bill is to reduce the disparities that continue to be so keenly experienced because of the deadly stubborn habit that is smoked tobacco. Let’s be clear: the modelling shows that for Māori women, the life expectancy gap between them and Pākehā will be reduced by a quarter; what other vote will you take in your life that could make such an important difference to the health of Māori? I find it very hard to think of one.

This is a singular issue, and parties who believe in caring for the health of their people need to vote for this bill. By doing so, we will reach a vision that one submitter described as “better health, cleaner air for our whānau, to live and work and to have recreation in a smoke-free environment. We will break the cycle of harm caused by tobacco.”

I want to acknowledge colleagues in the House. I want to express my gratitude to Tangi Utikere and the members of the Health Committee, whose deliberations improved the shape of this bill—and yes, I include my colleague from the Green Party Chlöe Swarbrick in that gratitude.

I want to also thank the officials from the Ministry of Health, led by Sally Stewart, who gave excellent advice on this topic; the Parliamentary Counsel Office; submitters as well. I want to thank the many advocates and researchers and others in the tobacco control sector who have kept this issue going even when they didn’t find support in Government. Their passion, their determination, and their collective efforts have brought us to this day, after so many petitions, submissions, and research.

I want to thank the health workers and community health promotion experts at the grassroots level. They have stood alongside smokers and communities through thick and thin, when they received support from Government and also when they didn’t, helping people to make the change to be smoke-free. I can’t name them all, but the ones that I have recently had engagement with, like The Hashtags of Wainuiomata campaigning for smoke-free cars; Kāute Pasifika in Hamilton, de-normalising smoking; Hāpai te Hauora with their health promotion; the Cancer Society, particularly in South Canterbury, where they’re lobbying councils for more smoke-free environments; the work done by the Northland community to address retail outlets in their community—I say to those community activists and health promoters that our work is not done. We need to continue to support our people towards our smoke-free goal, as they have done for years—but also after the passage of this bill.

Finally, I wanted to share a plea from one submitter, who said, “A lot of my family members have passed away from tobacco. So if you really want your family members to be here with you today and tomorrow, make sure you support this bill.” I can’t think of a better sentiment to take into the Christmas holidays, knowing that we’re voting for a bill that will keep New Zealanders alive for longer, which will make more families have more time together. It is with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.

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

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. National has never disagreed with the end point of nicotine reduction—never have, and we don’t here today—but we do disagree with the process that purportedly is going to get there.

Let’s remember, we offered a bipartisan view. We offered an alternative and the Government said, “No.” So before they point the finger and say, “You don’t want to play”, that is not what happened. National supports nicotine reduction. National supports the smoke-free goals. In 2011, the National Government announced the smoke-free 2025 goals—let’s remember it was goals in our hands. And this arose from the 2010 Māori Affairs Committee recommendations that by 2025 we would be smoke-free. Is that going to be true? Are we going to be smoke-free by 2025? That’s not possible, and I’ll tell you why it’s not possible.

In 2018, interim targets were set. In the baseline in 2011—when the National Government started down this mission—the smoking rate for all adults was 16.3 percent, so interim target rates were set. That interim target rate was, in 2018, 10 percent. And what happened when we got there? When we got there, it was 13.1 percent. So in 2018, we’d already failed the target. And this Government’s presuming that what they’re doing here today—that all this hurry and rush at the expense, as I’ll talk to later, of retailers—is because they want to hit the 2025 goal. It will not happen. It is not possible. You don’t actually start retail reduction until 2024. You don’t start denicotinisation until 2025. It is not possible that this Government will reach the 2025 goal.

So given that is a statement of fact, what is the hurry to get rid of small retailers and cast aside others in their ambitious rush for the sound bite and for the virtue signalling? What is the hurry? This Government will not reach the 2025 goals and they knew it in the very beginning. Yet they’ve used the argument of urgency and a need to get to this goal to justify their poor processes.

Our positioning on this bill has been to achieve nicotine reduction with the least collateral damage possible. Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Labour’s position is to achieve nicotine reduction regardless of the collateral damage. Under Labour, who is the most affected? Who is the most damaged? The same hard-working retailers who are currently being damaged by their ram raids and their burglaries—our corner dairies who open all day to provide the convenience that we want. How ironic, then, it is the same convenience on behalf of the Government that will close their corner dairies for the sake of their virtue-signalling experimental initiatives. It is convenient to sacrifice small retailers.

This didn’t need to happen. There was an alternative pathway that could still achieve large amounts—take the better pathway towards a 2025 goal, actually, than what’s being put on the table here today—but Labour didn’t want to hear about it. All they saw was the sound bite arising from, “We’ll do a smoke-free generation.” Remind me, who’s implementing that? How’s that gone? Or do retail reduction? Remind me, who’s implementing that? How’s that gone? We’ll denicotinise—now, that does have some weight to it: it’s being deployed in Colorado as we speak. It actually does have a pathway that is successful, but they didn’t want to know. Remember, go and look at the Facebook page. We offered to collaborate and they didn’t want to know.

This Government has chosen to do retail reduction first and reduce dairy selling tobacco products from 6,000 to 600 retailers. It is the milk and bread and other products that people also purchase that generates their living, not the low-margin tobacco. But no, retailers were—as the Minister said to us—easy to implement. What she also said was retail reduction has much uncertainty. We know that already; that’s why it’s a foolish thing to be starting with.

This was unnecessary. The National Party proposed denicotinisation first and then retail reduction if needed. The Government wanted the easy hits—the sacrificial lamb on the altar of virtue signalling. We could have had both.

When the local dairy is closed and you have to drive further, consuming more petrol, emitting more fumes, thank a Labour Government who didn’t protect these people and didn’t protect their livelihoods. They were expendable for the sound bite. Corner dairies: you are expendable for the sound bite, the Labour sound bite.

The first sound bite came out last year when it was announced around about December, the smoke-free generation and the retail reduction. There is no epiphany to this. This is no original thinking from Labour; it’s been on the cards for years. No one deployed, it for several reasons; (1) no one was sure it was going to work; and (2) the risks and the collateral damage were too great. So no new thinking here. Both here or internationally, this has been discussed for decades.

I think there’s also a point to make to people who are saying reducing smoking will reduce ram raids. Well, that’s kind of circuitous logic, because what we also know is that the ram raids also attract attention towards alcohol and towards vaping products. I think that’s a circuitous logic to say reducing the number of retailers is going to reduce the ram raids. I don’t believe that.

We also put on the table, which wasn’t mentioned here today in the Minister’s speech—which, for the very first time, actually occupied her full 10 minutes. So unconvincing is this bill that in her first reading it was eight minutes and 27 seconds; in the second reading, seven minutes and 13 seconds. We’d sat down before we had to get up again to answer her—that’s how unconvincing she was and is on her own bill.

We put forward, at the committee of the whole House, a number of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). The first SOP proposed the change in scheduling that I’m enunciating here. The second talked to vaping; the second to the Local Government New Zealand remit that said, “Can we do something about the proximity of new specialist vaping retailers when they go for their application?” We thought, “You know, that kind of make sense.” And they gave the example of Dargaville, and I won’t reiterate that—we did that in the committee of the whole House.

So we put forward a very reasonable proposal, supported by Local Government New Zealand, saying, “Could the Director-General of Health please take into account the proximity of other specialist vape retailers when they issue new licences?” The Labour Government didn’t want to hear it. They didn’t want to hear that community voice.

We also put forward an SOP that talked to doing a better job with underage vaping. I honestly believe that across the House, we probably are all concerned with underage vaping, which has tripled, roughly, from 3 percent to 9 percent is some of the figures that I’m hearing. Yes, it has achieved the goal that we wanted to achieve with adults—and I believe it will continue to do so, and that is a good thing.

But we always had that concern that it would be a gateway. It looks like it may well be—not quite as much as we thought, but still a gateway. We also had that concern that it would start to disrupt social networks, and that even the small amount of nicotine that’s in vaping could be dangerous to a developing teenage brain. These concerns remain. These concerns have been brought to us, and I believe brought to every single person in this House. I defy anyone here to say they haven’t received an email from parents, schools, and principals saying, “We have a problem with underage vaping.” As the newspaper headlines said, “An epidemic of underage vaping.”

So this was a gentle SOP proposing that maybe we should be applying more resources, maybe we should be particularly indicating that we are concerned for underage vaping, and the mechanism to do that was to step up the compliance monitoring around underage vaping.

Parts of the bill attended to this—looking at online self-identification, making sure that they truly were over 18 years—but there was more that could be done. We could have sent that signal to communities, to schools, and to principals that “Yes, we’ve heard. Yes, we believe. Yes, we agree. And so we’re going to encourage the director-general to particularly have emphasis on under-age vaping”—and have emphasis on the two-minute bell that hasn’t rung.

But what we’re also saying here: this was a very important SOP that was gentle, it didn’t ask much of anyone. It didn’t cost much at all to say, “Can we please apply ourselves to underage vaping?” Schools, principals, the community are saying they’re concerned, but this Government didn’t want to know. It was way too much of a distraction from the sound bites that they want, from the virtue signalling that they want. They didn’t want to do the real work. They didn’t want to listen to schools and communities, and so they’d marched off into this fanciful horizon that will not deliver a 2025 smoke-free goal.

So we’re going to stand here today and, of course, we’re going to oppose this. We’re going to oppose it not because we disagree with the end points. I’ve seen as much clinical harm from smoking as anyone in this House, but we do disagree with the pathway and the process, and we will not tolerate collateral damage when those goals could have been achieved with a different mechanism—in fact, this Government’s own mechanism. All we asked for was a change in schedule, and they said, “No.” They can answer to small retailers. They can answer to communities when small retailers leave. This will be part of your collateral damage that you will answer for.

This bill is flawed; this bill will not achieve the 2025 goal. We believe in that goal; we want to get there. This is not the pathway to get there. We have an alternative proposal; we have a plan. Thank you.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a very brief call in support of this legislation. Can I acknowledge Associate Minister Verrall for her leadership in this space. Can I acknowledge colleagues on the Health Committee—which was able to scrutinise this piece of legislation—along with the advice of officials. Can I also acknowledge the many, many, countless submitters that participated in this process—individuals and collectives who care about the wellbeing and future of their whānau and of generations.

I’ve made contributions previously, so the only changes are tweaks through the committee of the whole House stage, in terms of what the bill looks like before the House today. But this piece of legislation will take steps to prevent deaths, which are—let’s be honest—largely and hugely inequitable for our Māori and Pasifika communities, and so this is a great step forward. I am very proud to commend this bill to the House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Oh, look—took me by surprise, a Government MP couldn’t even speak for the full 10 minutes on his own bill. And I’m not surprised. Isn’t it—getting near the end of the year—just an absolute shambles as this Government crawls towards the end of the year? But there was one quote I noticed today: I quote, “I feel I am better suited for government than opposition”—Jamie Strange, Labour MP from Hamilton East. Because he’s been at the front line of the political war for the last six weeks, and he knows how the tide is turning. “I feel I am better suited for government than opposition …”—it says it all, really. Good on him for standing up and being honest.

There’s a lot of crossover, in that honest statement today from Jamie Strange, to the bill we’re discussing today. A bill that is filled of missed opportunities; a bill that speaks to an arrogant Government that knows best. Full of sound bites and virtue signalling, but when you look deep into the public policy aspect of this bill it is hugely lacking. The flaws that my learned colleague Dr Shane Reti spoke about in the first reading clearly outline why National will oppose this bill in its third reading. And here we go, another example of Dr Shane Reti, who, on his own, has put a compelling argument forward and a credible alternative, and gifted it to the Government, who turned it down. Shades of months ago, when the Government was scrambling and struggling to put legislation together for the medicinal cannabis bill, and Dr Shane Reti put his own framework together that was widely acclaimed by the health community. Here we have, again, another issue with this Government that just won’t listen.

As Dr Reti clearly outlined, the National Party agrees with the end goals. In fact, to a point, we actually even agree with the three policy levers of reducing retail shops, denicotisation, and making it illegal for a certain cohort of New Zealanders born after 2009 to buy cigarettes. But where we differ on this side of the House is the order of those three levers. Why are we sending the sacrificial lambs—our small-business owners—in first? Ones that have been under the pump for several months due to the soft-on-crime Government who are facing the voracity of the increased crime in New Zealand. And now, through the sound bites and the virtue signalling, they are put up first to lose their livelihoods. Under this bill, potentially 6,000 small retailers will be reduced to 600. All we’re saying is, “Yep, that’s a lever you can use, but why not pause? Why not use one of your other policy options first?”—denicotisation. Because if reducing the nicotine in cigarettes gives us the ability of reaching the smoke-free goal of 2025, of less than 5 percent of New Zealanders smoking, then why would we not try that first?

We still haven’t had one compelling reason from this Government. One of the reasons we don’t have any compelling reasons is because they get up and do 90-second speeches. Welcome to being a Government backbencher in an unpopular Government, where the whip just says, “I’m not worried you’ve been up all night preparing your 10-minute speech—we want to rush this bill through. It’s not the best; we’ll just get it through. Ninety seconds—just go for it.” And to think that these MPs, two years ago, were in the electorates, you know, saying to their constituents, “I’ll work hard for you.” you know? And what they call that is a lion in their electorate, but a lamb in Wellington. Because they won’t stand up for their electorates and they won’t do the right thing. So I look forward to the Government MPs going back to their small-business owners, going back to their dairy owners, who are under a lot of pressure at the moment to say, “Yep, there was another policy lever open to us: denicotisation. We could have done that first, but we chose not to.”

And you can’t say the science stacks up, because what was very interesting in the first reading of this bill was how much international coverage this bill got. And fair enough, too. I mean, it’s quite experimental. I don’t have any problem with New Zealand leading the way and I think we’ve got to try things. We’ve got to be flexible, we’ve got to be responsive, and we’ve got to be reflective, but it just doesn’t make sense, when you sequence those three policy levers, why the current Government is so stubborn about closing down our small-business retailers first. Why would you not try denicotisation?

Then there is the other issue around the gaps we’ve now got in this bill, because there was a real opportunity to address some of the issues about vaping we have in New Zealand. I personally think for those who smoke and have the ability to transition to vape, it’s a fantastic solution for them. It’s great, and for many it’s been the only solution that has worked when they’ve tried several mechanisms for getting off tobacco smoking. The problem we do have in New Zealand, though, is there are a number of young people who haven’t smoked—traditionally, tobacco first—going straight on to vaping. I’ll challenge any MP in this House that hasn’t heard of, or been approached by, a parent who’s really concerned why underage kids are getting access to vapes at the vape stores in our towns and in our cities.

And this was an opportunity to put in—again, Dr Shane Reti wrote it all out for the Government. These guys have got thousands of officials, and one astute doctor writes better policy than their thousands of officials. Because he knows what’s right, and that’s why he did it. So why did we not tighten that up for young kids who are getting access to vapes? I’ve tried to address it in the small town I live in, and the police just basically said, “Too many bigger priorities at the moment, Matt. We’re not going to be able to focus on that.” This bill could have gone part of the way to do that, as well as enabling, through legislation, a view on proximity by the director-general for future vape shops? And you might ask, “Well, has a Minister tried to muddy the waters through the committee of the whole House stage?” Well, the similarities between proximity of vape shops and reducing from 6,000 to 600 for tobacco shops—very different. It’s not retrospective; proximity for vape shops was growth for the future. We had an opportunity—we’ve had several opportunities through the course of this bill.

We have a hard-working future health Minister. And boy, I’ll tell you what, the state our health system’s in at the moment, especially for those people who go into our emergency departments, wait longer than six hours than they did under a National Government, and then leave because they can’t get seen—they can’t wait till Dr Shane Reti’s the health Minister, to bring back targets into our health system, and to bring back a health system that actually delivers. When you listen to Dr Shane Reti, it’s very clear from his speech that he’s focused on the outcomes.

It’s very clear that if we’re going to reach Smokefree 2025, the three policy levers we are debating in the third reading this afternoon are ones we’re happy to support. It was how you would deploy those three policy levers and what we’re doing now is setting up our small-business owners, our dairy owners, our retailers—all members of our local communities—and they’re going to have to front it. They’re going to have to front it with their families and do the heavy lifting when denicotisation could have been the lever—it could have been the one that drove it down. As Dr Shane Reti clearly pointed out, we could have reviewed it and gone from there. But another example of a Government that’s stubborn, has missed opportunities, and is arrogant.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Every year, 4.5 thousand people die from smoking, so we can continue to talk about it ad nauseam—as my colleague Matt Doocey has just ably demonstrated—or we could actually do something about it. Ten years ago, the Government set a goal that by 2025, fewer than 5 percent of New Zealanders would be smokers, and this bill is the bill that intends to achieve that goal and improve the health and the health outcomes of New Zealanders. And it’s really disappointing that National aren’t supporting this bill—they say that they support the concept of smoke-free; they’re just not willing to do anything about it, and that sounds familiar, doesn’t it? But on this side of the House, Labour knows that this is the right thing to do; it is a bold piece of legislation, it is world-leading—the three elements of this bill work together in a way that will see it be successful, and on that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I used to think before I came to this place that this is where we would debate issues and their substance with evidence and really thrash it out, and when it comes to drug policy—all drug policy—I’ve been really let down by that hope. I actually want to allude to some of the first reading speeches that we heard from National Party MPs. Matt Doocey was one of them. He got up and said, “The National Party back evidence-based approaches to drug harm reduction.” I said at that point in time, and it was recorded in Hansard, that I will be raising that with the National Party every opportunity that I get, because what we have here in this proposed legislation, which will go through its third reading tonight, is a response to a substance which can cause harm. So, substances, whether they be alcohol or cannabis or tobacco, we can recognise them from a health approach and say, “Well, this substance obviously, when ingested by the consumer, has X, Y, Z impacts.” When it comes to tobacco, we’re seeing approximately 13 New Zealanders die every single day from smoking or from second-hand smoking. So we have to say that substance very obviously can cause harm.

We then have to ask the question, well, how do we go about reducing that harm with a legislative framework that incorporates public health—not just the health-based approach but the public health approach, which contemplates the communities that people are living in, the resources that they have access to to wean off of their addiction, and all of those other really critical surrounding circumstances that are necessary to deal with that issue. I think as all of us in this place can probably acknowledge, criminal prohibition of substances has never got rid of those substances, which is why it is so important that we have those alternatives, like, for example in this legislation, the likes of vaping, which others have acknowledged doesn’t come without its own harms, and we’re starting to see a proliferation of those harms.

So I just really wanted to address that point and also to speak to those Supplementary Order Papers and those ostensible solutions that were waved around by Dr Shane Reti. I’ve got a lot of respect for and have collaborated with Dr Shane Reti on a number of things, including the likes of the medicinal cannabis legislation which went through this House a few years ago now, but as we’ve very thoroughly canvassed in the committee of the whole House stage—and it’s available out there for anybody who’s listening along at home who does want to go and look at this stuff—those proposals, those Supplementary Order Papers, largely were unworkable and they did not do what they said on the tin.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Sorry to interrupt the member, but we are in the third reading, and any matters dealt with in the committee are now in the past. So I’ll ask the member to address what is in the bill post committee of the whole House stage at its third reading.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: All right, OK. So, yeah, moving forward, then, we had throughout the process of this legislation, obviously, as reflected throughout the debate that others have raised with regard to the contributions of Dr Reti, that, actually, within the director-general requirements in this legislation there is the opportunity to do precisely those things that he was speaking to, around, for example, consideration of proximity of vaping shops and the concentration of them.

But let’s come back to the core point, the core issue, the kaupapa, that it is that we are debating tonight, that is, of course, the third reading of this legislation, which does contain a range of novel measures to try and tackle that really hard core, that final, kind of, part of New Zealand that is still struggling with getting off of their addiction to tobacco, because as we heard from the many submitters at the Health Committee, tobacco, perhaps unlike most other drugs—alcohol, for example—is a substance that most of its users want to stop using, quite actively. What we know is that there are obviously measures, which it’s interesting to hear, and I’m glad to hear, the likes of the National Party agree with as well—that denicotinisation will go a long way towards reducing the attractiveness and the addictiveness and, basically, not satiating that addiction that people have to tobacco and therefore helping them to get off of it.

I also just wanted to note, as I haven’t been able to say so fulsomely at other points throughout this debate at each reading, that we really do need to shout out to the officials here, because they were phenomenal. I noted at the end of the committee of the whole House stage—not alluding to that, Madam Speaker, but at the end of that stage, we were left with some presentations from other members in this House that the officials hadn’t done their job. The officials did their job very diligently, and they were phenomenal for the members who did turn up and did engage in that process. So I want to thank the Minister and the Health Committee, very diligently chaired by Dr Tangi Utikere, because throughout that process of collaboration, both with the Minister prior to the legislation coming to the House and through the Health Committee, some really core things that were critical to the Greens were progressed in this legislation and reflected throughout it.

The most important thing is that we didn’t end up picking up on, particularly, those really problematic kind of consequences of a criminal prohibition approach to substances, like we’ve seen, for example, under the Misuse of Drugs Act. This legislation does not create a new criminal framework; it creates a new kind of course of civil fines that are available for people. I think, as we actually discussed quite robustly inside of my caucus, it is really important to note that in certain circumstances where we do see that people, you know, at the more structurally marginalised end of our communities who receive these fines, they can end up escalating, effectively, into criminal charges if they are not paid. But importantly, again, this legislation and the new regime does not target those users; it is very much targeted on sale and supply.

Importantly, as well, we do have the containment of—and this is something which we achieved through the select committee—a review, a review that will be really important for reviewing the efficacy of some of these particularly novel measures. There is, of course, also the capacity inside of this legislation for the likes of growing your own, if somebody does want to go out of their way to go through the process of growing and processing their own tobacco, for some reason.

The thing that excites me the most personally in having really gone through the weeds of this legislation is the testing regime and the licensing regime around, kind of, approved products and approved retailers, particularly the testing regime for vaping. We know that there are a number of products out there that are not what they say they are, so that approved process for products is going to be really important.

But just in my final few minutes, I did want to note that there is, of course, more to do, which I think all of us in this House have also noted. To that effect, back on the hobby horse of the cigarette filters, cigarette filters, as reflected in the Health Committee report, they do not reduce the harm of smoking tobacco. They are a faux harm cessation device, and all they have basically done is serve to make people think that the product that they’re consuming is safer, but all they do in reality is make the product more palatable, in turn being littered all across our cities and flowing out into our moana. I was out, actually, with Sustainable Coastlines just yesterday and we were picking up just for 20 minutes some litter around the Wynyard Quarter area in Auckland Central, and in that 20 minutes we found dozens and dozens of these cigarette filters, which are terrible for the fishies.

The other thing is, of course, vaping. All of us have said we want to do more on vaping, so what does that actually look like, because, again, as we’ve noted, there is in the regulatory powers for the Director-General of Health the ability to set, for example, the likes of, as Matt Doocey was putting forward, proximity requirements, or, rather, not having dense proximity of vaping outlets. But I think it sounded like we had some form of consensus in the House to look towards perhaps phasing out disposable vapes, because disposable vapes tend to be cheaper, they tend to be a lot easier for our young people to get hold of as a result of also being cheaper, but they also tend to fool people into thinking that they’re not starting an addiction, and they also tend to explode in our rubbish tips and landfills—so, once again, a massive environmental hobby horse for us in the Greens.

I also think, and I’ve said as much to the Minister, that it is really critical that we’re not just seeing this legislation pass as it is but also, again, as canvassed in other readings, that there is some serious resourcing that is given to particularly the cessation programmes that are already doing phenomenal mahi out there in our communities, particularly, as we heard at select committee, for our Māori and particularly our Pasifika organisations who are doing this work on the ground.

Just finally, I want to thank all of the submitters and all of the advocates, and Tiger and her mum. We read out Tiger’s contribution to the Health Committee in the House, obviously, during the second reading of this bill, and what we had at Health Committee was some incredible young people, some incredible tamariki and rangatahi, the likes of the HashTags as well, who are making the case for a healthier future. Our young people want this, the people who are currently addicted want this, our communities want this, and we have the opportunity to achieve it, albeit with some novel measures that are going to require constant updating, reviewing, and resourcing. All we in the Greens ask for is some logical consistency when it comes to drug harm reduction.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party and my caucus colleagues in opposition to the third reading of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill.

We stand opposed to this bill because it’s a bad bill and it’s bad policy—it’s that straightforward and simple. There won’t be better outcomes for New Zealand; there will be worse outcomes for New Zealanders, because we need to look at what the effects—the true effects—of this law will be on our communities and our people within our communities. That’s because when you create a law, you need to look at the costs and the benefits, and you also need to ask the question of “Well, what will happen next from us passing this law; what will be the flow-on effect of this law?”

Now, this law says that it has the goal of reducing smoking in New Zealand. That’s a nice goal and it sounds nice in theory, but the devil is in the details. Nobody wants to see people smoke—I don’t want to see people smoke—but we live in reality and we know that it happens, and some people will smoke. This bill, rather than helping our communities, is simply nanny-State prohibition that will cause more problems in our society because, in reality, the effect is it will create a large black market, it will kill off our community dairies, and it will increase illegal activity and harm in our communities. So the ACT Party believes that it’s a poorly thought-out, feel-good policy that sounds nice in theory, but it comes with huge downsides, and I want to go over a few of those in detail with the time that I have.

This bill has three policies within it to bring about the goal of reducing smoking in New Zealand. So starting with the first goal to significantly reduce retail availability by restricting sales of smoked tobacco products to retail outlets approved by the Director-General of Health. There are around 6,000 community retailers that currently have the ability to sell cigarettes, amongst all of the other types of goods that they sell. This bill will reduce the number of retailers that can sell cigarettes and smoked tobacco products to 600. That is a huge reduction. It’s estimated that around 80 percent of these retail businesses will go out of business—they will close.

Let me tell you a little bit about some of these retailers, because I’ve had a lot to do with them in recent months. Some of our retailers in our communities have faced the hardest time in New Zealand. They are constantly being attacked, they’re constantly being robbed, they’re at threat of ram raids, they have a threat of being attacked, working in their own shops, and it’s not good that in our community we have anybody going to work who feels like they might get attacked just for doing their jobs in the local community. That’s not OK. But we have a lot of retailers who get up, they work hard, and they’re just trying to do their best to serve their local community, and that’s really tough to see.

But, on top of all of that, on top of all of the crime that they have, the Government is now coming along and saying, “Forget about all that hardship that you already faced; we want to put you out of business. We want the ability to pick and choose which one of you will be able to survive into the future.” It’s not fair. It’s not the Kiwi way. We have community retailers who won’t be picked and they will find it really hard because this bill is anti-competitive. You know, if they’re not able to sell cigarettes or smoked tobacco products, that’s not just that cigarette or smoked tobacco product that they’re not able to sell; it means that that customer, who would have come in to buy that good, now won’t come in to buy the bread or the milk or the water bottle or even the newspaper that might have come alongside it—all of that business now goes to their competitor. So it’s not just the effect of not being able to sell the cigarettes; it’s not being able to sell all of those other goods that people buy when they’re in the shop as well.

So I believe that’s disrespectful. It’s disrespectful for the way that we go about doing business in New Zealand, and it’s disrespectful for the hard-working Kiwis who want to serve their local communities. It is wrong.

But the second part of this policy is that, even worse, on top of all the crime, it puts a bigger target on some of those retailers, who have been affected by crime and who have been affected by ram-raiders, because now there’s a smaller pool of them to be targeted. I think that is going to be a terrible consequence of this bill. It also means that it will lead to a larger black market because, you see, a lot of people like accessibility. They like to know that they can pop down to their local shop and they can get what they need when they need it. Now, if you’re moving a store further and further away from someone, they either have the ability to drive further, take a bus even further, or walk further, or they can go to their local gang member and get it from there. They can get it around the corner. And that is what will happen. Illegal activity will increase. Because you know who’s smart? Criminals. They know that this is wanted in their communities and they will be there, arms wide open, providing illegal cigarettes on the black market.

The second point that I want to talk to is reducing the appeal and addictiveness of smoked tobacco products by setting a limit on the quantity of nicotine and enabling limits or prohibitions to be set on other constituents. This creates a radical reduction in the amount of nicotine content within each cigarette, and I think there are people in our communities who are addicted to cigarettes. The effect will be that those who smoke and are addicted, and who can least afford it, will spend more on their habit because instead of having one cigarette to get their hit, they’ll have two—they will increase how much they’re smoking. The effect of that is that if they’re smoking more cigarettes to get the same hit, they’re going to be increasing their tar intake, which is actually worse for their health. This will affect families who can least afford it the most because more of that money will be going to an increase in buying cigarettes for a habit rather than going to other costs of living that that family need.

The second part is the alternative—they don’t smoke more cigarettes for their habit, they once again go to the black market to find exactly what they were looking for originally. I hope that Customs and our police are ready for the increase in illegal activity that will happen. We are going to see more illegal cigarettes come through the borders, through customs, and through containers than we’ve ever seen, because people will want these products and the gangs will be there to give it to them.

Number three is preventing young people and future generations from ever taking up smoking by prohibiting the sale of smoked tobacco products to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009. Now, if we know anything from history, it’s that prohibition does not work—it absolutely does not work—because a great example is drug law in New Zealand. You know, we have a lot of illegal substances in our communities and we say we don’t want young people using pills at festivals. We know it happens, and we know people supply it to them. This is the same thing. Prohibition doesn’t mean that the problem goes away; it just shifts to the black market. It’s really that simple. A ban on a problem does not make it disappear; it will increase criminal activity in our communities and make us less safe.

So who are the losers out of this policy? Well, it’s the dairies and the people in our community who want to serve our local communities; it’s businesses, knowing that the Government thinks it’s acceptable to pick and choose winners and to have bureaucrats sitting in Wellington decide who the winners of a business environment should be, rather than the local community; and it’s all New Zealanders. New Zealanders are worse off, knowing that the Government restrict business activity in New Zealand—they cannot see the flow-on effects of the policy, which will increase harm in our communities, yet they create feel-good laws that actually make us worse off. The winners of this policy are the crims and the gangs.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. To that last speaker, Brooke van Velden, my son would say to me, “What a bunch of baloney”. That was so hard to listen to, and the outcomes that she was speaking to, I would say, as a clinician still working in South Auckland at our medical clinics—the outcomes we would see with this bill is less patients coming in with less respiratory conditions, less cardiac conditions; it is long-term conditions that result from smoking. Māori and Pacific and vulnerable populations that have long-term effects from the smoking—this bill would make a huge difference for our communities. So I’d say to the last speaker that is just totally incorrect what that speaker was saying.

I just want to acknowledge the Minister, the select committee, and the submitters: the Māori and Pacific organisations that came through, ProCare, the primary health organisations, the medical, the paramedics. They came through and said their bit about this bill that would make a huge difference to our vulnerable communities. And I want to say a huge mihi to our organisations that are up there: thank you so much for your advocacy, your research, your mahi in this space, to help push this bill through and draft it to where it is today. Malo le tautua, malo le tauivi. And on that note, I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Penny Simmonds—five-minute call.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to start by saying what a disgraceful and disrespectful display it was from the Minister in her opening speech with her personal attack on National’s health spokesperson, Dr Shane Reti—Dr Reti, who has such credibility as a medical practitioner, such credibility as a medical researcher, and such commitment to the health of Māori and all New Zealanders. For this Minister to have spent her time personally attacking him for trying to work in a bipartisan way to make this bill much better and much more effective was arrogant and shame on her. It reflects very badly on her.

National, I want to reiterate [Interruption]—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Tone it down—bring it down.

PENNY SIMMONDS: I want to reiterate that National absolutely supports a smoke-free agenda and we are proud to have established the 2025 smoke-free target. But this bill will not get to that target. It won’t get there because it doesn’t follow the science and it doesn’t follow the international research. The Minister even confirmed that when she said that the first initiative of reducing the number of outlets had much uncertainty to it, but it was the easiest one to do. It was the easiest one for this Government to do to virtue signal and to make an announcement, but don’t worry too much about whether it’s going to work or not. And that is this Government to a tee.

So Dr Shane Reti tried to do the work to make this bill more effective to try and get to those targets. One of the earlier Government speakers said National wouldn’t do anything. Well, how they could accuse National of not being prepared to do anything when Dr Shane Reti came up with the Supplementary Order Papers that would have given this bill a chance of being effective—he picked up on the international research that was going to be the most effective part of it. He urged this Government to pick up on putting the schedule away and relooking at the ways in which it might have been more effective and cause less harm. But the thanks he got was a personal attack from a Minister on somebody who has such integrity—

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he?

PENNY SIMMONDS: —and it will come back to haunt her. Well, that’s a very big call for the Minister to be doubting another member of Parliament’s integrity. So it’s disingenuous of this Minister to have been so scathing of Dr Reti, when he sought to improve this bill, he sought to make it more effective, he sought to give it a chance of meeting the targets that we agree with, but she turned her back on any sort of bipartisan work on this bill, and she chose instead to mock him.

So we have in full flight the arrogance of this Government: the fact that they know best, that they were prepared to ignore Local Government New Zealand and the laws that they had passed trying to regulate the sale of vaping products. They told the local authorities that they didn’t know what they were doing. This Minister knows best, she knows all. The local government, councils, can just take a running jump. She will do what she likes in their community. She told the community dairies and small businesses that, again, she doesn’t care what happens to them. She cares much more about her virtue-signalling announcement that will give her a bit of airtime in the media. She doesn’t care how much she kicks those small business owners when they are down.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member’s time has expired.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order!

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: It’s a very, very loud Whare this evening. I rise on behalf of Te Paati Māori to speak to the third reading.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—five-minute call.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. It’s a very, very loud Whare this evening. I rise on behalf of Te Paati Māori to speak—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—five-minute call.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Thank you; I’d already started.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I know.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: I appreciate that. I was getting a bit worried I’d missed my turn!

So, just to re-emphasise, I rise to speak to the third reading of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill. We support this bill, so I’ll get that out of the way in the first sentence. [Cheers across the House] Thank you. We acknowledge the Government for continuing the work of Tariana Turia and Hone Harawira and the kaupapa Māori health advocates across the country. Te Paati Māori are extremely proud of our founders who paved this way, and I guess it’s also something that we’ve been fighting for, for decades: to reduce tobacco in Aotearoa.

It must be acknowledged just how successful it’s been. In the year 2000, the daily smoking rate for rangatahi was 31 percent; today, it’s only 5 percent—I shouldn’t say only, but it lowered down to 5 percent. It’s easy to forget just how far we’ve come in the last 20 years.

Yet we recognise we’re still in a dangerous position as a people. More than 22 percent of Māori adults are daily smokers, well over double the general rate of the adult population. We know the harm that tobacco, alongside other drugs, continues to cause. That is why we support this bill and the vision to end drug abuse in our communities.

In particular, Te Paati Māori strongly support reducing retail availability, appeal, and attractiveness of smoked tobacco products for young people. The research is clear: these measures will go a long way to achieving continued decreases in smoking over the coming years. As I said in our first reading kōrero, we need to look at this issue holistically and acknowledge that the drivers of drug abuse are poverty and marginalisation. We can never truly end drug harm in this country unless we eliminate poverty, unless we end homelessness, unless we put a stop to domestic and sexual violence

That is why we remain concerned with the Smokefree generation policy, which would prohibit the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after 1 January 2009—in short, meaning anyone 13 years or younger will never legally be able to buy smoked tobacco products in their lifetime. Our concern is that this could promote the rise of a black market for tobacco products, leading to associated issues with crime, safety, and control of products for younger people. We acknowledge that the bill doesn’t contain possession offences, but possession offences aren’t the only charges that can cause harm for innocent people and undermine Māori communities. So supply charges could be used against older siblings or whānau members who also look to share tobacco with younger whānau members.

We are confused with the decision to ban smoked tobacco products but to continue to allow nicotine vaping products. By allowing vaping products, Government is acknowledging that it would be irresponsible to completely ban tobacco products, as banning drugs simply doesn’t work; yet, there is far too little research on the risks of vaping, and we believe it’s irresponsible to codify vaping in legislation as a safe alternative to smoking when there’s not enough evidence to conclusively say that it’s safer.

One of our key goals is reducing the attractiveness of tobacco products, as we said earlier. It’s also important that Te Paati Māori place these concerns on record as everyone knows it is tangata whenua who will disproportionately suffer the health and social harms associated with the prohibition of drugs. We believe a review of the legislation will be needed to ascertain if these concerns come to pass. However, we acknowledge the balance that this bill strikes and the strong mitigating factors that help reduce the chances of the black market taking hold in our whānau.

We recognise the extraordinary leadership of our hauora champions and thank them for engaging with us on this kaupapa—extremely engaging. We are confident in the Smokefree action plan and are grateful for the roadmap it lays down to eliminate tobacco harm, but, at the end of the day, this issue will be won or lost in the hearts and minds of our people. They have the power, and as we have seen over the last 20 years, they are using it. It is our role in this House to advance kaupapa that creates a social and legal environment that enables our whānau to live happy and healthy lives so that drug abuse isn’t even a feature of our reality.

So we, the members of Parliament in this place, have the power to do that, and we’re quite happy to support that. We get on and let’s use it. Kia ora rā.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be able to take a call on the third reading of this important piece of legislation. We’ve heard calls from the other side that we need to do a cost-benefit analysis and we shouldn’t pass this bill. And I would ask the question: what is more important than saving the lives of our children from the harms of tobacco smoking?

I’ve had two people close to me die of lung cancer. They weren’t smokers, but they lived lives surrounded by the harms of second-hand smoke. I don’t want that future for my children, and I think that we deserve to give them the benefit of the doubt and use the science that we have and the evidence that we have to try and imagine a new world, a new New Zealand where second-hand smoke and smoking does not affect our most marginalised communities, make our people sick, and lead to preventable deaths.

I commend the Minister for bringing this important bill to the House and having the courage to imagine a better future for New Zealand without tobacco smoking.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill in its third reading. I want to start off by acknowledging my personal experience in regards to the impacts of smoking on individuals. As a registered paramedic and a volunteer with St John who still actively operates on the front line, I’ve attended many a call of patients who are in severe respiratory distress in regards to emphysema and also around chronic bronchitis. And that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and the implications of that disease on our population—particularly the elderly population for whom, I think, in those days smoking was commonplace—is a significant consequence and a very distressing way in which an individual will die because, of course, that damage to the lung is irreversible.

I want to also reflect on the fact that actually my grandfather, when I was a young child at the age of eight, I watched him die with emphysema as well. So those implications of watching the implications of smoking on people of which you may or may not know and the implications of that have led me personally to have never smoked in my life. And I reflect on that in terms of where we are.

The reality, though, in regards to where we are today and looking forward, is different to where we were 20 years ago looking forward. And the implications in terms of those that are smoking today and looking forward to future generations are significantly—day and night—less than what they were in the past. I think a lot of the narrative this evening has been around this is going to save lives of our children and all of that type of stuff, and that’s absolutely rubbish. The vast majority of children or young people that are smoking nowadays are vaping, and they’re using vaping products; they’re not using traditional tobacco smoked cigarettes. And those products are products that are absolutely and unequivocally linked to the lung disease implications which I’ve just referred to. So this whole narrative around the fact that our young people and children are going to get caught up in this to the degree in which it was in the past is simply a fallacy. It is not the reality, and I think it’s quite ingenious for those on the other side to be referring to that.

We also heard comments from one of the other members who has a medical background in regards to his experience in hospitals or in primary care in South Auckland. And absolutely I’ve seen those implications as well in South Auckland in terms of a front-line aspect of that, but this is a generation that have smoked, for many of them, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years—all their life—in regards to that. That’s not what we’re looking at going forward from where we are today in terms of dealing with the final percentage of the people in a very small percentage that are smoking.

Dr Shane Reti, our health spokesperson, is a general practitioner by training. He operates and works in Whangārei. Northland is an area which has both wide geographical variation, but also high levels of disparity and deprivation. And I think anyone in terms of that experience, having worked and operated in that part of New Zealand, would understand both the challenges of dealing with health challenges such as smoking, but more broadly the implications of that. So to hear the Minister on the other side in the opening elements of the opening speech in this bill undertaking personal attacks on a member who has such high standing in regards to his capability and competence in the health space is an absolute disgrace. But what it actually gives you an insight into—and for those watching, just so they can get a bit of a feel of what’s going on inside the Labour Party caucus at the moment, there is an absolutely “let’s play the person, not the ball”, right? They play the person, not the ball. And that is the degree of arrogance on that side, because this bill is a bill that at its heart is not going to improve and not going to achieve the outcome of that final mile of reduction in smoking for individuals that need that support. We’re not talking about our young people in our schools that are currently vaping. This is about those that are dealing with the tobacco products.

And we’ve spoken, and Dr Shane Reti has put on the table to the Minister in a bipartisan manner, a mechanism and a pathway in which he believes, and is supported by the National Party caucus—that we believe will achieve that outcome. We’re not in this game to do virtue-seeking policy; there is no point in that. We are in the game in order to improve outcomes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What’s your drug policy?

SIMON WATTS: You can hear some of the comments from the other side. You see, you can hear some of the comments from the other side. And it’s interesting, because in their contributions—and for those that have been watching—you’ll see how long they actually took their contributions this evening, and most of them didn’t even make 60 seconds. But yet they’re quite happy when we stand up on this side of the House to articulate the narrative and rationale around why this bill will not deliver, to mock it, to make personal attacks across the House in regards to that. But, again, it simply reinforces a narrative that this is a Government that’s on the ropes, this is a caucus that are ill disciplined, and they are struggling internally at the moment.

So back to this bill. The implications which we have particular issues with are in regards to the recommendation around the impact on retailers who are selling tobacco products. The reality is for these smokers who smoke—and anyone who is addicted to nicotine knows if the shop at the end of the street doesn’t sell it, that’s not going to stop them from smoking; they’re just going to find the product through any mechanism and any means. An addiction drives a desire to achieve that product over anything else, and that also includes going into the black market to achieve and obtain that product. They will stop at nothing in order to obtain that product. And simply the conversation around reduction from 6,000 retailers to 600 is absolutely not going to have any consequential impact in regards to reducing the availability and access of cigarettes to the people who are in most need of reducing their consumption. If anything, the only implication of that decision is going to impact on those hard-working retailers who are already under significant pressure and stress as a result of this Government’s soft on crime approach.

The impact also in regards to the black market cannot be underestimated. We already know that significant quantities of illegal tobacco come in over our borders, through our ports predominantly, in a ratio of which we’re probably only picking up one container out of seven containers of illegal cigarettes. That is the reality today in regards to the degree and scale of counterfeit tobacco products coming into this market on the black market. And most of that, the gangs will actually sell into the system and, as a result, those products are flowing through. So simply cutting out these retailers is simply creating another market—an illegal market—that will be ruthless in regards to taking advantage of those individuals that require that product at any cost, and they don’t and will not conform to the regulations, and any of the compliance requirements around that, including the quality of the product or what’s included within the product as well.

So that’s what’s at stake here. I think the element around reducing the nicotine in the cigarettes is the pathway in which we support in believing that that will actually make the material impact in order to deal with that last mile of smokers. That’s evidence-based and supported in terms of that, and that is the implication and that is the action that will result in the outcome that we need as a country. So it simply bewilders me why the Minister is not willing to engage. I mean, take our political hats off. Good policy should be adopted by any party, and sensible policy that achieves outcome should be adopted by any party. And maybe I’m just being naive with two years in this House, but the reality is that this Government are failing to listen to a pathway which will actually deal with the outcome that’s in front of us, without putting in place the significant implications and negative consequences on business owners across this country that will absolutely be—as I think Dr Reti noted previously—the collateral damage in this conversation. And I feel sorry for those entities, particularly when it is going to have no significant impact in regards to the reduction of nicotine and tobacco consumption, which is the whole purpose of this bill.

So National will not be supporting this bill. We have put on the table an alternative policy of when we’re in Government in 2023, then that’s what we will adopt, and in the interim period, we will watch how this goes. This Government will use their majority today to ram this through at any cost, they’ll tick the box, the Minister will do the virtue-signalling victory lap, but the reality is it’s not going to deal with the underlying issues, so we do not support this bill. Thank you.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a short call and to be the final speaker in the third reading of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill.

I heard speakers from across the House. This bill is not a “feel good”; it is a must do. It is a must do as we work towards the 2025 goal, specifically to reduce the retailers that are making this product available. We heard on the Health Committee, as members, the number of submitters in South Auckland who represented many of the community groups who are running the cessation programme, who are vulnerable community members and doing a lot of work in the motu. Tobacco is no good. This bill will help to bring forth healthier and better outcomes for our generations.

I want to, on that note, thank the submitters, thank the members of the Health Committee, and thank the community organisations that came forth and spoke with courage and bravery around why tobacco is no good. And on that note I also want to thank the Minister for her bold and courageous move. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 76

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

[Applause]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! No, apologies to the gallery, but they must not be part of this debate, enthusiastic as they are.

Bills

Electoral Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Electoral Amendment Bill.

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

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I move, That the Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill adds an important building block to the foundations of our democracy by providing greater transparency and public disclosures of public donations, loans, and parties’ annual financial statements. This is a much-needed and vital amendment to enhance public trust and confidence in our electoral system as we head into next year’s general election.

Those in this House may have heard me say before that it is important for the public to know who butters our bread, and may wonder exactly what I mean by that. First and foremost, the public must trust that their elected representatives act in their best interests at all times, not in our own interests or in the interests of those who have provided funding for our political activities but in the interests of the New Zealand public that we represent, the public we are meant to serve first and foremost. We know that public trust is low right now. I’ve mentioned a few times the recent Victoria University of Wellington survey which showed this lack of public trust. Many submissions to the select committee also indicated this lack of trust. This makes it clear that we cannot continue as we have before.

One of the best ways to strengthen public trust in our democracy is to provide New Zealanders with greater transparency about how well political parties and candidates are funded, and this bill does exactly that. It lowers the threshold for disclosing the identity of party donors from $15,000 to $5,000. It requires the identities of anyone who donates over $20,000 to a party during an election year to be disclosed within 10 working days. It also requires candidates to disclose some of the loans they receive for the very first time.

Another crucial improvement this bill introduces is the requirement for all registered parties to disclose their annual financial statements. This will provide greater transparency about all income sources for parties and acknowledges the crucial role political parties play in our democratic system. Making parties provide annual financial statements is important to ensure the public are equipped with the information they need to scrutinise how well parties are performing their role.

This bill clarifies that party donations include any donation made to a person or group of people if there are reasonable grounds to believe that such a donation was intended for the benefit of a party. The bill additionally now creates an offence for anyone who receives a donation and fails without reasonable excuse to transmit it to the intended recipient, being either a candidate or party secretary, within 10 working days, as the Electoral Act currently requires. These amendments address the risks identified in the recent High Court case relating to the New Zealand First Foundation. I want to thank the other parties in this House for the support that they have expressed for making these amendments.

Finally, this bill extends the eligibility of overseas voters to enrol to vote in the 2023 general election. The right to vote is one of our most fundamental rights, so it is hugely important to enfranchise New Zealand citizens and permanent residents overseas who have been affected by the impact of COVID-19 travel restrictions. I want to acknowledge those members of the Justice Committee who have diligently turned their hands, turned their eyes, and turned their ears to being custodians of this bill through the legislative process. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Sitting suspended from 6.02 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Debate interrupted.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 11 to Minister

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to a supplementary question.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that action. Are there any objections?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: In relation to question No. 11 from Simon Watts earlier this afternoon, regarding advice I received from officials on 22 November after Supplementary Order Paper 285 had been tabled in the House, to be clear on the scope of the advice—which was: clauses should be included in the Supplementary Order Paper if entrenchment were to occur—the advice noted that if entrenchment was to be effective, both clause 116 and Schedule 4 needed to be entrenched because clause 116 states that a divestment proposal may only proceed in accordance with Schedule 4. The advice was technical and I did not forward it on.

Bills

Electoral Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s not my pleasure, it’s my duty, to speak on the Electoral Amendment Bill third reading, introduced by this Labour Government that has run out of ideas, it’s tired, and it’s heading towards the denouement with which it deserves.

Funnily enough, we heard earlier this week from the Prime Minister that she had come to the point where she was advising her Ministers that they needed to prioritise and they needed to go back over there—what they’re doing, their programmes—and ask themselves if what they’re doing, all the things that they’re doing: are they actually helpful? And should they be prioritised? What are their priorities, and maybe they should just focus on it. That was her message to Ministers.

When we think of the justice area, and we think of this as a bill coming from Kiri Allan indicating that this Electoral Amendment Bill—which is focused on changing the rules with which parties are funded for campaigns—is one of her priorities. Then we look at the justice sector broadly, and we think of the 500 percent increase in ram raids, we think of the chaos on our street, we think of youth crime out of control, we look at the 40 percent increase in violent crime in our communities, and the increased numbers of victims of crime, and we think of the long delays to justice and the courts system, and we think of those things that most normal people would think would be a priority for this Government in justice. Then we come to this bill, and it ranks alongside the hate speech and it ranks alongside the decision that the Government’s going to introduce a bill to reduce the voting age to 16—which nobody much agrees with—and this one is around changing the electoral financing regime, so the rules of the games for how parties are funded.

They’ve brought this to the House and they’re trying to ram this through, against the opposition of the National Party and the whole Opposition, in fact. We’ve had quite a few lectures about the importance of some kind of bipartisan support for electoral bills—and, on this one, they’ve chosen to ignore that and try and ram through a piece of legislation that skews the system, frankly, in the favour of Labour and the Greens.

Now, how does it do that? Well, it does that by fundamentally making it more difficult for parties to raise funds. Now, why is that a problem? It’s because in a democracy, political parties need to campaign and that doesn’t happen for free. You might have noticed, if you were living in Hamilton West recently, if you were driving around, you will find billboards stuck to people’s fences and you’ll find flashing billboards on intersections, and you’ll see people walking around with T-shirts and they’re handing out pamphlets—and all those sorts of things cost money. So the question is: well, how do you fund that? There’s a simple choice between, at one end, allowing people voluntarily to give money to parties that they support in order to fund them; or at the other end of the spectrum is what I think this Government wants—and certainly what the Greens want—which is that taxpayers fund political parties and they give them to them.

They’ve cloaked this in the argument that that will mean that people with money will have less influence. But what it means, fundamentally, is that incumbent parties will be protected from new players coming in and causing difficulties, because if it’s a taxpayer-funded regime, it’s much more difficult for new people to come in and disrupt things.

So that’s why we’re fundamentally opposed to this legislation: because at the bottom, it’s about making it more difficult for political parties to raise funds. Now, how does it do that? The main mechanism that it does that through is by reducing the threshold in which people are obliged to be publicly named as a donor to a party. Currently—for the last 15 or so years, since the previous Labour Government—the threshold has been $15,000 for a party donation. So if somebody were to donate $14,500 in New Zealand for the last 15 years, they don’t have to put their name up in lights; they can do that anonymously.

If you think in the context of a political party’s fund-raising efforts, a major party that’s going to stand in all the seats is allowed to spend about $3 million, or a bit more than $3 million, in a campaign-regulated period, three months before an election. So a donation of $14,000 would represent less than one-half of 1 percent of the amount that a party could spend. So the rationale that was brought forward by the previous Labour Government, under Helen Clark and others, was that they would have thought that’s a reasonable threshold because it would be reasonably unlikely that a party would be completely overthrown and persuaded to follow a policy path by somebody that had donated less than one-half of 1 percent of what they were raising for the period of the election.

So that’s where it’s been: $15,000. The world hasn’t come to an end. There’s been a few issues around political fund-raising over the last couple of years, not related to the threshold but related to people trying to cheat the system in theory—or the allegation was that people were splitting up donations to donate a much larger sum by dividing that up between a number of people. So a total irrelevance to what’s been discussed in this bill.

What this bill does is reduce that $15,000 to $5,000. There’s been nothing put forward by the Government to say that this will make any particular difference. There’s no rationale put behind it, other than to say that it will make it more difficult for political parties that raise their funds from people voluntarily giving them money—because there is a large number of people who are happy to donate to a party but they don’t want their names up in lights.

Why would they not want their names made public? Well, I can think of a whole host of reasons. The most obvious one would be that they’d be worried, if they happen to have contracts with Governments, that they might be discriminated against in some way or form—that’s a perfectly legitimate concern. They might also be worried that they might be targeted for complaints or criticism publicly. There’s a whole host of reasons why people don’t particularly want to have their names up in lights when they donate to political parties.

So this bill reduces that threshold from $15,000 to $5,000. Surprise, surprise: most of the people who donate money in those groups are people who donate not to the Labour Party or to the Green Party. But it still leaves the fundamental issue: well, if you’re going to make it more difficult for parties to raise funds through voluntary donations, how are they going to get their money? What the Greens are openly campaigning for—and what the Labour Government is more sneakily campaigning for—is a shift of the system away from donations from individuals voluntarily to fund parties, moving towards taxpayer funding of political parties. They don’t admit it, but that’s where this bill is taking the country.

That’s why we oppose it. And most New Zealanders oppose it too, because they don’t want to have their taxes seized off them to go to fund backroom staffers in the Labour and Green parties campaigning a way to continue in a Government that has promised so much and delivered so little and that’s why they want to see change in this country.

That is why, ultimately, the last resort of a Government that is going down the gurgler is to start fiddling around with electoral laws, and that’s what we’ve seen over the last year or two: a Government that has lost its way, has demonstrated its inability to deliver anything that it’s promised, and now what is it doing? Well, it’s turning to fiddling around with the electoral laws to try and skew the system a little bit in its favour, to give itself a little bit of a push.

That’s why we oppose it. We don’t agree with it, we’re not going to support it, we don’t support it, and we’re not going to vote for it. Thank you, Madam Speaker. And, on that basis, I won’t commend this bill to the House.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Democracy is one of the most faith- or trust-fuelled activities that there is, and because of that, we have an obligation to protect the accountability mechanisms and the transparency mechanisms around it. What we know from research from Victoria University and from the Ministry of Justice consultations is that there has been a decrease in the trust in that system, which is what this bill addresses, and it is really concerning that the Opposition don’t appear to be prioritising these fundamentals of democracy. It’s also really concerning that my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith doesn’t seem to remember the number of submissions that we received and pored through at the Justice Committee, including a submission from the Privacy Commissioner, who, I will note, didn’t talk about issues concerning privacy when it came to lowering the threshold, although he did address other issues. The Opposition speaker then talked about a taxpayer-funded system, which this bill does not address. This is a bill that is about actual unlawful influence and ensuring that there is public trust in our system. It is a good bill, and I commend it to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Like my colleague and friend the Hon Paul Goldsmith, I rise not with pleasure but with a sense of duty to speak about—and, indeed, against—the Electoral Amendment Bill. Paul Goldsmith has made tolerably clear our position on the bill at previous readings and again today, which is to say that we oppose it, and we oppose it for a number of reasons that I will outline and maybe expand upon a bit.

First of all, if we can just take a step back and consider what it is that we are doing here, we are talking about electoral law; we’re talking about the rules of the game by which people in this House are elected, have been elected, and, we all hope and expect, in our respective cases, will be elected. These are the rules of the game that we play. We have a conflict of interest—and it’s inevitable, of course, that these things should be in the law of the land. They should be made by legislation; so it’s inevitable that Parliament has to make the rules, so that we can manage the conflict of interest. But the way that we do that is by saying, “Well, we can even out the particular interests that any given party or member has by saying, ‘Well, as long as we can agree as nearly as possible on the rules of the game, at least there is an evening out of any particular prejudices”—and I don’t mean that in the ugly sense, but particular inclinations—“that any of us might have.’ ”

So that’s why oftentimes—actually, it used to be invariably the case that—electoral law was regarded as a matter for bipartisan, or non-partisan, concern and agreement, failing which changes shouldn’t be made. And, of course, we’re seeing the opposite of that in relation to this bill. We’ve seen, too, this bill being pushed through in time for the end of this calendar year, and therefore to be ready for election year, and to have particular rules in place from 1 January onwards. And, of course, that’s by contrast with the electoral law review that the Government has commissioned in relation to lots of other aspects of electoral law and the interconnectedness of the issues that relate to electoral law—for example, thinking about donations and ways that people can contribute to resourcing a political party. It’s not in isolation, I would suggest, that we should review such matters when you think, well, you can also donate labour and other resources, and to treat that entirely distinctly from the subject of giving money—which is, of course, the donations element as contained in this bill—seems to be incoherent at best. These things should be considered as a whole. The whole electoral review should be able to take place as a coherent whole at one time. But, of course, this is being pushed through in time for the Government to be able to have an election conducted on terms that it considers best.

I will actually say, though, I do feel obliged to point out that one positive aspect of the considerations at the select committee—and on which the Minister has also engaged well—has been the fact that it is not intended to be, and it won’t be, a retrospective law. So whereas initially there was a lack of clarity, in my view—and certainly we sought that certainty to say, whatever the rules made in this law, they wouldn’t apply to anything that was done before 31 December this year; so notwithstanding that a financial year for any given party might be a 12-month period going before 1 January of next year. But, nevertheless, we got that clarification, and that came out at the select committee. That was agreed and that change was made. So, actually, I do think it’s fair to acknowledge that positive interaction, initially with the Minister, through my office via the written parliamentary questions process, but then also with the select committee. I know there were colleagues on the Justice Committee, permanent members no less, whom I was pleased to interact with on that point. And, of course, the officials provided good advice in that space, too.

Back to the bill itself, and actually just acknowledging the submissions process—and I didn’t hear all the submissions, I’ll be honest, and I didn’t read all of them, but the ones that I did rightly acknowledged the balance that needs to be made between privacy, on the one hand, and transparency, on the other. I didn’t actually see the submission by the Privacy Commissioner. I was quite interested to learn, in the contribution made by our colleague, just prior to mine, Vanushi Walters, that the Privacy Commissioner didn’t raise any privacy issues in relation to the compulsory disclosure of political donations. I would have thought that would be a thing that any Privacy Commissioner should take very seriously and should at least raise, even if they were to say, “Well, these concerns can be mitigated.” To not raise privacy issues, if you’re the Privacy Commissioner—that seems to me a classic case of having one job and needing to do that well. But maybe there’s a sort of joint effort across the Public Service, in relation to the Reserve Bank not doing its one job, either—anyway, I digress.

So we’ve heard, also, throughout this process, that the initial justification for bringing this legislation was the court cases that have now concluded, and they related to three political parties that are both inside this House now and outside this House. The argument was made, “Oh well, the existence of this litigation, the investigation into whether the law has been followed or not, indicates that there is a problem.” But, actually, of course, it’s entirely possible to argue that the reverse is true, which is to say that the fact we’ve got court cases means that, where the law isn’t being followed, these matters are able to be brought to light. And, of course, you can’t say with certainty one way or t’other whether there are things that are out there that haven’t been brought to light. That’s in the nature of an uncertainty, and the difficulty of proving a negative is obvious, but, suffice it to say, I don’t think there’s enough justification for bringing forward this law on the basis simply that laws that were previously in place may or may not have been followed correctly. Of course, this is why we have a system where we can judge these things. And when I say “we”, of course it’s not the people in this place who judge them, and of course that’s as it should be. We have the rule of law, whereby we set the laws in a transparent way, those are applied, and to the extent that they’re not followed, we have a judiciary that can speak to those, and so they have.

I think it’s actually also worth taking a step back and just thinking about the starting point for this discussion. The presumption should be, ordinarily, that if a private citizen has property—and, actually, I should say “person”, because that way we’re not just talking about a natural person or a citizen; it might also be some manner of corporation. And, yes, that could be an evil big business, in the fevered left-wing imagination that forms part of the vast right-wing conspiracy! Or it might be a union or some other body corporate, but, in any case, a legal person that has resources should be able to do, roughly speaking, whatever they like with those. Of course, there are limits, and I think it’s reasonable to have some transparency limits, some sort of disclosure regime, but it would be a red herring to suggest that we should have such a system—and therefore that this bill needs to be introduced—because, of course, we already have one. We’ve got rules in place already. We’ve got a line in the sand that the parties previously, most of the parties—perhaps all of the parties; I’m not quite sure, but certainly a super majority of the House, let’s just say—and I don’t want to go down an entrenchment rabbit hole; I genuinely don’t. But it’s roughly been the case—

David Seymour: Oh, c’mon!

CHRIS PENK: —don’t encourage me!—that parties have agreed on where the lines should be drawn, the rules of the game. We all have to follow them. When we don’t, there’s a consequence. And so, with that presumption that we can do what we like—except that there should be some limits, yes—but there are limits, I think that’s really the overall kind of backdrop that we need to consider with doing this, before we leap ahead to sort of arguing about where the lines should be, and so on.

But, if we do want to get detailed, we can say, “Well, the costs and the money involved is relatively little.” And, with all due respect to our friends in the Green Party, I know very well what the member who will make a contribution for the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand will say that it’s big money, and it’s US-style corruption and influence, and all that kind of thing. We have a completely different jurisdiction. We have completely different rules already. We don’t have the same commitment to freedom of expression, and freedom more generally, as they do in accordance with the rules set, in their case, by the US Constitution, enforceable as that is. So, really, it’s not an apple-with-apples comparison. The money involved in New Zealand is trifling. I think I’m right in saying that the amount that an electoral candidate can spend in any given constituency is something like $26,200. I can never remember whether it’s with or without GST; I should look that up some time in the next 12 months! But, in any case, if you think about the number of households in an electorate and if you were to send a letter to each one of them, or some sort of propaganda—I mean, collateral—through the post, at more than $1 or whatever the cost to send something by post now, that’s your whole campaign.

I mean, we’re talking very modest amounts, and, really and truly, this is not a matter of going down some sort of slippery slope to end up in Washington DC. Certainly, it’s not a reason or an excuse to alter the fundamentals of our democracy, which is that transparency is important but so too is privacy, so too is individual freedom, property rights of all persons in this country. We’ve got electoral law that should be applied to all, should be made by all, and should be for the benefit of all, and I don’t mean political parties; I mean the people of New Zealand, to whom we are accountable. And, to echo the words of my friend Paul Goldsmith, public funding of political parties should not go ahead.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to give a quick call on what is a simple bill. It is a good bill, and that’s why I support it.

But I want to push back on one particular idea which members of the National Party have brought consistently through these readings, and it’s that somehow the Labour Government is trying to change the way that we treat the comparison between donors and volunteers. Volunteers, who rock up to support their political party, whether that’s on election day or whether it’s in January to deliver some flyers—those people, by their very nature, are not anonymous. This is legislation which evens up the rules and makes sure that people who don’t choose to volunteer but do choose to make donations also do so with their names published, just like volunteers do. Their faces are out there and their names are out there.

If your way to participate in your democracy is with your labour and to get on the doors or phones, like I did when I was 15, you’re doing that with your name on the public record, and I think it’s appropriate that donors donating over a certain amount also publish their names. That’s why I support this, and I would ask anyone doing this—we’ve heard on that side of the House that they don’t want volunteers to be able to have that power. I say, fill a shift. Tell them that you’re going to use your labour to volunteer for the political party of your choice. Get in touch with your field organiser and make a difference.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I feel like I was given a little intro by my friend cross the aisle there, but I will begin in speaking on this bill, as I always have at every reading, by saying that democracy is a fundamental human right, and it is, in many ways, the one right that underpins them all, because it’s the right to have a say in decisions ranging from our education and health system to our justice system to our immigration system and the ways that those laws, the decisions in this House, so intimately impact on all of our other fundamental rights. So to get it right is important. To make it fair and inclusive and accessible is one of the most important things that we will do as a Parliament, and each Government successively gets to do if we pay attention. A modern, functioning democracy has to be responsive to changes in society. And, in this way, I think successive Governments have actually let New Zealand down. We have a privilege. We have the machinery of parliamentary political parties behind us in this House, and I think sometimes it’s easy to forget that the rules weigh in our favour.

We’ve heard over and over again that political donations in New Zealand aren’t a big problem. Well, to anyone who does say that, I say: let’s step outside of what we think as standing politicians, as members of this House, and look at the independent reports and what the independent entities entrusted with speaking to electoral reform have told us.

The Electoral Commission itself came to the Justice Committee, in its review of the last general election, and said that it’s actually pretty hard to investigate donations breaches, because the limits are so high. So, yes, some cases end up in court. Yes, three out of the five parliamentary political parties last term did end up in some kind of trouble. But what we don’t know is the other stuff, the stuff that goes under the radar, the stuff that’s hard to investigate because the thresholds have been so high for so long in terms of anonymity, in terms of limits.

So this bill brings down the anonymity threshold to $5,000 and the reporting requirements of donations to $20,000. My strengthening democracy bill suggested much lower thresholds of $1,000 and of $15,000. Now we have—leaving aside the plea from the Electoral Commission itself—the latest comprehensive study into donations schemes in New Zealand by Max Rashbrooke and Lisa Marriott. Independent academics who spoke to members of all of our political parties, our general secretaries, and our donors spent a year looking into this. And I would hope that members in this House go and look at that report, because it is a little bit chilling. We are unprotected. There are expectations by donors of access. Whether or not that’s being delivered, there is an expectation that big money will get you political access in New Zealand, and, in many ways, it has. It’s all detailed in there. Everybody’s being open in their interviews and to the extent that they have been, even that is a little bit chilling. Their recommendation was $1,500 and $15,000. So this bill is pretty conservative in terms of the political landscape when it comes to donations in New Zealand. By the way, that’s at doughnation.nz—the full report—spelt like “doughnut”. Money for Something is a report on political funding in Aotearoa New Zealand; an independent comprehensive report.

I didn’t hear Paul Goldsmith’s contribution this time, unfortunately, but the last time he spoke on this, I think his contribution really encapsulated the fears and confirmed them. When I last spoke to the Minister of Justice on introducing an overall limit to political donations, which is not contained in this bill, she said, “Show me where there might be a problem.” And, of course, the donation report does show that. It firmly recommends a limit be placed on it. But I think Paul Goldsmith’s contribution—and I think maybe people should look that up—where he went on and on at some length about how taking donations, or the ability of people to give donations, large donations, and anonymous donations, is about creating accountability for us as politicians—he thought he was saying something about democracy being functional and working appropriately. But accountability to donors is not equality in our democracy. We have a one vote per person democracy, and some people can’t afford to give big anonymous donations to hold politicians accountable for what they want and need. That’s not cool. It’s not a good argument for keeping donation levels high or keeping the anonymity threshold high. It’s an admission. And I won’t say what that might be an admission of, because it may be unparliamentary.

But I’ll correct one thing that Paul Goldsmith does also throw around, which is that it’s Green Party policy to introduce public funding for political parties rather than donations. My very detailed bill that covered every electoral wish the Green Party had didn’t have public funding as a policy in it. So I’ll just let him know who spearheaded that campaign in Aotearoa New Zealand: it was the Rt Hon Jim Bolger a couple of years ago. He came out and said that, actually, we need to have public funding for political parties, because our donations laws are too loose and they leave us at risk. To say that we are not vulnerable to an American-style political system is to be naive. We know globally that cigarette companies, for years, held off having warnings on packets. We know globally that oil companies held off climate action. We know that we’re in the midst of a biodiversity crisis and we’ve barely got to a point of putting cameras on fishing boats because of a scandal related to political donations last term.

So we know that this is a problem. We know that we’re vulnerable. We have the Electoral Commission asking for this change. We have independent studies telling us we should go much, much further, and we have this bill. All I would say is that given we know we are vulnerable and that we need to go further and that a proper limit on political donations is what has been recommended over and over again by independent entities and experts, I would ask that the Government and this Minister include political donations in the electoral review that’s going to be under way shortly. This issue is not done, and New Zealanders want to have a say in the way that our political system runs in terms of being independent from big money, and in terms of being inclusive and equal. So I commend this bill as a starting point to that reform.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this Electoral Amendment Bill. I want to speak tonight especially to the members of the Labour Party about the heritage and history and values of their party, a party whose constitution says that political power should be withheld or managed by regular free and fair elections, with universal suffrage. I want those Labour members to think about the likes of Savage and Fraser, Nash and Kirk and Rowling, Lange, Palmer, Moore, and Clark—men and women who were committed to something bigger than them. They were committed to the idea of a liberal democracy in the South Pacific, and that put certain constraints on what they were prepared to do.

None of those former Labour Governments would ever have dreamt of the arrogance of trying to entrench their own policies alongside our most basic democratic rights to vote, but this one did. I don’t think any of those previous Labour administrations would have unilaterally rushed through laws that changed the rules of the game for the next election just in time to advantage themselves before they go to the polls again. This is a low point for this Labour Party. They are doing something that is against their own heritage, against the values of the men and women who have stood for Labour, who actually stood for liberal democracy, and wouldn’t have dreamed of doing what this bill does today.

What does this bill do? Well, let’s just deal with some of the better things that this bill does, because it does a few things, and they’re not all bad. This bill requires that if somebody receives a donation to transmit to a political party then they must actually give the money to a political party that was nominated by the original donor; that’s important. Why is that important? Well, people might like to ask a slightly less salubrious party without the same values and history of Labour—that is, New Zealand First—just why they had a foundation in which they put three-quarters of a million dollars of their money, and some of it may or may not have actually got to New Zealand First. People need to ask themselves why you’d have a New Zealand First Foundation. This law means that if some other entity receives the money, they must actually give it to the intended political party, not exploit some loophole. ACT supports closing that loophole.

This law also allows those New Zealanders trapped offshore due to COVID to come and have their vote without having been in the country in the last three years, and we welcome that. And people listening offshore, Kiwis stuck overseas who couldn’t visit their country, who may not be able to vote because they couldn’t come here under Labour’s two-year border closure, well, when the time comes around to vote, you know what to do, and this bill means that you’ll be able to give your party vote to ACT.

So those are the good parts of this legislation, but there is another part, and here it is: it reduces the amount that a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident who lives here can give to a political party without being publicly named. Right now, that amount is $15,000. Under this law, it will go down to $5,000. Why would the Labour Party do that—unilaterally, by themselves; not with agreement about what the electoral rules should be by all concerned, for a free and fair election, like their party constitution demands? Actually, they’re doing it by themselves, and they’re rushing it through. They want to make sure that it gets done in time, that those rules are in place for the 2023 calendar year, which, as we all know, is an election year.

Why are they doing this? Well, they tell us—Minister Kiritapu Allan got up, Arena Williams got up, and they talked about trust. They talked about democracy. They say that they’re going to build trust in democracy by unilaterally changing the rules of the game right before an election year. I don’t think so. But what problem are they trying to solve? Well, it’s actually a difficult one; I’ll give them some credit. It is difficult because if the threshold is too low, then there will be few people who will give money, and political parties will find it hard to be funded—they’ll find it hard to get their message across. People upset with the direction of the country will find it hard to contribute and help people of like-minded views share their values and communicate to their fellow New Zealanders and win an election—something we call democracy. So if it’s too low, we’ll know who all the donors are, but there won’t be much democracy going on.

Here’s the alternative. If it’s too high, then it’s true, you could have people giving significant amounts of money, enough to change the course of a political party or an election, and no one would know who it was. It is difficult to choose what that number should be. But nowhere in this debate or in any of the documentation has this Labour Party explained why the law should be $5,000 instead of $15,000. What they should have done is shown examples of people that gave between $5,000 and $15,000 who, was it known who they were, we would have greater trust in democracy. They haven’t stood up and given one example, because there is not one.

Why wouldn’t someone want to be named? Well, I happen to have been the chief fundraiser for the ACT Party for the last eight years, and I’ve raised quite a lot of money, and the people on the Labour benches would love to know how much. Actually, if they read, they could find out. But I can tell them that when I talk to people, a lot of people give just under the public disclosure limit. Is it because they are nefarious people that want to secretly influence me? Can you get the ACT Party to bend from its principles for $14,999? No, you can’t. They are people that have contracts with Government departments. They are people who like their privacy. They are people who have seen other political donors being publicly attacked for their political views. They’re people whose friends or family might politically disagree with them. They want to participate and help like-minded New Zealanders communicate their views by advertising and campaigning to others, but they don’t want to blow their cover for a whole variety of perfectly reasonable reasons, and I think that’s okay.

But what’s the other thing that this change will make? Well, it’s not going to somehow increase trust or transparency, because nobody is seriously arguing that $5,000 is a better number than $15,000. Nobody is seriously arguing that there is undue influence on political parties for $15,000. But what they are arguing and what they know but will not say is that if people decide to give only $5,000 instead of $15,000 to remove public reporting, here’s what that will mean for the parties: altogether, there would be $1.2 million less donated to democracy, that’s compared with 2020 figures. Which parties would get less money? Well, the Green Party, after the speech we just heard, you can understand, they don’t raise much. Not many people give money to the Green Party, and you can understand why. They would have lost $67,000. And the Labour Party, you only get a 30-second speech from them, so not many people donate to them either. They would have raised $147,000 less in 2020. Now, the National Party—not all donors are wise—they would have raised $600,000 less, obviously not based on the quality of speeches, in this instance. The ACT Party would have raised $300,000 less.

So this Labour Party that used to believe in democracy, it’s bringing in a bill, unilaterally, rushed through with a shortened process to be in place in time for next year when there’s an election. And why? It’s because it is going to rip off their opponents by $900,000, and it’s going to rip them off by about $200,000. This is a Labour Party that cannot make the argument there’ll be more transparency. They can’t explain why $5,000 is a better number than $15,000, but they know that they are screwing the scrum, kneecapping their opponents, undermining their opponents’ fundraising ability, and all they are doing is eroding trust in democracy. They are eroding trust in them. They’re eroding their adherence to their own constitutional principles. But I’ve got some good news for the Labour Party: people who want a change of Government are smart and they know that the law changes on 31 December. I can tell the people in the Labour Party, they aren’t holding back from filling up ACT’s coffers before the law changes. With that, for this totally treasonous, undemocratic Act, next year we will bury you.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): E te Māngai e te Whare, tēnā koe. Thank you for this opportunity to take a brief call. For the listeners listening in tonight to the debate, I think they should pay close attention to how fiercely some parties are opposing this legislation that we’re going to pass tonight. Evidence—I’ll give you some evidence. A survey undertaken by Victoria University in 2021 found that almost 70 percent of respondents indicated that they do not have a reasonable amount of trust in party funding—oh, he’s walking out. He can’t even hear the rest of my evidence.

What then happened was that the Ministry of Justice undertook consultation. They consulted on reducing it from $30,000 down to $1,500, and where they actually landed—and what we heard in the submissions process—was $5,000. So that is actually a compromise on what was initially taken out for consultation, and the majority of the feedback that they received was actually in support of that. So, unfortunately, he didn’t hang around to hear the evidence that supports why we are introducing these proposals. I commend this bill to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Electoral Amendment Bill at its third reading. This is a sad day, it is a Labour Government that is using the power that it has been given by the New Zealand public to screw the scrum in its own favour rather than playing by the rules of the game that had been agreed on a bipartisan basis. And that is a very important part of our democratic framework. We have an agreement, a constitution of conventions, in this country that when we do things that affect the democratic arrangement—the way that people choose their Governments—we only change those rules on a bipartisan basis. However, Labour is changing the rules on its own accord without bipartisan agreement from the other parties.

I have not heard a good reason for why reducing the public disclosure threshold for donations and contributions to political parties from $15,000 to $5,000 is going to make any difference. Let’s keep in mind that New Zealand is one of the oldest continuous democracies on the planet. It is one of only 21 full democracies in the world at this stage. We have a unique place on this planet, one of the only full democracies in this world, and we need to make sure we only change rules which affect the way we choose who governs us, very, very carefully, and we do so on a bipartisan basis.

I do recall Labour did something similar back in 2008 when it brought in the Electoral Finance Act—again trying to screw the scrum in its benefit so it could have what it thought was a more beneficial system to give them a better chance of winning the election. I note the somewhat cynical view of this is that Labour is bringing this in for 2023, which just happens to be an election year. That is indicative of a Labour Government that does not have respect for the constitutional conventions that have made us one of the only 21 full democracies on this planet, and one of the longest-standing continuous democracies in the world. I’m very disappointed that Labour has not respected that, and is bringing in laws like this.

The reality is that many people and businesses wish to remain anonymous—either because they value their privacy, and they have good reasons for that, which I’ll touch on, or because they fear retaliation from the other party in power at the time. That is the reality. We are a relatively small country with just over 5 million people. A lot of people do business with the Government and they don’t want the Government to be aware that they don’t necessarily agree with their ideology and would prefer to have a different party in power. That is their right to do so. Will reducing this threshold from $15,000 to $5,000 make any difference on that? Fundamentally, no, it will not.

The other point is: valuing privacy. We live, unfortunately, in an era where people are facing trial by social media. So if people don’t wish to be seen as being affiliated to any particular party, they will be a lot more cautious about providing donations because, unfortunately, there is an increasing tendency, not just in New Zealand but, certainly, in New Zealand as well, where people are picking others who don’t have the same belief system as them and attacking them by any means possible and using online mobs, effectively, to do so. That is something that we should be very, very cautious about because it is incredibly important that people feel they can express their views and that they can support the political parties of their choice to reflect the values that they think are important and should be reflected in the way they are governed.

In the time available to me, I’ll touch a little, as well, on an article from back in 21 July 2022, by Bryce Edwards, which said that although National had publicly released their submission, it was unclear from the Ministry of Justice why submissions were kept secret for other political parties. It also said that Labour did not provide a formal written submission. Instead, the party’s general secretary gave an oral representation to the ministry, and it appears the records of that meeting are being withheld—the irony of a Government that is reforming rules around secret political donations in a very secretive way. That, again, is not healthy for a democracy, and it begs the question why Labour is doing this.

This is an unfortunate attempt to screw the scrum in its own favour rather than playing by an agreed set of rules and playing a fair game, a fierce game, and letting the best person win. This will become law tonight, but this is a mistake by the Labour Party, and the National Party strongly opposes it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on Helen White for five minutes.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I want to respond to that particular speech because it concerns me. We are in a democracy, it’s true, and I would stand by that member Joseph Mooney in saying that we actually live in a very good democracy; we are one of the great democracies of the world. When I look at where we came from, from England, I worry about the level of democracy there because of the pressure on the MPs through lobbying.

We’ve done several things, as we’ve evolved, to really combat that. One thing we do is we pay MPs quite well; that actually stops people from being subject to lobbying. Another thing that we do is we disclose donations. And, yes, we have to evolve, because we don’t want to end up in a situation where those kinds of donations are putting pressure on people.

Sunlight is an incredibly good idea in this situation. It is very important that we adjust the rules every now and then. There is nothing about this that is screwing the scrum; in fact, I’d say that’s getting close to crazy-making language. This is exactly the opposite; this is bringing transparency to the system.

Actually, the National Party, as well as the Labour Party, will look back at this day and thank God we did it, because we do not want to end up in the camp of democracies that are so fragile and so eroded by the actual pressure of money and donations on them. I would remind the public to look at something like the United States and think that we are doing well. Let’s keep doing well; let’s make these changes. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I’m reminded always, when I listen to the Opposition in this particular debate, of my mother’s comment: if you can’t do something and tell people what you’ve done, then you should probably be worrying about why you’re doing it. But perhaps I am speaking a little unfairly, because I am someone who ran an election largely on the sale of jars of fudge made by my campaign manager, Julie Rigger, and the sale of $10 beanies, also made by my campaign manager, Julie, and other volunteers. So perhaps I underestimate the delicate sensibilities of those who do receive these large donations, and the even more delicate sensibilities, apparently, of those who give them but are too ashamed to do what they do out in the sunlight in public—again, a very strange concept. I come from a small town, a small city, and, in that city, I meet many of the larger firms who are doing work for Government, in construction and other matters. I’ve never found any of them who had any difficulty whatsoever in telling me what they thought of my political opinions or which side they support, and yet they still continue to talk to me and to deal with the Government. Strangely, they still continue to get contracts. So, again, a little concerned about the other side of the House and what they do in the shadows.

But the fact is, over on this side of the House, we understand what the public feels about what is done in the shadows. We do understand that over 70 percent of the community in a survey recently were deeply concerned about the lack of transparency of political donations, and they wanted to know what was being bought. And 85 percent of that same community survey found they wanted the reforms that are in this bill. People fear that large donors in the shadows may be buying preferential treatment or, indeed, policy. Let us show them that that is not so. Let us protect the incredibly fragile and important creature that is democracy. There is nothing more important that we do in this House to safeguard democracy, and that is why we commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): It’s my pleasure—well, actually, it’s not my pleasure—to stand and take a call on this bill. We are opposing it.

I couldn’t believe it when Vanushi Walters—who I have a lot of respect for, and I sit on the Justice Committee with her—got up and in her opening statement and said, “We must do everything to protect our democracy. We must do everything to acknowledge our democracy in New Zealand.” She had to come to the House with a straight face after they’ve just got caught out trying to put an entrenchment clause into a bill, which was a massive insult. If you looked at all our constitutional academics and lawyers, they all came out and said that that’s a massive attack on our democracy. So how do you get to stand in the House and say, “This is us protecting our democracy.” when the week before, they were conducting one of the greatest attacks on our democracy?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Ha, ha!

Hon MARK MITCHELL: So—well, they’re laughing about it. You got caught out. That’s funny, isn’t it? My colleague Joseph Mooney was saying that this is screwing the scrum—absolutely, it’s screwing the scrum. It’s a desperate attempt by the Labour Party, who know that they’re in trouble, to introduce legislation that is going to work in their favour. Mr McAnulty, let’s look at the proposal that was put up recently for lowering the voting age to 16. Everyone rushed out from the Labour Party and they said, “Let’s do it. This is a great idea.” Mr McAnulty—he put up the most compelling—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! The member will come back to this bill.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah, Madam Speaker, I’m responding to comments that were made in earlier—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): No, no. You can actually debate the third reading of this particular bill.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, it’s a pleasure to talk to this bill. Let’s talk about influence, because influence keeps getting raised on the other side of the House. I was trying to rack my brain, thinking, “Have we had any really good examples in this House where there have been allegations of influence?”, and I’ve thought of one where there was a very wealthy Chinese businessman that made a large donation to the Labour Party and, for whatever reason, ended up with a citizenship ceremony in a Minister’s office, or in a parliamentary office. Everyone thought, “Well, that’s wrong—that’s inherently wrong. That’s money for access and that’s money for influence.” But the Labour Party came out and they were very clear and they were very firm about it, and they said, “No, that’s not the case—that’s not the case. That donation had nothing to do with expediting a citizenship ceremony or hosting it here in Parliament.” We have to take them on their word. Is that true? Is that true that the donations had no influence and that those donations had no—it is. So we have to accept you on your word. So what is the problem? What is the problem that you’re trying to fix?

What is the real problem that you’re trying to fix, or is it quite simply this—and David Seymour raised it, and it was a very good point. Is it quite simply this: that you want to try and impact and affect the chances that your political opponents have got in raising money, because it has a disproportionate impact—doesn’t it?—on the National Party and on the ACT Party, and we’ve heard that. We’ve heard the numbers. I disagree with them. I think that $200,000 is actually going to be very important to the Labour Party next year, when they’re trying to raise money to actually campaign—because that’s what we should do. We should rely on donors that want to support us and want to get behind us to allow us to go out there and campaign and make our case to the country.

I think that it’s vile and I completely reject the premise of what these guys want to do, and that is to go to public funding. That quite simply means that taxpayers now will be funding political parties—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: That’s not in the bill.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —and they’ll have no choice at all. “It’s not in the bill.”, says “Mr 16-Year-Old Voter”. He actually said, “I think 16- and 17-year-olds are smarter than a lot of us.” He makes the most compelling case for change, actually, when you think about it, and I assumed that he was talking about the Labour caucus. I assumed that he was talking about his own Labour caucus members—very true.

So we’re not going to support this bill. Joseph Mooney is absolutely right, and, by the way, most of the public—most Kiwis—can see what’s going on here.

The last speaker, Dr Emily Henderson, spoke about transparency—transparency! They tried to suppress the submissions on this bill.

Angela Roberts: What?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: What is transparent around that—what? Are you not aware? Whoever is speaking to the bill, take a call on it. Are you not aware that the submissions on this bill were suppressed? It took a long time to get them prised out for members of the public, for the press gallery, for the academics, for the political commentators—for members of the public to actually have visibility on it.

So when we stand on this side of the House and we say that this is a screwing of the scrum, it’s because it is. The thing is that the public now are deeply suspicious of the machinations that are going on on the other side of the House in terms of what they’re trying to do to use their power in Government to screw the scrum to make changes that normally would never happen. There is no bipartisan support for this to actually—very clearly articulated—give them an advantage next year, when we go into a general election. The people of New Zealand can judge and make up their own decision on that. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill. Just four points I wanted to make, quickly, in relation to some of the statements made in the House.

There is no public funding proposal in this bill. I also wanted to talk about transparency quickly. This bill lowers the threshold for reporting the donor to political parties from $15,000 to $5,000. That increases transparency; that means that there will be more confidence within our democracy.

Another thing I wanted to mention was there’s been some criticisms that this is being done before an election year. As everyone in this House will know, New Zealand has three-yearly election cycles and I don’t doubt, if we pass this bill in an election year, there would be criticisms that we were doing it in an election year and that was also inappropriate. That leaves one year that we could make electoral law change. And as legislators whose party has been legislators in the past—and sometimes supports legislation—that is an impractical proposal.

Last thing I just wanted to mention was that this does increase franchise from the people who have been overseas unable to get home from COVID. More of these people will be able to vote. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): I present a legislative statement on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill.

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

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I move, That the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I want to take this opportunity to reflect on the journey that this bill has taken to get to its third reading here today, with a particular focus on the partial repeal of the subsequent child provisions. The journey began in 2019 when the former Minister for Children, the Hon Tracey Martin, initiated a first principles review of the subsequent child provisions. That review found they were not promoting the best interests of the children; rather, the provisions were actually causing harm. In particular, the provisions were causing harm to both the child and their older sibling who had already been removed from the parent’s care, because they would be pulled into additional and potentially traumatic court proceedings to confirm that the older child had no realistic probability of being returned to the care of their parents.

The provisions also impacted on Māori. Of the 19 declarations made under the provisions, 11 related to tamariki Māori, two related to children with both Māori and Pacific descent, and one to a child of Pacific descent. It’s not surprising, then, that the provisions are viewed with distrust by Māori, or that the Waitangi Tribunal found that the provisions caused prejudice to Māori and that until the Crown had completed the partial repeal, it was “in continuing breach of the duty to act in good faith, central to the partnership principle, and to actively promote Māori rangatiratanga over their kāinga.”

The partial repeal of the subsequent child provisions is therefore necessary to rebuild the faith, trust, and confidence that families, whānau, hapū, iwi, and communities need to have when dealing with Oranga Tamariki. Rebuilding that trust is also an important step in enabling the future direction of Oranga Tamariki. How can whānau, hapū, iwi, and communities trust Oranga Tamariki to work with them in partnership while such provisions are still in the legislation?

Also, importantly, the subsequent child provisions impacted on social workers and their ability to use their skills and expertise. The provisions also created conditions for hostility with parents, family, and whānau and undermined the ability of social workers to work in relational ways with whānau, hapū, iwi, and communities. Our social workers do their best to support our vulnerable children and families every day. To do that, they need to be able to use their skills, experience, and professional knowledge, particularly in areas of work that require significant sensitivity and skill.

This bill is not just about the partial repeal of the subsequent child provisions. It also makes a number of other changes to the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989. This includes the repeal of a data set provision that is no longer required given that alternative safeguards and protections now exist. These alternative mechanisms are less administratively burdensome while still allowing for safe sharing of information.

Finally, the bill makes a number of other minor and technical changes to the Act, all of which are aimed at tidying up an Act that is over 30 years old and has been subject to a number of significant legislative amendments. This includes the change introduced at the committee of the whole House stage to amend section 198 to address the unintended consequences of a prior legislative change.

This bill is an important step in improving outcomes for children and young people. It is important to continue the journey of change of Oranga Tamariki. I would like once again to acknowledge the Hon Tracey Martin for her work on subsequent children and for starting the process to review the subsequent child provisions during her time as Minister for Children. I also want to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for its thoughtful consideration of the bill and their recommendations, which have improved the clarity of some of the technical amendments of the bill.

I also want to thank members of the public who helped the committee to consider the bill, through written and oral submissions. I know that many, like me, are ready and eager for change at Oranga Tamariki. Small steps, such as the partial repeal, are important to support that change to occur. I commend the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill to the House.

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

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of the National Party in opposition to this bill, the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill, in its third and final reading tonight. This bill did not attract a huge amount of submissions during the select committee process. The Minister has just said that he thanks those submitters, but, unfortunately, many of them were distracted by the change to the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Bill. So having two bills happening at very similar times meant that we probably didn’t get the number of submissions that we would have liked. But that has not meant that the select committee did not scrutinise this bill in its entirety.

But there are a couple of main provisions in this amendment bill, and I’ll start with probably the smaller impact, which was the section 66D dataset provision, which is repealing that provision out of the existing Act. This provision only really came into effect in July 2019, so it really hasn’t had a lot of time to become embedded. But, as we found out, there were—so just as a matter of explanation, this is about information-sharing provisions and creating datasets and publicising where those datasets came from so that the public was made aware of them. But it turns out that this hadn’t been enacted or implemented, so we now find ourselves changing the law because it hasn’t been implemented. The excuse is that there have been no reports of these data sets, when, in actual fact, if we looked at implementation rather than the inaction that we’ve seen with this provision, it would seem logical to ensure that OT—Oranga Tamariki—was actually using that provision, rather than changing the law to cover up the inaction. So it just seems a little bit odd that we are even considering that, rather than using it for the purpose it was intended.

But the main part of this bill that has seen the Opposition oppose this bill is as it relates to the subsequent child provision. So I just note that the purpose of this is to enable women and families who have had a child who has been previously removed and there is no likelihood—not “possible likelihood” but “no likelihood”—realistically possible that that child or young person will be returned to that person’s care. That seems, on the face of it, quite innocuous, but what we find is that by virtue of the fact that this bill is removing the provision for an automatic response to the family to remove that child until there is clear proof that that child is going to be safe and will not be subject to the types of harm that the previous child had been exposed to.

So this is where we part our ways in terms of our view of this bill, because if we look at the main provision of new section 18B in the bill, it’s that Oranga Tamariki can continue to inquire into the safety of any subsequent children and provide supports for that child and their whānau and hold a family group conference. But we have heard throughout other readings on this bill that it is streamlining the process. We know that mums and dads, in some cases, do require absolute intense wraparound support to enable them to provide a home and security for subsequent children, but, in the meantime, there is still a risk that some children face. And that is why we think, on this side of the House, that the main purpose is to protect our children.

Now, the bill talks about the safety and wellbeing of these children, but, sadly, there is no definition of “safety” or “wellbeing” in this bill. So we also have a lot of concern from the people that did find concerns with this bill that there is no oversight then from Oranga Tamariki around safety and wellbeing and then support. So without confined definitions, Oranga Tamariki and the social workers become very subjective—and we don’t want subjectivity when it comes to the protection of our children.

So, unfortunately, if this provision goes through and this bill will be enacted tonight, it means that if Oranga Tamariki receives a report of concern about a child or young person and that child or young person’s care and protection needs to be assessed, sadly this is already after the fact, which means that we already have a report of concern which is, as we’ve seen with some of the children that have been subject to abuse in their family, already too late. And the reason the subsequent child provision was put in place in the first place was because of the potential risk—and it may not be real, but it may be potential risk. When we put children at the heart of legislation, it means that we are making sure that there is no risk to these children.

Now, the reason it’s called a partial repeal is because there is one part of that clause that is staying in there, and that is if there has been a murder, infanticide, or manslaughter—which is quite realistic and we support that. But, unfortunately, it does not extend into other forms of abuse that children can be subject to, which are serious physical abuses that leaves a child with permanent injuries or disabilities. We know how vulnerable they are to beating, broken bones, even the psychological damage, and that is now not taken into consideration. So, unfortunately, the partial repeal only applies to those who have killed children; not to those who have permanently disabled or harmed children in a psychological or physical way.

So I think before the Government passes this legislation they need to give some thought to those children that we are talking about. Look, there is less than 20 times this provision has been used—this subsequent child provision—in this country since it came in. That tells you that it is not commonplace to have used it, but in those cases where there is extreme concern for the safety of subsequent children, it has been used.

So I’d like to end my contribution by reminding the Government members of the children that we have heard about that have been publicly on display for the harm that has come to them and to pay tribute and remember them: James Whakaruru, the Kahui twins, Nia Glassie, Tahani Mahomed, Duwayne Pailegutu, and most recently Malachi Subecz. These children needed the support of the State to protect them. We have now exposed some very vulnerable children to some serious consequences, and I’m really disappointed that we’ve come to this, because if the Government was serious about putting children at the heart of their legislation, thinking of them first without thinking about streamlining a process, maybe using another Family Court hearing to assess the suitability of parents to continue to—

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

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a great pleasure to rise for the partial repeal of some of this legislation, the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill. The reason I’m delighted to be standing today is because the onus or burden of proof was reversed for parents who had lost a child to the State. That onus or burden of proof became once a subsequent child was born they had to prove that they would be a good and fit parent. It could be 20, 30 years later that they were that parent. They had to prove it. Without the resources that the State has, without the supports that the State can put in place, they had to prove this. And those children who were first removed, the first child that came before the subsequent child, those children had to attend court and they had to talk about why they were unable to ever be returned to their parents. I think that this was a repugnant piece of legislation that sat and was used in a way that took away the hope for families.

I hear what the member across the aisle said. The potential risk is what the member was talking about. But we’re not talking about potential risk in a small matter; we’re talking about the removal of a child from their family without any proven evidence that that child would be harmed. There is no subsequent evidence that that child would be harmed. And that is what I’m delighted about us having changed tonight. The removal of children from their families is harmful and should only occur in very exceptional circumstances—not automatically, not immediately when a further child is born to a family that has had an uplift.

I am absolutely pleased that this piece of legislation is changing, and I’m pleased about that because the oversight will still occur. Our communities will still be vigilant. Oranga Tamariki will still be vigilant. But the onus and burden of proof will be shifted back to the State to prove the child will be harmed. I commend this bill to the House.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in opposition to the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill in this, its third reading. As we’ve heard, the bill amends the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 by partially repealing the subsequent child provisions. It has other matters of repealing the information-sharing provision and amending the technical errors and ambiguities, but I speak mainly to the partial repeal of the subsequent child provisions.

They were introduced back in 2014 by the National Party and came into effect in 2016. The subsequent child provisions only apply when Oranga Tamariki receives a report of concern about a child, and the parent has previously had a child permanently removed from their care or has a conviction for the death of a child in their care. The provisions are intended to introduce an automatic mandatory response to ensure greater oversight over the safety of the subsequent child.

National continues to oppose this bill. We stand by our policy of the legislation that we bought in back in 2014. We stand by the policy because we believe that it does provide that automatic, that mandatory response to ensure greater oversight of the safety of subsequent children. We are concerned that the partial repeal of the provisions will increase subsequent children’s likelihood of being exposed to neglect and abuse by a parent. Sometimes people do change; there is absolutely no doubt about that. People turn their lives around. The previous speaker, Angie Warren-Clark, talked about the onus being on the parent to have to prove that they are a good parent. Well, they should have to. If they have seriously harmed a child, they should have to prove that they are a good and fit parent for their subsequent child. I don’t think we should be making excuses or saying that’s a bad thing. So sometimes people do turn themselves around, their lives around, but the benefit of doubt must always be with the child. It may disadvantage a parent; that’s quite right. It may, but we must always balance the risk to the child rather than the disadvantage to the parent.

Let’s be really clear: the subsequent child provision applies when Oranga Tamariki receives a report of concern and when the parent has already previously had a child permanently removed from their care and that child has no likelihood at all of returning to that parent. It’s entirely possible that the 19 times that this has been used since it was introduced has saved 19 children from serious harm, or, worse, from being killed.

I regularly have a young boy coming to visit us with his caregiver. He was shaken as a baby and was taken from his mother. He now lives his life in a wheelchair, non-verbal, and unable to eat by mouth. I wish that young child had been taken from his mother earlier. I wish the intervention had been earlier, because that dear little boy doesn’t get a second chance to prove himself. So our feeling is that the benefit of doubt must always, always, always be with the child, because there are no second chances for them. There is no opportunity for them to prove themselves. They have been the victims. The National Party prioritises, and I hope that all New Zealanders would prioritise, protecting children.

We have a shameful record of not protecting children from serious harm and being killed. It is a national shame to us all. We must concentrate on protecting children, their welfare and wellbeing, and enhancing families, whānau, and communities to care for and protect our children. Of course that is what we want to happen, but we must, first and foremost, protect those children. We must do everything possible to make our young children and our babies safer. If we don’t protect them, if we are constantly looking for ways to make it easier for the parent to retain the care of those children, then we put them at risk. I don’t know how anyone in this Parliament could live with putting children at greater risk.

For some reason, we have strayed into the thinking that the parent has to always be given the benefit of doubt. We have strayed into thinking we’ve got to be constantly looking for second chances. But so often we have let babies and young children down. As I keep saying, they don’t get a second chance. Every time I look at that young boy who visits us in a wheelchair, non-verbal, not able to eat—he didn’t get a second chance. So I’m not sure that this legislation giving the benefit of the doubt back to the parent, taking away the onus on the parent to prove that they are a fit and responsible person to have the care of that young child, I don’t consider it is the right direction for us to be moving to. We are not talking about insignificant matters. We are talking about serious harm to our babies and young children. Because of that, we certainly oppose this legislation.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I have spent most of my adult life in and out of the Family Court as a lawyer and a researcher. So when I hear the member opposite speak about the need to keep children out of the hands of parents who are truly terrible, yeah, I understand, absolutely, what she’s saying.

But the reality is really, really complicated. And we’re not talking about that very top tier of parents; we’re talking about the tier down. One of the things that I do just want to briefly say about this bill is that because it puts that judgment role so strongly on social workers, what it also did was completely destroy the social workers’ ability to work with the whānau. It destroyed trust and it destroyed the ability of parents who had slipped but had the opportunity and the ability to come back from that, from doing so.

For example, I remember a woman we worked with for many years, had a baby very young and the danger to that child was not her—it was her violent partner and the dad. The child was taken from her. She split with dad; she stayed away from dad. But every time she had a baby, that baby was at risk of being removed and she had to fight that same system. It wasn’t fair, it wasn’t appropriate, it destroyed the relationships she could have had with the social workers. I commend this bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s with pleasure I rise to offer the Green Party’s support for this bill, though we would have gone further.

But I want to start my contribution with picking up from a submission from Morgan Tupaea to the Social Services and Community Committee from Morgan’s Master’s thesis around the lived experience of removals, because I want to ground this in experience of people in our country. The quote that comes later is from a mother who’s had her first baby removed from her care due to her experiences as a family-violence victim.

The point that the previous speaker, Emily Henderson, made is that an experience that is very common to anybody who has worked in domestic violence in this country is where survivors of abuse are punished twice for the abuse of their partner, and their children lose the attachment to the protective parent because our system does not recognise adequately the dynamics of family violence.

And in the case of this quote I’m about to read, the victim’s victimisation was seen as a reason to sever the relationship between her and her baby. Despite removing herself from that context of domestic violence and working with kaumātua and community groups to make positive changes in her life, her history of victimisation—this is from the submission—was weaponised against her by the State a second time. In this instance, she was subjected to the uplift of her second child within 24 hours of her birth. This is the quote in the submission: “She got to the door of the hospital room. She screamed, and she was running, and I got up, because I’ve got my walking stick, and I’m running and we get outside and … as soon as I got to the door, all I saw was police cars. They had a police van across the hospital gate. They had five police cars and were carrying [a] baby out. And we ran, and she was screaming, and I was trying to catch up to her, a cop ran past me. [And] I don’t know if he tackled her or what, but anyway, I’m hoping not, I couldn’t see ‘cause I was down on the ground, and they brought her back.” And this was from a kaumātua watching the removal of a child from a victim of family violence because of a policy like this, which we are about to remove, and it’s long overdue for it to be removed.

There’s discussion of harm—and I completely get that we want to care for our kids. If we hold our children centre, as I’ve heard coming from National Party members tonight, we have to think about this holistically. Removing the ability to attach to a safe parent has lifelong consequences. This is not removing the requirement for there to be an assessment of safety, but it just means that it’s up to the State to prove that there is not safety in that family. That is important when the State has such a fundamentally problematic history where the State has, again and again and again, got this wrong, where children and families have been destroyed because of our lack of understanding of this. This is something that I—you might be able to tell—feel kind of passionately about. I think that our whānau and our kids deserve for us to think about this in all of its complexity, and not in the simplicity.

I also do just want to note that this legislation and the review that was initiated by Minister Martin last term was in the wake of the Hastings uplift, where, as a country—I suspect for the first time—we got to witness the uplift of a tamaiti Māori, and it shook us, as a country, that this myth of a benign State caring for children, was exposed as a myth. The absolute violence of the State, and the intrusion into whānau—and the right, as recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal, of tino rangatiratanga over kāinga was just destroyed. We all got to see something that had, up until that point, been experienced by whānau again and again and again, but hidden—because these are secretive processes out of consideration of privacy. But, in that instance, they were exposed.

I believe we need to come back to that in this debate. Remember, for those members who saw that video—and I hope everybody did—what their reaction was to that, because it should have been shock. This is important to put in the context of colonisation and the fact that Māori children make up 25 percent of children in this country and yet they make up 68 percent of children in care. As the Waitangi Tribunal has recognised, and I will quote from the tribunal ruling around Oranga Tamariki: “The urgent issue before us concerns the long-term and significant disparity between the number of Tamariki Māori and non-Māori children being taken into State care. The disparity has arisen and persists in part due to the effects of alienation and dispossession, but also because of a failure by the Crown to honour the guarantee to Māori of the right of cultural continuity embodied in the guarantee of Tino Rangatiratanga over their kāinga. It is more than just a failure to honour or uphold, it is also a breach born of hostility to the promise itself.”

Now, anybody hearing that, reading that judgment, who is going to quibble and oppose the first piece of legislation that makes any step towards addressing that has a problem, to my mind. This is the first piece of legislation, and it is a tiny step. I do want to bring in the calls from submitters, including the Children’s Commissioner, and I will, because we’ve heard a lot from this side of the House, including myself, about the importance of the voice of the Children’s Commissioner and how we should be strengthening that voice and not undermining it. Then, in the next opportunity, when we hear from the commissioner and they are saying, “Actually, this bill should go further, this needs to happen.” They never said vote against this. They said, “Do it. But, actually, you should repeal the entire provision.” It’s a real shame to hear that that is not being listened to on this side of the House.

The reason they were calling for that is an acknowledgment that while this provision has not often been used in that specificity, it has had a profound impact, as already acknowledged by the Minister for Children, on the trust of whānau in social workers. It has completely undermined the ability for them to build relationships and to be able to work through any issues that the whānau may have. It has undermined good social work practice and meant that social workers have increasingly been making poor decisions in a broader sense. And it has undermined, specifically, tino rangatiratanga over kāinga. So they are three very significant points that, I believe, are incredibly important to listen to.

So the Greens would have repealed this entire provision and we would have wanted to see legislation that went much further. We’ve had so many reports telling us that the system is failing. I acknowledge the Minister’s commitment to transformation, and that’s being done through internal work. My concern is that without legislation to bolster that, it’s very easy for initiatives to go into place and for changes to start happening, but when attention goes off, things go back to the default of how they were. Our children deserve and need better than that. But this is still a step forward because this provision is harmful. If we have a choice of acting to prevent harm, then we need to do that in this House. Kia ora.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill. This has been a weird process from the very beginning, starting from the select committee process in the way of we did not get many submissions when it came to this bill, because it ran alongside another bill that was quite contentious and it kind of was hidden in the shadows behind that contentious bill, which was the Oranga Tamariki oversight bill. So there was not much feedback on this amendment bill and thoughts on what kinds of unintended consequences may come about by what this bill is intending to do.

So what this bill is proposing to do is to partially repeal the subsequent child provisions which came into effect on 30 June 2016. By repealing that, it will mean that only children who have died at the hands of an adult whose care they were in—whether it be through manslaughter, murder, or infanticide—will come under the provision of an automatic mandatory report being made and making sure that an assessment is done to make sure that any other children that are born to that person is in a safe home.

Whilst I kind of feel for the Government and understand where they were coming from, I think we’ve raised the bar a bit too high when it comes to what a parent or a caregiver can actually do before we think “Wow, maybe we should make sure that the next child isn’t put at any risk of this happening to them.” Personally, I have seen the damage of children who have come after children who have been abused and neglected in their home, and then another child has come along and suffered sometimes a worse fate than what the first child suffered. I feel that a safety net is needed.

So that’s why in the committee of the whole House I did put forward an alternative and a Supplementary Order Paper in my name, requesting that we add in another provision—apart from murder, manslaughter, or infanticide—that would also include a person who was convicted under sections 188 to 204 of the Crimes Act 1961 of an offence involving the assault or injury of a child or a young person who is in the person’s care or custody at the time of the offence.

Now, these aren’t small, minor issues. These are issues that could be—I’ll list a few: wounding with intent, injuring with intent, strangulation or suffocation, aggravated wounding or injury, aggravated assault, assault with intent to injure, assault on a child, ill treatment or neglect of a child, disabling, discharging a firearm in their presence, poisoning, infecting with a disease, or assault with a weapon. So I’m not talking about small minor issues within a home. I’m talking about major issues where someone would be convicted with at least three months of prison time.

I feel it’s up to us to be the protection for the young people who cannot protect themselves. And we have seen this Government, previous Governments, and Governments before—for a long time—who have, with best of intentions, tried to have our children living in safe environments, but have failed. Just recently, over the last few years, we’ve seen report after report after report into Oranga Tamariki, and whatever it was called before it was called Oranga Tamariki, stating that they are not doing their job. They are not actually protecting our children and children are slipping through the cracks.

I mentioned the Oranga Tamariki Oversight Bill at the very beginning, because the select committee process ran side by side. Part of me is concerned that by changing this and getting rid of the safety net here for subsequent children, my concern is around the oversight process when things go wrong. So now we’ve got two bills that I feel are going to let our children down. It’s a scary thought. I have every belief that those within the select committee process that were sitting across the table from me are trying to do the right thing, but the unintended consequences are just far too damaging to ignore.

Now, I’ve heard that social workers will still have the ability to act if a report of concern is made. I think I heard it mentioned on this side of the House previously that that’s after the fact. It’s after the fact that somebody has seen something that they feel they need to report. And from experience, it takes a lot for somebody to report. It’s not just somebody thinking, “Oh, maybe something’s wrong.” It takes a lot for somebody to put in a report of concern. Then once you put in the report of concern, what is the process after that? Recent reports have shown us that even if someone has put in a report of concern, there’s no guarantee that that report of concern is going to be followed up. There’s no guarantee that that report of concern is going to be taken seriously. Whereas if we have an automatic mandatory check, it’s there, it’s in place, and it has to be done and we know it will be done. And we’re not relying on an after the fact report of concern when we may be too late.

Can we afford not to have this safety net? Whether or not it’s an inconvenience to parents, hapū, iwi, and children that have come before, is that inconvenience worth saving a life for? In my mind, it is. Because a child can never get their life back if they pass away. We can say sorry as much as we like, but that’s not going to bring back a child that loses their life or ends up with a lifetime of disability because a safety net that may be a bit inconvenient for our system is taken away.

I have huge concerns about the potential risk we are putting these children in. Through best of intentions, I hear that we’ve got to rebuild the faith and trust of families, iwi, and hapū. Surely, it’s the other way round. Surely they should rebuild their trust in the State to show that they are capable of looking after these children. There should be some kind of accountability for bad behaviour and terrible behaviour when it comes to our children. We are losing too many children and we’re making too many excuses for the bad behaviour of these parents.

I hear that a lot of parents that have ended up in these situations have been victims of abuse themselves. I’m sorry about that; that should never have happened. But it is also not an excuse to let people get away with creating more victims. Because when does this cycle break? When do we break the cycle of abuse and harm to our children? When do we say it’s not OK and we’re going to make sure that this doesn’t happen to another child?

This bill does not do that. It actually puts our children at more risk. So we oppose this bill and hope that the Government can come forward with some better legislation in the future.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand and speak in support of this bill, because what this bill does by repealing the subsequent child provisions—partially repealing them—is it basically means that social workers can get on and do what they do best, and that is use their skills and expertise to walk alongside families and children, and also to support those parents who’ve decided that they’re going to turn the situation around and do the best by their subsequent child.

I think we’ve heard in the House tonight about the really negative impacts that these provisions have had on parents’ ability to bond with their subsequent children, but also social workers to be able to work with whānau to ensure the best outcomes for children. But this bill also has safeguards, and I think it’s basic social work practice—walking alongside families is one aspect, but, also, making sure that we retain the subsequent child provision for parents or caregivers who’ve been convicted of the death of a child in their care. So making sure that we get that balance right.

I think it’s an important bill, and it’ll make a difference to a small number of children, but a very important group of children, in our country. I commend this bill to the House.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Every child’s life matters. That’s where my focus and attention is for this debate, and has been right throughout the series of debates on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill.

I have no pleasure or delight in taking this call, because what I’ve heard consistently coming from the other side, the Government who is charged responsibility, the Minister for Children, charged responsibility, for the welfare, the best interests, the wellbeing, the paramountcy of our New Zealand children’s lives has not been the priority in this debate. What I’m hearing, what New Zealanders are hearing, is that the subsequent child provision is being amended to satisfy and suit social work practice and parental rights. The whole point and focus of this debate has been charged and focused wrongly.

Prior to coming into public service here in this House since 2017, like one of my colleagues across the House I’ve dedicated my professional life in service to child welfare—a child specialist lawyer. The subsequent child provision partial repeal of this law, which is the controversial and contentious point of the amendments, some 40 amendments, now 41 with the Supplementary Order Paper supported by the Minister for Children going through, not one of those focuses primarily on protecting the child. The subsequent children’s provision was specifically about that.

I have heard—this is highly charged, and there has been emotional debate and contribution. I’m speaking with clarity and experience of the law. I know that the subsequent child provision has been controversial, but the whole point of it is to be proactive, not react to a child who has been seriously harmed or abused. And I have repeatedly reiterated in this House the number of reviews, the number of reports, the number of recommendations, most recently from Dame Karen Poutasi stating, as a result of review and findings of Malachi Subecz’s life—death. That child is dead because there was not the blanket of protection provided by the State. There were notifications of his abuse and there was no reaction.

This subsequent child provision is about being proactive, not having to react to harm already caused. I’ve heard that it’s repugnant, it is repugnant that the onus of proof is on the parent or is reversed. Actually, look and read the law. The assessment requirement is on the State welfare agency to do its job properly. I have heard repeatedly in this House, and I acknowledge social workers have a very difficult job and they know it going into it, but they have a high burden of responsibility, and that burden of responsibility under the subsequent child provision, section 18A through to C—and this is a partial repeal about who satisfies and is a parent that meets the subsequent provision of their child taken into care and what should happen. What hasn’t happened, and it’s been mentioned that only 19 cases have been activated under this provision. Part of that is because of social work policy and practice.

The provision under the law quite clearly states the onus—we talk about the reverse onus, and it’s been reiterated and repeated and stated that that burden is on the parent, actually, in part, but it’s on the social worker. Section 18A(2): “If the chief executive believes on reasonable grounds that a person is a person to whom this section applies,” that is, the person described as a parent of a child who has been previously taken into care and permanent placement—the subsequent child, the burden, the onus, is on Oranga Tamariki to do the checks and the assessments. Not on the parent. There has been so much misinformation. I do not commend the bill to the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill and want to acknowledge Minister Davis for his leadership in this space, but also colleagues who have had direct experience as practitioners in this space as well.

This bill will effectively lead to a partial repeal of what other colleagues have referred to in what is colloquially known as the “subsequent child provisions”. And when one reflects on the potential removal of trauma, of distress, for children within a court setting, then that means that this is a good move.

Much has been said in this House this evening about the role of social workers, and I want to commend the work that social workers do in this Family Court jurisdiction space, alongside lawyers as well. Where the status quo effectively places those practitioners in a difficult position, that is not a good move. So this change is a positive move. I commend this bill to the House.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Having worked at Oranga Tamariki, having worked in the social services sector for over a decade, having worked in the volunteer and community sector for over a decade, and being a member of the Social Services and Community Committee who heard the submitters on this bill, one thing that is really clear and one thing I think everyone can agree to is that the Oranga Tamariki system needs change. They need change to make sure that we are protecting our most vulnerable, our tamariki, our whānau, and also making sure that our social workers can do the job they need to do. That is what this bill does.

On this side of the House, we are very clear: this is about making sure that we make real change for our people of New Zealand. It’s not about putting plasters on, not about filling holes; this is making sure that the real change is going to support children, support their family, and support social workers to do the job they want to do, and that is work meaningfully—meaningfully—without being restricted.

That is what the partial repeal of the subsequent child does. That repeal will make sure that social workers can do the job that they trained to do, that they want to do, and that is care for our children, help and support our families, make sure they do right by children. That is what this Labour Government is trying to do: make sure that we remove those barriers so social workers can do their job, less kids go into care, that families can stay together. That is what this bill does, and that is why we support it. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): That member, Terisa Ngobi, just made the point; that is exactly what the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill is about. It should be about protecting children. But no, this is an ideological piece of legislation, because Labour has decided they want fewer children in State care. Well, no apologies from this side: I want fewer New Zealand children harmed. When we live in a country where one child is killed every five weeks, actually their interests should come first. And who is accountable? The Minister for Children. So, yep, social workers do incredible work, but the accountability sits with the Minister.

I want to draw your attention to the comment that talked about a first principles review of the provisions, in 2019, that found they were not operating in a way that promoted the best interests of children, nor as originally intended. That’s not a fault with the law; that’s a fault in how it’s being implemented. And, fundamentally, when this legislation was introduced, it was the vulnerable children’s legislation. It was aimed and targeted at vulnerable children, and it was all about the prevention of harm. So why on earth—why on earth—if it wasn’t for an ideological reason, would Labour change it? Because, on this side of the House, we do not want to sit back and watch yet another child be harmed or killed.

Let’s face facts. It’s not a pleasant reality, but the reality is that for a parent who has had a child removed, or a parent who has been responsible for the manslaughter or murder of a child of theirs or of a child in their care, unfortunately, that past behaviour is an indicator of future behaviour. So we are very clear on this side: we are not willing to risk additional harm to that child, and we absolutely must ensure that they are protected, first and foremost. “Oh, no, no. We’ll give it a go.”, says Labour. “We’ll let the parents have the subsequent child, and we’ll keep an eye on them.” Really? No matter how hard a social worker works to support that family, there is a risk. And it is naive to suggest, to think, or to ideologically think it’s anything other than that. So the child should be the first, the second, the third, and every other priority in this legislation. But, unfortunately, they are not.

I want to put on record that National believes in the ability of families, no matter how broken, no matter how dysfunctional, no matter what has happened in the past, to get back up, to heal, to improve, and to learn and develop and grow. So we are not saying we are writing those parents off. We’re just saying: do not put a child at risk of harm. So, absolutely, work intensively with that family, get them to a place where they can have children in their care, but do not—do not—place that child in a place of harm or risk.

National has a very clear social investment approach, and Nicola Willis gave a fantastic speech recently about “doing good better”. One of the elements of social investment is early identification—actually making sure that we are targeting our investment in areas that get the best results. I firmly believe—I firmly believe—that many of the families that these children belong to can rebuild and can have children returned, but the first priority must be keeping those children safe, and then allowing, over time, a safe, managed return.

This is about reversing this onus of proof. I don’t think it’s too onerous for a parent who’s had a child permanently removed from their care, a child that has been murdered or has died through manslaughter or infanticide—that any subsequent children, their priority and their safety is put first. I don’t think that is too onerous. I would have thought that makes complete and utter sense. And, to this side, that’s what we believe—we firmly believe. And, actually, I’m still staggered as we debate this in the final reading that others in this House don’t think that the child’s rights and safety are paramount. I accept, like many in this debate, that Oranga Tamariki has a lot of work to do, but don’t just keep changing the law; help them with their practice, ensure they are complying with the law. And I don’t want to labour the point with Karen Poutasi’s report, but it was heartbreaking to read that.

You know, we have a law; they’re well designed for a reason. There is a risk to a child, based on their parent’s previous behaviour, that it’s likely to be repeated. If it’s not repeated, that’s great; that’s a bonus. But can we not put an innocent child as the kind of experiment: “Well, let’s just see, shall we? Shall we just see if those parents have reformed? We’ll just put the child in their care even though we know there have been some horrendous things that have happened in the past. Oh, no, no, no, we’ll just leave the next child there. We’re sure it’ll be all good.” Well, unfortunately, history tells us that it’s not. That’s why this provision was put into the bill in the first place, in 2014. That’s why it was put into what was then the vulnerable children’s legislation—“vulnerable”. They are vulnerable—that’s why they need protection—and this bill strips away fundamental protections and the ability to prevent harm.

I’m proud to be part of a party that focuses on children and reducing harm, not one that is just talking about the numbers of children in State care—as if that’s the measure that counts. No, because when I come to work, I want to know that the work we do in this House not only improves the lives of vulnerable New Zealanders but protects them. And who are the most vulnerable? These children. We’ve seen, with other pieces of legislation that we have been involved with, that Labour’s not listening. As Karen Chhour, the ACT member, quite rightly said, this bill didn’t get the attention it needed, because there was such a furore on the oversight of Oranga Tamariki legislation that I don’t think enough submitters paid attention to this. They know how important it is that we get this right—that a lot of the work still to occur is with Oranga Tamariki and their systems and processes and care practices; it’s not with the law. It is with the oversight to ensure that they are doing what they’re meant to be doing and that they’re doing it in the best way possible.

We want to see, through prevention and early intervention, through a social investment approach, that we can do good better, because our children—every single one of them—deserve it. So it is with no pleasure that I stand in this House to debate this piece of legislation, because I know it will go through. I find it disgusting. I find it disgusting that members in this House are willing to put vulnerable children in the firing line, in the line of harm. National vehemently opposes this legislation to put subsequent children of parents, adults who have killed their children—it’s just simply not right.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m humbled to rise and take a final call on the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill. As I’ve listened to all of the debates, I know that one thing is clear: that everybody stands in this House doing their best to protect our young people, our children, our most vulnerable—but that is where agreement ceases, I understand. I know we’ve had some really gnarly issues being bravely addressed by this bill. I’ve listened to the experts, to the voices that I trust, those people who have worked in the Family Court system, like Dr Henderson, but also from those who have lived through it and given us their advice, as brought to us by Jan Logie today—those voices of intergenerational trauma. We know the law hasn’t been working, and when we talk about damage being done to young people, we know that the way this legislation plays out increases trauma and distress.

I want to just take a moment to thank all of the officials and the Hon Kelvin Davis for doing this difficult mahi and making some real change that will allow everybody that needs to to step in to protect our children and our young people, wrap around them and make sure that their lives aren’t just a matter of survival but that they thrive into the future. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 76

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Water Services Legislation Bill

First Reading

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I present a legislative statement on the Water Services Legislation Bill.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I move, That the Water Services Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 25 May 2023.

I’m pleased to read this bill for the first time. It’s the next step to ensure that New Zealanders and our communities are better prepared to sustainably finance our water network for better health and environmental outcomes.

I want to start by recognising that there have been years of research and comparative analysis using local and international expertise and extensive consultation with communities, local government, mana whenua, iwi, and industry. Decades of under-investment in our water network have increased its fragility. The tragic Havelock North drinking-water contamination event in 2016 changed the way that we view water infrastructure. It resulted in an inquiry which highlighted systemic failings in our water system. That was not isolated to the Havelock North area and was evidenced by boiled water and no-swim notices that we continue to see to this very day.

Water services are an essential building block for communities. It’s time to stop kicking the can down the road. This bill enables us to take action and establish the roles and functions of our new water services system. When we passed the Water Services Entities Bill this month, we progressed the publicly owned four-entity solution to deal with the significant infrastructure challenges facing drinking water, waste water, and stormwater.

This is a cost of living issue. The investment needed over the next 30 to 40 years to maintain and upgrade New Zealand’s water infrastructure to the standard required is unaffordable for most communities under current arrangements. Detailed analysis indicates that $120 billion to $185 billion is required to fund our water network over the next 30 years.

We are now at the next milestone with this second bill. It sets out detailed functions and powers of the new water services entities, what they are required to do, the tools they need for their work, and arrangements for the transition to the new system. As a Government, we want to ensure that, come 1 July 2024, the entities will be able to deliver improved water services for communities across the country, big and small.

I now want to briefly touch on some of the important components of the bill before us. But before I do, I want to remind the House of our four bottom-lines when progressing this reform. They are: ensuring water assets remain in public ownership, ensuring balance sheet separation, ensuring that we give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and te mana o te wai, and ensuring good governance is established in these new entities. Throughout this programme, we’ve continued to listen and make adjustments to the solution that is before us, and we have put the community in the forefront of our thinking through working groups, engaging directly with local government, iwi, Māori, industry bodies, and submitters. Everyone who has contributed in some shape or form has strengthened our reform.

Rural water supplies that are owned by local government and provide both drinking water and water for farming-related purposes will be transferred to the water services entities. However, we have recognised that mixed-use rural water supplies are different to those in urban networks and some exceptions may be needed. Based on the recommendation of the Rural Supplies Technical Working Group, some users will be able to seek ownership of their water supplies. I’m grateful to the experts that sat on this group, whose insight helped us with these provisions.

There’s no doubt that as a nation we need to spend a lot more on the pipes and other infrastructure that supplies our water services to make up for decades of under-investment to meet future challenges. With better financing, we can achieve these goals more affordably and effectively for all New Zealand families.

The bill establishes pricing and charging mechanisms to provide fair, transparent, and affordable charges to households and businesses for their water services. Not only will the entities be provided with the legislative authority to charge for their services but an economic regulation and consumer protection regime will be established in a separate bill led by the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs.

The Rates Rebate Scheme is also being extended to include bills from the entities, facilitated by the requirement of both territorial authorities and water services entities to share specific billing information. For the entities, the information shared is where the bill recipient has applied for a rates rebate, allowing a streamlined application process for beneficiaries of the scheme. For territorial authorities, the information shared will be the rateable value of the property to enable water services entities to charge for stormwater services.

As we secure an affordable and robust water network, we need to also keep environmental outcomes front of mind. Last year it was reported that at least 270 companies had breached trade-waste consents in 2020. Frankly, this isn’t good enough. Councils, communities, and environmental groups have all said that trade-waste powers needed to be strengthened, and we agree. This bill will enable entities to create the rules they need to manage their water network and control what is discharged back to the environment. There are provisions for compliance, monitoring, and an enforcement regime. Each water services entity will appoint a Director of Compliance and Enforcement and the boards of water services entities must issue compliance and enforcement strategy. Compliance officers will be given the necessary authority to monitor, investigate compliance, and take appropriate steps to enforce where breaches occur, and it will be consistent. These officers will have the powers of entry, search, and seizure, subject to detailed safeguards. There are special arrangements for homes, marae, and other types of Māori land, where warrantless entry can only occur by consent. This is consistent with other legislative provisions that enable similar things. Under the bill, an infringement regime will be established that allows water services entities to issue fines for minor offences.

Many of the provisions in the bill reflect powers under the Local Government Act 2002 that have been attempted to align with the powers of other utilities. This includes arrangements for accessing infrastructure on private land, including Māori land. However, these existing powers are being modified to enhance protections for Māori land. These regulations can only be made following engagement with the council and mana whenua, who are the subject of the arrangements.

Alongside the Water Service Entities Act, this bill sets out a detailed framework for water reform developed by decades of discussion and more than two years of concentrated work by the Government, local government, mana whenua, and industry partners. It’s our second significant milestone on our journey to improve water services delivery across the whole of Aotearoa New Zealand—communities big and small.

I stand proud as a part of a Government that tackles overdue issues, instead of putting them in the too-hard basket. It’s true—this issue isn’t easy, nor is it popular. But fixing a problem that has been around for far too long is necessary, and New Zealanders need us to come up with long-life solutions that will help the challenge ahead of them, especially as climate change continues to demonstrate how vulnerable our water network is.

Enough is enough when, just yesterday, one-third of Auckland beaches had no-swim notices due to bacterial contamination from waste-water overflow. We say enough is enough. We say public ownership of our assets and safeguarding against privatisation is a priority—we’ll guarantee that. And we say affordable, robust solutions that will provide effective water services for generations to come so all of our children have the ability to swim in their local stream, lake, river, or beach—it is actually not a luxury but a necessity to the quality of life we will guarantee them if we are brave enough to ensure that tackling the hard solutions is something we’re all committed to. It’s our responsibility to do that, and I commend the bill to the House.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on the Water Services Legislation Bill first reading. This bill is “Three Waters: Part 2”, and this evening I’ll provide an overview in terms of the National Party’s position on this bill and the key areas in which we want to provide comment.

National opposes this bill, and that should not come as any surprise to anyone who is watching this evening. It is our intent that we will repeal and replace this, if elected in 2023. The legislation that we are reviewing this evening was tabled only hours after the Water Services Entities Bill was passed last Thursday morning. This bill that we are talking about this evening significantly expands on the legislation that was passed only last week.

It, in effect, doubles the length of the original bill that was only passed three hours earlier to when this bill was tabled, and it provides a number of provisions and clauses which, in our belief, are ones in which the Government did not want to talk about through the select committee process that nearly 88,000 people made submissions on. What we are going to, in terms of the overview—in terms of the key challenges with this bill—is outline what we see as the issues and then it will go on to select committee, where it’ll go through a thorough process.

The key principle in regards to water assets—and the Minister’s articulated in terms of a future state—and no major party within this Parliament does not believe that improvement of water infrastructure is required in this country. The conversation, and the difference, between this side of the House and that is in terms of “How do we achieve that outcome?” And we still absolutely, categorically do not believe that a four-entity, co-governed, mega-entity model is the model which will deliver the sustainable health outcomes in regards to water infrastructure for this country.

We believe that other alternative models exist which can achieve the requirements about capital expenditure while also managing the constraints around funding and financing, and pressure on consumers in regards to their water bills.

The other element, of course, is that we still remain committed to the water regulator, Taumata Arowai, and it is our belief that that regulator will play a significant role in terms of dealing with the water-quality aspects which the Minister has articulated has underlying problems.

But it is very clear that the bill on the table this evening is not going to assist and enable us to get to that future state. There is a number of issues in regards to it, and we have already articulated one of the key aspects in terms of the simple timing.

So let’s work our way through some of those components. The first aspect within the bill is in regards to provisions around the charging for water. It’s interesting that a lot of the narrative to date by the Government has been “Don’t worry, your rates aren’t going to go up under this new model. Everything’s going to be fine.” But what they fail to recognise is what’s in this bill is actually water pricing and water charging will actually be undertaken by the new water service entities. So while your rates may not be impacted, you’re going to get another bill in the mail from the water services entity, which will be charging you for that water infrastructure.

So I think Kiwis can see through the fact that, actually, this is not a zero-sum game. And the reality is that consumers are going to be faced with having to pay the price for the significant bureaucracy and complexity that will be within these water services entities. And we’ve already seen the rampant expenditure in regards to consultants and contractors in those entities, and this bill brings the provisions to actually on-charge those costs to hard-working Kiwis.

The second element within the bill that raises a number of concerns that I expect the select committee will get into details into regards the penalties regime. Clause 414, for example, provides a fine of up to $20,000 for an individual who breaks water restrictions. While it’s pretty difficult to get locked up if you do a ram raid, if you leave your sprinkler on, Ian McKelvie, then you might be out for $20,000. You know, we’re talking about years of due diligence reviewing this bill before it came to the House, but some of these things—look, and that’s fair enough; it was only one clause. But let’s move on to new section 407, set out in clause 22, which is undertaking works if you’re next to a stormwater network asset, of which parks and reserves and the majority of parks and reserves are in scope. So if you dig a hole in your backyard, Matt Doocey, and you don’t notify the mega-entity before you dig your hole, then you could get a bill for up to $100,000 per individual. I’m not making this up. Have a look at new section 407—and I know it’s Christmas, but I’m not going to go on on any more of those clauses.

New section 372, set out in clause 22, also provides provisions for entry to premises without a warrant—and I see the Hon Mark Mitchell’s just walked into the House—for checking water meters and stuff like that. I mean, I think I’ve covered enough in terms of the penalties regime within this bill that are going to be pretty much open to quite a significant element of review within that.

We talked about the ownership of water assets, and the key differential between this side of the House and the Government is that we believe that water assets should be controlled and owned by local communities and local councils, not in bureaucratic, non-democratic mega-entities. These reforms, reinforced through the asset transfer mechanisms that are within this bill, are that these assets will not remain under the control of local communities, and that is a significant issue. This lack of ownership is particularly concerning for those communities that have funded these assets over generations and generations. This bill will see the usual rights and responsibilities of ownership transferred across to those mega-entities, and the territorial authorities will not have the power over those. This will just simply increase that degree of tension that the community have raised through the submission process on the Water Services Entities Bill, and it definitely will not make it better.

Changes in regards to stormwater are interesting. The Government have taken the decision to remove transport stormwater systems from the stormwater networks. So if you live in rural—particularly in Northland, potentially, you think about all of the stormwater networks up there, pretty much 70 percent, 80 percent of stormwater in Northland would be on the side of the road, so all of those corridors are now excluded from this bill. So what’s that going to mean for your roads up in Northland? Well, I can tell you what. I can pretty much guess where the maintenance in that is going to go.

The issue around that brings more complexity and confusion to a bill in regards to—in effect, I sort of worked out that it was three waters, and then it got two more waters added, so it’s five waters. We’re now taking half the stormwater out, so it’s four and a half waters now, I think is where I’m at, but I’m sure by the end of the select committee process it’ll be at a different number. But that sort of shows the mockery in regards to, you know, all of these years of planning, and we’re still making significant changes in regards to the scope of the bill.

I want to get into the changes around the Treaty provisions and Te Mana o te Wai statements, because the Government have not missed the opportunity to strengthen the provisions that were in a bill passed only three hours earlier. They’ve now doubled down and increased the provisions in regards to that. Te Mana o te Wai statements—this bill significantly expands those provisions that were set out in the original bill, and that’s in clause 16. The water services entities now must respond and action these statements that are submitted exclusively by mana whenua. It’s also got the provision that the CEO of these water entities, for every report that’s provided to the CEO of the water entity, they must do another report—so we’re into a lot of reports—in terms of how that affects or how that gives effect to the Treaty, for every single report. That’s now in this bill as well, under clause 13. So much for doubling down, but that’s basically what we have seen in regards to this bill.

The other elements in regards to this bill is it also allows the water services entities to set up subsidiary organisations. So we sort of talked about the concept of privatisation and all that stuff. Well, now these entities can go off and create subsidiary organisations underneath them, so I’m not sure why that’s necessary or why that’s required, but again, the select committee are going to need to get into this very thoroughly.

Madam Speaker, I’d love another 10 minutes, but I know you’re not going to give it to me—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): No, I’m not.

SIMON WATTS: But in context, I really am looking forward to a thorough assessment by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. This bill is a dog. It is an absolute dog. It is absolutely “Three Waters: Part Two”. This is a trilogy that has got a sad ending. But for those at home, the ending is coming soon, so I do not commend this bill to the House.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): This bill is a technical one. It’s nuts and bolts, basically to sort the pipes, and that is about getting clean, safe drinking water, stormwater, waste water for all New Zealanders. It’s a technical bill. It basically allows fairness of pricing. It allows the transfer of assets and liabilities to happen in a timely way by 1 July 2024.

Without reforms, all New Zealanders will face significant hikes. Now, we didn’t say that they wouldn’t face hikes, but the hikes will be significant—including in Auckland, the projected hikes without the reforms would be doubled over the next 10 years to 2031.

In Kaka Point, in my own electorate, they were recently—in fact, they may still be—on boiled water notices because of broken pipes. This is the nuts-and-bolts bill that gets us through the next phase of three waters. I proudly commend it to the House.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was waiting for the explanation of this—how many pages is this bill? I’m just waiting—217-page bill. I thought that the Labour member might have just spent a little bit of time going through it—

Joseph Mooney: Sixty seconds. Gone in 60 seconds.

ANDREW BAYLY: —but gee, 60 seconds was it? Sixty-seven seconds. And nuts and bolts: why don’t you just miss out the bolts bit and start off with nuts, because that’s what this bill is. As my good colleague Simon Watts highlighted, yes, this is stage 2, but wait for it. Do not disappear, because after this one we’ve got stage 3 coming up, which, hopefully—oh, I don’t know whether we’re going to get to that tonight. But if you’re listening at home, tune in at about 9 o’clock tomorrow morning, because we’ll be into the third instalment of this beautiful cascade of water bills!

Now, I just don’t think my colleagues are taking this seriously enough, because what I see in this bill is quite serious, actually. But I do find it amazing, as my good colleague mentioned, this bill has added 275—I’ll just repeat that, 275—new clauses that were introduced immediately following the passage of the last bill. And here we are; we’re back in the debating chamber—and I’ve just worked it out; I got my phone out—131 hours after we debated the last bill to go through this and look at how we address the first bill. That is outrageous.

Nicola Grigg: Shoddy.

ANDREW BAYLY: That is shoddy workmanship, not only by the Minister but I think also by many of the officials, I’ve got to say.

This is the type of detail that in the select committee—and I look across the House at members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee—we have been seeking this advice so we had a context for the first bill. And without it, it was pretty hard to understand how it was all going to work. But this bill—131 hours later, here we are in the House, we’re going to have a chat. And I do find all the issues around compliance absolutely staggering. I was just checking, and there are five or six pages all about compliance. So as my good colleague highlighted, if you dig a hole—and I think the Government is digging a really big hole—that’s $100,000, if you happen to put it in the wrong spot near a stormwater asset; $20,000 for breaking a sprinkler water ban. But the other things are—there’s just pages of them; honestly, there are pages of them. I’ve been looking at them.

Compliance starts at clause 380. And if you just roll over to clause 397(1) “A person commits an offence if the person negligently engages in conduct relating to a wastewater network that causes a specified serious risk.” Well, I’m not quite sure—I don’t think specified serious risk is defined. But if you do, I don’t know who determines that, but you are also up for a fine of $100,000; and for a body corporate, $600,000. Discharging trade waste, up to $500,000 and $3 million. And I heard the Minister talking about I think it was 275 trade waste claims or allegations. And I’ve just got a note that there was 535,000 small businesses in New Zealand, about 350,000 operating. So as a percentage, it’s a pretty low percentage, but gee don’t get caught out. And Mr McKelvie, on your farm, for God’s sake, don’t do something wrong, because you’ll be up for, as an individual, well, it’s hard to determine, but it might be personally—

Ian McKelvie: I’m very worried that a cow might break a trough.

ANDREW BAYLY: Yes, a cow does break a trough. But, look, this bill has some significant issues around compliance.

The other thing is the ownership that this bill clearly sets out. One of the big things is around the so-called perception that the councils still own these water assets even though the assets and liabilities have been transferred to a new Crown entity of some sort. I’ve got to say to you this is a legal point, and for some reason it’s never really been debated properly. But it is clear that the councils, first of all, will have no right to appoint the directors. They can only do it through a regional representative group, and that group is the one charged with ultimately appointing the board. So there’s no direct right to appoint a director, and that’s normally the first thing—the first thing—in terms of determining ownership.

The second one is that there is no right for councils to exercise a direct vote. So that’s the second point about ownership. The third thing is there is no right for a council to receive a dividend, and that is the third element of ownership. The fourth issue is there’s no right of the council, or the owners—so-called owners—to provide financing to the water companies. They’re precluded under the legislation. That is the fourth element of ownership. And the fifth one: there’s no right to set the direction of the business. Normally, owners set the direction of the business.

So, on five counts, the councils will have no direct ability to influence it, appoint the directors, vote, provide funding, or, in fact, receive a dividend. My view all along is that whilst the Minister and the Labour Government have claimed that the councils will continue to own the shares of these assets, in legal terms that cannot be the case, because the councils simply do not have the specific rights of ownership that are understood well in law. I think this is one of the big misnomers about this whole thing, that there’s going to be continued ownership by councils.

But the final point I’m going to raise is around the question of rates and the so-called minimisation of costs, and, of course, against the backdrop of the $180 billion that was assessed by the Scottish adviser that was required. Of course, there is a huge amount of dispute about it, including from reputable economic commentators or analysts like Castalia, who are well known for standing up in the courts of the High Court and Supreme Court and debating economic issues, which was written off within a matter of minutes by both the Government and the advisers as being discreditable advice.

The issue about this is if you are taking the assets away from the councils, which is clearly going to happen, the funding for that will disappear out of councils but it will end up in the new entities, but already we’ve seen some of the increased cost coming through with the new head office announced in Auckland, the ripple effect of that going through, the cost of delivery of water to New Zealand consumers. Mums and dads living in places like Eketāhuna, Kaitāia, and Pukekohe will all be in a situation where, over time, their cost of water delivery will go up, their cost for waste-water delivery and services will go up, and, ultimately, we will see some substantial decrease in what it means for the rights of consumers to be able to influence how these water entities operate, because, simply, they will be unaccountable. They’ll be four head offices, and they will not be accountable to the general public of New Zealand.

That is why these reforms are so flawed and the reason why National stands and opposes these reforms, as we will be doing shortly with the third element of this triumvirate number of bills that we’re debating on this issue. This is a bad piece of legislation.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s wonderful to speak on the Water Services Legislation Bill the second, and then we’ll get to the third—I’m not sure which one Andrew Bayly was speaking to—water services legislation bill.

It’s very clear: on 12 December, the New Zealand Herald printed, headlined, “Auckland’s beaches impacted by high levels of faecal bacteria after rainfall”. That follows a number of media articles: “More than 50 Auckland beaches declared no-swim zones”; “Faecal warning at Auckland’s beaches following downpour”; December 2020, “Six Auckland beaches have swimming alerts at the start of summer”. The list goes on.

We’ve got through the first phase, the Water Services Bill. Here we are; we’re moving through to implementation. We have to ask ourselves, what are we really up for—we’ve said time and time again, we all agree that reform is required. Yet, the response from the other side continues to be “we will repeal three waters.”

But the reality is, you haven’t put an alternative. I continue to challenge the Opposition to tell us what you will do, because Aucklanders—

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): Don’t bring the Speaker into the debate, Mr Halbert.

SHANAN HALBERT: Apologies, Madam Speaker—because Aucklanders demand that we have clean beaches. We need to take action, and this particular bills moves us through an implementation. I look forward to the Finance and Expenditure Committee receiving it, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I’m pleased to take a call on the Water Services Legislation Bill. So we know that four water services entities are going to take over responsibility for service delivery and infrastructure for three waters from local authorities on 1 July 2024. Those four entities will provide three waters services to 85 percent of the population: around 4.3 million New Zealanders. The remainder of the population have got their own supplies or are on small community or private schemes. The Parliament passed the Water Services Entities Bill last Thursday that established the governance, accountability, and reporting arrangements for the entities, and included some of the transitional arrangements and the Department of Internal Affairs oversight powers.

So this bill is the third in a package of four bills. The first one, the Taumata Arowai bill, establishing Taumata Arowai as a regulatory agency, we supported. The Greens opposed the Water Services Entities Bill at its third reading last week, and that was largely because of the failure to secure the protections against privatisation of the new corporate entities because we favoured a council-controlled organisation model such as Watercare, where it was very clear—point of order, Mr Speaker. The members in front of me are talking quite loudly. Would it be possible for them to be quiet?

Simon Court: Speaking to the point of order, we accept that heckling is allowed, but as long as—I understand—it’s witty and infrequent. If the Speaker could just clarify.

SPEAKER: I certainly will, thank you very much. The reality is that members on the cross benches—and there are Speakers’ rulings; I haven’t got them in front of me right now—need to be mindful, need to adjust the volume so that the member can be heard. Every member has the right to be heard in the debate. And so the Hon Eugenie Sage has felt the need to express that, and so I just want to let members know on the cross benches they should be not so loud as to interfere with the giving of the speech.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. So because we favoured the council-controlled entity model; because we favour seven not four entities, because we think seven entities would better reflect regional boundaries, catchment boundaries; because we wanted stormwater to stay with councils, we won’t be supporting this bill because it provides the mechanics of how the entities will actually operate. It provides the details of how the assets and liabilities which local authorities currently hold will be transferred to the entities. It provides a lot of detail on the functions and powers of the entities that they will have in place of our local authorities, and the regulatory functions and powers so that the entities can make the rules to provide for three waters and also engage in compliance and enforcement.

It would have been very helpful if the Minister had talked about subsidiaries, which the bill enables, because it was very clear that the entities are not-for-profit Crown agencies—they don’t pay a dividend, as the previous speaker noted. But this bill provides for the establishment of subsidiaries which are able to pay dividends and there’s quite a lot of detail in Schedule 5 about that but it’s unclear as to whether these subsidiaries are to enable public-private partnerships or exactly what they are for. So the Greens have got some concerns about that.

In terms of the regulatory powers and functions that the bill provides for, it means that the entities can establish controlled drinking-water catchment areas such as Watercare operates in the Hunua Ranges and the Waitakere Ranges. We think this provision should have more power because the entities cannot make any rules about what happens in that land area unless they have the permission of the landowner. And if it’s good enough under the replacement for the Resource Management Act to be able to have designations for renewable drinking water, the Greens think we need to be able to give much more attention to protecting our water sources, which is what controlled drinking water catchments should be all about, and controlling the activities that occur in those catchments. And while the Government is saying that the entities will mean that in a generation or so we will get swimmable rivers, I would like to point out that, yes, some of our rivers are polluted because of waste-water discharges, but it is generally the land uses in catchments—particularly, intensive agriculture—that has led to the pollution of rivers, not always three waters.

The bill also includes pricing and charging arrangements for water services, and it signals a move away from these being paid by rates to an approach which involves direct billing of homeowners. Currently, households pay an average of about $1,300 annually for three waters, and it is $1,400 annually in Auckland. It’s much lower in smaller councils where those councils haven’t been investing adequately and aren’t covering depreciation.

The Department of Internal Affairs says that this regime will be more affordable, and I think the jury is obviously out on that. The charges will be paid by property owners, regardless of whether they are in residence or not, and they’ll be passed on by landlords to renters. I understand that Internal Affairs considered direct charges on tenants and residents, but decided that that regime would be too complex.

But here the Greens have some concerns, because access to drinking water is a basic human right. We want to see more clarity around what basic allocations of water will be provided to households. What are the guard rails around the entity’s ability to restrict water supply as a compliance measure, and what are the guard rails around the penalties on unpaid water charges? We want much more certainty around what a minimum sufficient water supply is.

While the bill doesn’t provide for a free base allocation of water, it does set some pricing principles. But we note that entities such as—well, Watercare has got very clear policy in this area about when restrictions on supply can be imposed, and a clear policy that if it’s in doubt about the situation of a household and whether it’s got people who are elderly or with medical or health concerns, it does not restrict supply.

So there are certainly some mechanisms in the bill to protect vulnerable citizens with this concept of geographic average pricing to smooth out and share costs across communities, but there are also provisions for volumetric pricing. That’s certainly a mechanism for encouraging water conservation, and in places like Christchurch, where the city council has installed water meters but doesn’t use them, it is now concerned about the inadequate attention to water conservation. But volumetric pricing can also potentially penalise large households, which may use a certain volume per person which would be smaller than a small household, but they end up paying more.

So there is a power for the Minister to set regulations to limit the proportion of the entity’s charges which are volumetric. We’d like to see a bit more detail around that. We’re pleased that there’s an ability to include water charges as part of a claim for a rates rebate, but we do want to see a few more of these guard rails to protect vulnerable communities.

One of the other reasons we are opposing the bill is the provision around rural water supplies, which the Minister outlined. That means that rural water supplies, which are currently operated by local authorities for the provision of drinking water and also to provide water for irrigation for agriculture and horticulture—they go across to the entities. But then if the entities get approached by an alternative supplier, they can make that decision after a referendum that the water supply be transferred across, because—

Simon Court: Nonsense.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Well, the ACT member is saying, “Nonsense.” The ACT member should actually read the bill. So this provision to allow for transfer, we see as the privatisation of valuable water, which agribusiness will benefit from, because we have got these mixed-use rural supplies in areas like Canterbury, where the council has subsidised the taking of water from rivers like the Hakatere / Ashburton to provide for drinking water but also for stock water and irrigation. If those schemes are privatised, it means that the rivers continue to suffer and the farmers get the benefit of all that investment and subsidies from the past communities. The ACT members are objecting to this, but that is just typical.

So that privatisation of these rural water supply schemes is another reason that we are opposing the bill going to select committee. Nevertheless, we—unlike some members of the Opposition—will be working hard to improve the bill. We will be reading submissions closely and will take a constructive approach.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. ACT agrees there is a need for reform in the way three waters infrastructure is funded, delivered, and maintained. I read with disappointment about the waste-water overflows in Auckland and that beaches are closed for swimming. Where I launch my kayak in Henderson Creek, Te Wai o Pereira, there’s a very large waste-water network pipe that brings sewage and waste water from all the suburbs of the north-west in Auckland past the boat ramp where our waka ama club, where our multi-sport club, and where our rowing club launch.

Now, I’ve met with Auckland Council’s own Watercare and they told me that the fix will cost a billion dollars and take about 10 years. Now, that’s the same as the cost to fix the central interceptor in Auckland which is going to have the result of cleaning up all the beaches in central Auckland so people can swim. Now, Watercare said to me it’s not the money that’s missing. It’s not that the money isn’t there to invest; it’s the system that central government has given local government to work in that’s broken.

This problem’s developed over generations and the fault lies firmly with central government and the architecture they’ve given local government. And despite the best efforts of councils to provide three waters infrastructure, to save and fund its depreciation like Ōpōtiki District Council, which has a fund of $10 million, they told the select committee recently—saved up to build three waters infrastructure—it’s actually central government that’s provided this flawed architecture.

They collect most of the tax in New Zealand and local government is dependent on handouts—the system can be changed and ACT has a plan to change it. But it seems almost unbelievable that Parliament is here again, at almost 10 o’clock at night, debating—and tomorrow under extended sitting conditions—more of this terrible three waters legislation. Labour keeps forcing this legislation through, but the ACT Party says don’t bother; stop now, save your effort, because there’s going to be a change of Government next year and ACT’s going to repeal it.

Matt Doocey: That’s right—listen to Jamie Strange.

SIMON COURT: Now, this Water Services Legislation Bill—that’s right, Mr Doocey.

Matt Doocey: Jamie knows.

SIMON COURT: Jamie knows. The Water Services Legislation Bill gives these new entities the powers to take local control away—[Interruption]—Anna Lorck—from Hawke’s Bay councils, for example, and centralise it. Now, ACT’s going to vote against this bill. We’ve proposed an alternative water infrastructure plan which I’m happy to share with the House, with listeners on 882AM, and with those at home watching Parliament TV. Here’s ACT’s water infrastructure plan. Firstly, ACT supported standing up the water quality regulator Taumata Arowai. We need a water quality regulator, but we’ve got one. Taumata Arowai starts their work very soon to regulate water quality.

Labour’s wasted millions on taxpayer funded propaganda ad campaigns to try to convince people this legislation’s necessary. They’ve tried to bribe councils with “no worse off, better off” funding to try to get them on board, but $2.5 million in debt’s going to be dumped into these new water entities on day one; it’s completely unnecessary. But when none of this worked, Labour’s pushing ahead anyway.

Now, this current system’s not up to scratch but these reforms are not going to cut it. Taking control of council’s assets away from communities is wrong. Moving assets from one Government department to another is wrong—[Interruption]—Anna Lorck. Rural water users and communities will be captured by these new water corporations who will have an ability to manage their entire catchment and to tell water users how much water they get and who gets it. New Zealanders think this responsibility should, in fact, lie with democratically elected local councils which represent the needs of their communities, not appointed entities benefiting from the work that Nanaia Mahuta and her cohort have done to take the assets off councils and allocate them to unelected co-governed bodies.

Damien Smith: Undemocratic.

SIMON COURT: Undemocratic. And the worse aspect of this reform is divisive co-government. It’s totally inappropriate to give iwi Māori organisations a seat at the table just because of who their ancestors were. All New Zealanders want safe and clean drinking water. The requirement to give effect to these vague Te Mana o te Wai statements will simply wrap these water entities up in red tape, and is a recipe for endless litigation and political mischief.

Because there’s no show without Punch, this bill adds to the usual Te Tiriti boilerplate and vague Te Mana o te Wai stuff by requiring the chief executives of these water entities to report on how the entity is giving effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and Te Mana o te Wai.

Now, goodness me, I’m a civil engineer. When I became a civil engineer, no one said, “If you ever get to be the chief executive of a water corporation, your job will be to give effect to the principles of the Treaty.” I thought it’d be to build pipes and to deliver services to communities so we can build affordable homes. Who knew?

So Labour and their dwindling group of cheerleaders ask, “What would ACT do?” What would ACT do, Anna Lorck? What a good question, Anna. Our purpose is, “Better public policy which benefits New Zealanders.” Better public policy. Policy that protects property rights, promotes the benefits that more private sector brings to the delivery of basic services like water. That’s a purpose that more and more New Zealanders are getting behind.

Here’s a practical example of what that would mean for the delivery of water services: infrastructure and service land for housing. ACT’s water infrastructure plan would provide for councils to enter voluntary shared services arrangements. Actually, Hawke’s Bay councils came to select committee and told those on the Finance and Expenditure Committee that they were already doing that and they didn’t need this legislation. So I’m surprised that the member for Tukituki, Anna Lorck, didn’t let her friends in the Labour Party know that problem’s resolved. It gives the benefits of scale while retaining local control.

We would establish long-term central government and local government partnerships—partnership agreements which would plan water infrastructure upgrades tailored to specific regions and local needs. We would establish public-private partnerships.

Helen White: Privatisation coming through, thick and strong.

SIMON COURT: That’s right. To attract investment from financial entities such as KiwiSaver funds, ACC, iwi, investment funds—your KiwiSaver even, Helen White.

Expand the exemption, we would, for domestic suppliers from single dwellings to include all those small water schemes servicing rural communities of up to 30 users—mostly rural users. And ACT would let councils keep half the GST on new builds because that’s an incentive to sign off more consents, get more homes built, and actually provides a cash flow of around $2 billion per annum based on the current rate of house construction which councils can use to finance debt and to fund new and upgrade existing infrastructure.

We can improve the current system, but we don’t need to do it through State-mandated centralisation and allowing some people to have more influence than others based on their ethnicity.

Labour doesn’t care about the awful sense of division that their obsession with co-governance and the Treaty of Waitangi is having on New Zealand. They don’t care about the awful sense of division, discord, and disconnection that’s caused in our communities. It’s wrong. The ACT Party says it’s wrong to do this to New Zealand. It’s wrong to pretend to use our drinking water and our beach water quality to push this co-governance agenda through on New Zealanders.

ACT believes it’s time to get this country out of the ditch this Labour Government’s driven us into. We believe, now more than ever, it falls to the ACT Party to do something; to restore that sense of inclusion that I felt as a Kiwi growing up in New Zealand. ACT will respect the communities who’ve spoken out against three waters reform, and we will repeal it if we have the privilege—if New Zealanders give us the privilege—of being part of the future Government. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Members, the House is suspended, and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting. Pō mārie.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10.01 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2022

(continued on Wednesday, 14 December 2022)

Bills

Water Services Legislation Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House is resumed. Members, when the House rose for the evening, we were considering the first reading of the Water Services Legislation Bill. I call—

HELEN WHITE (Labour): Helen White.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): No, no; you just say—you just seek the call.

HELEN WHITE: Oh, thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Helen White.

HELEN WHITE: I thought you had forgotten my name. Ha, ha! Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m going to take a very short call on this matter, because this is a second bill in a series of bills, and what it is doing is really putting the infrastructure behind an infrastructure plan.

There is a $31 billion deficit in infrastructure every year, according to the Infrastructure Commission. There has been legislation brought in to really make sure that our water pipes and the infrastructure that supply water to all our communities is actually up to scratch. It hasn’t been up to scratch for a very long time and we’ve had some tragedy as a result of that, and we never want to see that repeated.

We also have a situation in Auckland where we can’t swim at a lot of our most beautiful beaches, and that’s because it rained in the weekend, and so we just couldn’t swim in those beaches any more. That’s utterly unacceptable in a city as beautiful as Auckland.

So this piece of legislation just focuses on what my friends called “the nuts and bolts” last night. It’s all the things that really just make things tick. It’s about things like compliance. It’s about infringement. It’s about being able to go on site and actually check the water meters. It’s about pricing and charging structures. It’s about asset management plans, infrastructure plans, and pricing plans. That’s a very necessary part of what we need to do in this to make it work and function. Our committee will be looking at the detail and making sure that it’s fit for purpose. I commend this bill to the House.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in absolute opposition to this Water Services Legislation Bill, and I was struck by a thought this morning as the whole Chamber gathered to listen to President Zelenskyy’s address. I thought, here is an example of a leader that is relentlessly focused on the issues that really matter to his people, in stark contrast to a Government we have here focused on ideological, nonsensical, irrelevant projects that will do nothing to enable the lives of the people of New Zealand.

This just feels like a terrible, terrible recurring dream. Just last week, the House passed the Water Services Act—it’s now in law; it’s an Act—and three hours later they drop a 200-page effective amendment bill to it. They’ve been beavering away in their back offices. They didn’t have the guts to bring this to Parliament in the first place, in the first piece of legislation. There are 275 amendments, in this bill, to the original Act that has already been passed. It is a gutless attempt to hide something from the New Zealand public on this, the last day that Parliament is sitting for the year. So they hope to sweep it under the carpet and hope that nobody will notice it’s occurring. I see the press gallery is empty. No one’s here to even report on this stuff, so it’s up to us on this side of the House to actually educate the people of New Zealand as to what this Government is trying to sneak through while everyone goes away on their summer holidays.

This bill more than doubles the length of the Water Services Act. It takes it from six parts to 12. It is an absolute insult to those 88,000 New Zealanders that made submissions on the first bill. They have been roundly ignored. Every party in this House, except Labour, objected to that earlier bill. They know it is wrong, and they are once again objecting to this bill and we stand strongly in condemnation to it as well. This bill makes for some shocking reading. It’s an underhanded attempt from Labour to make changes to its own legislation, and the big thing it didn’t want to talk about in the first bill is what is contained in here—it is the pricing of water.

It is so cynical from Labour to be bringing this up on the last day of Parliament. But it’s not just the pricing; you go through this stuff and see just the layers and layers and layers of bureaucracy and complexity and plans and compliance, and it is entirely convoluted. I just had a look at the regulatory functions in the section on regulatory functions. There’s a list of plans and bureaucracy. We’ve got drinking-water management plans, stormwater management plans, stormwater network rules, service agreements with bill payers, network connections, requirements of network protection rules, notification requirements, and so on and so on and so on.

But the best part, I think, is the enforceable restrictions on drinking water for the use of water conservation. That means “fines”. The enforceable restriction on drinking water—the New Zealand public can read that as “fines”. It is a revenue-gathering vehicle for this Government that was too gutless to bring it out in the first piece of legislation. It goes on to say it is now going to foist upon councils the responsibility of taking on the on-charges of the on-payments because they couldn’t get themselves sorted to do it themselves. Let’s be very clear: Labour has deliberately avoided talking about these technicalities.

I think, however, though, in the short time I’ve got left, the most gobsmacking section in this is the punitive language around compliance and enforcement. This bill creates a director of compliance and enforcement for each of the entities, it decrees that each board will create a compliance and enforcement strategy, it’s going to have compliance officers with what I read as stronger powers than the New Zealand Police. In their comprehensive offence and infringement regime, it’s going to issue them with issues for directions of compliance orders, remedial action, and ways to recover costs. Can you imagine if the New Zealand Police were given these sorts of compliance tools?

This bill is a complete mockery to the 88,000 New Zealanders who made a submission on the first bill. It’s already been set in law. The National Party has said we will repeal it in Government, just like we will the first piece of abominable legislation.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a serious piece of legislation that we are going to be going through, and I speak to it because what is gobsmacking is that the National Party has not even bothered to look at what’s coming through in this bill. If they took the time to actually look at it, there’s a very, very important piece coming through in here about subsidiaries, and that is something that I think the councils, as shareholders in this public entity—the four entities—will be very interested in. It’s this type of information, important information, in here that we need to get to select committee, and that’s why I’m looking forward to seeing this through to the select committee. Thank you.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As we’ve heard in this House, this bill follows the Water Services Entities Bill that we passed last week. It was well signalled that there was going to be a succession of bills, and we’re going to be talking about another one shortly.

That last bill set up the four entities, and this bill really colours in what it is that those entities can and can’t do. Of course, a lot of the powers and responsibilities referenced in other speeches already exist in some form or other in local government legislation, so I think that is going to be really useful for the select committee to get good advice on how the powers in the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government Act 1974 and rating powers all interact with this piece of legislation. It’s going to be a good job for the select committee to do. I’m hope I’m able to be a part of it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m looking forward to taking my 10 minutes this morning, I’m just trying to work out where I might start—there’s a plethora of issues to prosecute.

Look, you know, it’s always good to start in a speech, maybe, with some wise words or learned words from wise people. I’ll start with a gentleman, one Jamie Strange, the Labour Hamilton East MP, who announced his retirement, and who said yesterday, “I feel I am better suited for Government than Opposition.”—“I feel I am better suited for Government than Opposition.” Of course, Mr Strange announced his retirement because he didn’t want to go into Opposition. And, see, the Government backbenchers sit there and they wonder why their colleagues are leaving, ahead of going into Opposition, when they stand up and offer 90 seconds to a bill that no one wants—one of the most unpopular bills that I think I’ve seen come before the House in the eight years I’ve been here. And, then, you’ve got Labour MPs openly saying they’re retiring because they don’t want to be in Opposition next year. And they scratch their heads and say, “Why are the polls tanking?” Well, I’ll tell you what, the polls are tanking because the public does not trust you anymore. You’ll spend more time standing next to sports professionals, getting photos, than you will standing up in this House and defending your own bill. That’s what you’re doing at the moment.

Hon Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I don’t think it’s appropriate that the member says that you cannot be trusted, Madam Speaker; I think you can. Both you and I are retiring at the next election. I wish you well, and I think you’re done a disservice with that comment.

MATT DOOCEY: Speaking to the point of order—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): No, no, no, thank you. I just want to do this right, so I’m just going to take a bit of advice.

Look, thank you for that point of order. And, yes, it is the last day of school and it’s a contentious bill, and it’s getting a bit willing. I’d like the House to reflect, first of all, on not bringing the Speaker into the debate. But also let’s not just skate too close to that line of causing offence in the House. I don’t think we’re there in this instance, but I’d like us to play between the posts.

MATT DOOCEY: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. In my view, I do not believe the public trust this Government when they do things like they’ve done with this bill. People will be looking at this speech and wondering whether it’s live or on demand. And, I must say, my on-demand speech from last week, I thought, was pretty good, so I’m not surprised they’re watching it again. But, in fact, we’re actually live because we are debating another bill that was tabled three hours after they rammed through the Water Services Entities Bill last week. Three hours afterwards, they drop a 200-page bill that amends the legislation we passed this week.

And then they wonder why the public is trusting them less and less, because how is the public to trust this Government when they play games like this—a bill that’s in fact an omnibus bill that’s going to amend 25 Acts. It inserts 275 new clauses. It amends a bill we only passed last week. And I remember speaking in this House with the first sequencing of all these water bills, using the analogy that we were flying a plane while we were building it, and now you can see why that actually was happening—because the Government did not want us to see the design of the plane in advance or its destination. That’s why this has been drip-fed through.

But what I can say to the people listening today is make sure you make a submission on this bill. Some 88,000 people made a submission on the Water Services Entities Bill, and, as we know, only 227 were heard. They only went round the country for five days. My plea to the Government is to make sure you hear a lot more submitters for this bill, because, mark my words, you are going to get tens of thousands of submissions. The reason why: people don’t want this bill, and that’s why you’re going to receive a lot of submissions on it. We get lectured by the Government MPs who get up and say for their 90 seconds, “Well, if the Opposition had taken time to look at this bill”—“taken time to look at this bill”. What part does the Government play in actually not putting the bill through last week? Why did you split the bill up? Still haven’t had one Government MP—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Please don’t bring the Speaker into the debate. This is a very willing debate, and the Speaker does not wish to be included.

MATT DOOCEY: Apologies, Madam Speaker. But we would like to hear from the Government callers today, if they could just squeeze it in to their 90 seconds: why is this bill before us on the last day of Parliament? A submission process over the summer break. Answer that. And what I want to know is: how are we now in a position where we had three waters and now we’ve got five waters, and now it’s five waters and some parks? Look at the headlines in the Christchurch Press this week: “Three Waters entity expected to take control of swathe of Christchurch red zone”. The water entity is going to take ownership of ratepayer-owned land and they, the ratepayers, will now have no control over it. This is going to be interesting isn’t it, because, up and down the country, parks of New Zealanders are going to be taken over by the water entities.

I think this bill starts opening up some serious questions about the detail of this bill. It’s no surprise now why they won’t speak to it and why it was held back from last week, and they slip it in this week as well.

Look at the stuff that’s coming through around water charging—that is going to be interesting. I’m looking forward to the select committee process to interrogate—in fact, what are the intentions of the Government around water charging? Because they’re quick to say, “Well, maybe no further increase to rates.” But how is that going to be charged? And look at the compliance and enforcement: obtaining information, including entry to places without a warrant. That will be interesting. There’s a raft of detail in here that, in fact, the Government MPs have challenged us, “If they only read the bill.” Well, that’s an interesting comment. So maybe the Government MPs could stand up in their 90 seconds, or even beg the whip that they can do two minutes, and actually explain some of that detail for the Opposition MPs—or maybe for the public listening, it is a debate. Maybe we could hear in detail around the water charges, around the compliance—

Barbara Edmonds: Do your own work.

MATT DOOCEY: “Do your own work.”, I heard. Ha, ha! All right, it’s up to me now to fill in the blanks from the Government, of course. It’s not for them to go out and sell their own bill. Of course not! Because they’re a one-party State. They don’t need anyone else. They don’t need a mandate from the public. No. It’s up to everyone else to fill in the blanks, because, of course, they’re right. They don’t need to defend themselves because they’re right.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: You know it.

MATT DOOCEY: Here we go. And this is it, isn’t it? This is the arrogance we’re hearing more and more from this Government. So it’ll be very interesting to hear the details around that from the Government MPs. Because I’ll tell you what, there’s a lot of people really concerned with what’s happening with this bill at the moment. And as we know, there’s another a bill ahead of us, after this one is passed as well, which will even implement more detail and more reach under three waters. So I would encourage the Government MPs in their call today to actually explain to New Zealanders some of the things that you will be passing today. Because you’ve put down a challenge to me about reading the bill, I’ll put a challenge down to you: have you read the bill?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): To me? OK, this is the third time I have got to my feet to ask the speaker not to bring the Speaker into the debate. The member has 45 seconds left, and wouldn’t it be a good thing if the member didn’t bring the Speaker into the debate during that short time.

MATT DOOCEY: Apologies, Madam Speaker. So in closing, this is a good example of an arrogant Government who chose not to put this bill through last week. They didn’t want to reveal the detail on purpose, and then they wonder why the public, in my view, is trusting this Government less and less. And that’s reflected in the polls at the moment as they crawl to the end of the parliamentary year, becoming more and more unpopular as their colleagues leave because they don’t want to be in Opposition.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Speaker. “Ideological, not significant, trivial, not important”—all wrapped up in disinformation. If the member even bothered to open up page 2 of this bill; it’s only page 2, you only need to read the first and the second page—sorry, that member needs to read the first and the second page, he would see: “Water services are an essential building block for communities. Public health and well-being, better environmental outcomes, economic growth and job creation, housing and urban development, climate change, resilience to natural hazards, and the rights and interests of iwi and Māori all depend on better outcomes for those services.” That is why this bill is important.

Those members on the other side of the House who believe it’s “ideological, not significant, trivial, and not important”: take the time over the summer to do some homework. Read the bill, read the regulatory impact statement, come to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and debate and make this bill workable. In the absence of an actual constructive Opposition, it will be left again to this Government to make those hard decisions to make this bill work for the communities that we stand for. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Water Services Legislation Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 64.

Noes 55

New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the Water Services Legislation Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Instruction to Finance and Expenditure Committee

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I move, That the Water Services Legislation Bill be reported to the House by 25 May 2023.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I present a legislative statement on the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill.

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

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I move, That the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 25 May 2023.

By protecting the health and wellbeing of our water, we protect the health and wellbeing of our people and our environment. Sixty-seven different councils own and operate most drinking-water, waste-water, and stormwater services across New Zealand. These councils are facing significant challenges in the form of ageing infrastructure, historical under-investment, and source water contamination. A report by the Water Industry Commission for Scotland estimated that New Zealand will need to invest between $120 billion and $185 billion in water infrastructure over the next 30 years to catch up on that historic under-investment.

Without reform, these costs will be shared unevenly between New Zealand households, and cost increases could be up to 13 times higher for rural households and seven times higher for many metropolitan households. For this reason, from July 2024, New Zealand’s three waters services will be provided by four multiregional, publicly owned water services entities. These entities will have the scale, expertise, operational efficiencies, and financial flexibility to invest in safe, high-quality water services.

To ensure that these new entities provide high-quality water services at efficient prices, this bill establishes an economic regulator and a consumer protection regime for the water sector. The bill complements Minister Mahuta’s Water Services Entities Bill. The bill introduces economic regulation and consumer protection to ensure that services are delivered efficiently, effectively, and responsibly. This is the same sort of regulation used in other industries in New Zealand, including for the international airports in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch; electricity lines businesses; and natural gas pipelines businesses.

The Commerce Commission will be the agency responsible for implementing and enforcing economic regulation and consumer protection for the water sector. The commission is a high-performing regulator that does great work in helping markets to function well. It is well equipped to regulate the three waters sector, especially given its experience regulating other utility sectors and ensuring that consumers are fairly treated.

However, to further reflect the unique nature of the water sector and the importance of Te Mana o te Wai, the vital importance of water, the position of Water Services Commissioner will be established on the commission’s board. The Water Services Commissioner will be responsible for leading the roles and functions of the commission.

The new entities will be subject to economic regulation from 1 July 2027 in the form of information disclosure and quality-only regulation. There is presumption that price-quality regulation will apply to the entities from 1 July 2030 and there is flexibility to adapt regulation for different entities and services or to bring these dates forward. Information disclosure regulation will promote transparency and accountability by shining a light on the entities’ performance and expenditure.

As I’ve mentioned, it’s a similar regulation that the commission uses for airports and it has proven to be an effective way of using reputational incentives to influence the profit, investment, pricing, and service levels of these businesses and to encourage better performance. Members of this House would be familiar, indeed, with those examples.

Quality-only regulation will ensure the entities meet minimum quality standards, especially relating to resilience and reliability, and will complement the oversight provided by Taumata Arowai, the water services regulator.

Price-quality regulation will further influence the behaviour of the entities by limiting what they can charge consumers. The entities will be constrained either by the maximum average prices they can charge, or the total revenue they can recover from consumers. This is the same regulation that the commission uses for electricity businesses and is an effective way of encouraging businesses to be efficient.

If businesses do not comply with regulation, the commission can take a range of enforcement steps, including pecuniary penalty orders, compensatory orders, and injunctions.

Economic efficiency is a key piece to these reforms but is not the only factor at play. There is a clear power imbalance between consumers and monopoly businesses in the utility sector, and consumers often struggle to have their voices heard and, indeed, to engage with the technical issues involved. Therefore, the bill introduces consumer protection measures that aim to ensure consumers’ needs are met and that entities provide the high-quality services we would expect them to provide. These protections will focus on the quality of water services and be distinct from Taumata Arowai’s role in regulating the quality of drinking water itself.

The bill introduces a service quality code and sets minimum requirements that entities must meet. This complements the standard customer agreements provided for in Minister Mahuta’s Water Services Entities Bill, and covers standards relating to outages and faults, minimum flow, pressure rates, billing practices, consumer rights, and customer services.

The bill also establishes a comprehensive, independent consumer disputes resolution scheme so consumers can easily escalate complaints that they cannot resolve with the entities themselves.

So, in conclusion, New Zealanders expect and deserve safe drinking water, sewage infrastructure, and stormwater systems. The economic-regulation and consumer protection regime established by this bill will help achieve this and will help safeguard and enhance critical water infrastructure and services for generations to come. I commend this bill to the House.

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

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking on the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill first reading, and this is the trilogy of this disaster that we are all just watching unfold before us. We’ve heard the speeches just before on the previous bill—that 275 changes were made and incorporated in the last bill, a mere 131 hours after the first bill was passed last week. So I now calculate that it’s 143 hours since we passed the first bill, and we’re on to the third bit; here we go.

This is all about economic regulation—hey, but don’t worry, we’ve got a new Minister this time! It’s not the Hon Nanaia Mahuta; it’s the Hon Dr David Clark, so I think we’re going to be saved.

So I suppose it’s important, first of all, to maybe have a quick canter through what this bill does. It’s an interesting part, but the first major aspect of it is it requires a Water Services Commission to be established under the auspices of the Commerce Commission, and, of course, that gives rise to why that particular structure—because in overseas jurisdictions, normally, it is outside of the commerce or monopoly’s entity; it’s normally a stand-alone. But it’s probably not an issue—it would be an issue we’ll be interested in at the select committee, but it is an interesting choice.

The second thing is: what this bill does is that it requires extensive information disclosure requirements on the new entities, and, of course, there’s not going to be four entities if Mr Simon Watts is going to have his way, because we want to make sure that all the water companies—in what form they may be, hopefully at the end of next year—meet information disclosure requirements. These include financial statements, asset values, pricing, contracts, asset management plans—commonly referred to as AMPs—and quality performance measures, and so we don’t necessarily have an issue with that.

The second thing is that we’ll require service quality statements, and that is something that, again, we don’t have a problem with: service quality code, which will need to be in place by 1 July 2027. Who’s going to do that? Not the water entities, which is an interesting one, but, of course, the commerce commissioner, the Water Services Commissioner—which, again, seems a slightly odd way of going about it. Normally, it would be interactive, but, in this case, it’s going to be that the commission does it: talking about outages and faults, minimum flow pressures, billing practices, blah-blah-blah. Again, that’s nothing out of the ordinary, and one would expect that.

Then there’s the issue of price-quality regulation that may involve setting maximum prices and providing transparency across the capital valuation of the assets and cost allocations. This is an issue I’m going to return to shortly, but the interesting thing—it allows the commissioner to set price paths, so now we’re talking about a very heavy-duty set of regulations under this regime. Four entities under our proposal will be more than that, with local ownership.

The fifth thing is that the ability of the code-of-conduct reviews to confirm if the entities are complying with regulations—as Matt Doocey talked about before, the compliance officers have a great deal of power under the previous bill, and, I presume, under this bill, there will be a great deal of powers for the commissioner to request information, but certainly, as it’s noted, as a minimum, funding and pricing plans are subject to review.

The next element is a mandatory dispute resolution scheme, and, again, we would expect that and don’t have a problem with that. Then there’s the issue of imposition of levies on the water companies to fund the commissioner—hopefully that’s going to be reasonable. And then the final one is the commissioner has wider general powers to issue warnings, reports, and guidelines, and undertake monitoring, compliance, and take appropriate actions in respect of persons. Whew! Let’s go. So some of this, we don’t necessarily have a problem with—particularly around requiring businesses to disclose certain information and the businesses to be subject to consumer protection measures, which the code will have to be in place by 1 July 2027, and setting up the formal independent consumer disputes resolution service. Those are all good things, but the interesting thing is, in terms of the cut-and-paste around the price regulations that involve setting maximum prices, providing transparency of cost of capital, valuation of assets, and cost allocations, and allows the commissioner to set price paths.

So I think it raises two issues: what are we trying to require of, or what’s the purpose of the economic regulation we need? And if you look at jurisdictions around the world, where you have private entities or publicly-listed companies operating in a particular sector, the level of economic regulation in those particular areas is often of a much higher and exacting nature, and, in those cases, gives the commissioner—or whoever it might be: an officer, or regulator-general, or the Ofwat as they’re normally called overseas—the ability to impose and undertake a lot of economic analysis.

However, if you accept the Government’s argument that these water companies are acting for the best interest of their consumers—and I look at the original Water Services Entities Bill, clause 10, which then says, under clause 11(e), to “act in the best interest of present and future consumers and communities”. The issue is: are these entities in the game of deriving a profit? And I think one of the issues with this form of regulation is that I don’t think for a moment that the Minister ever intended that these entities are there to derive a profit. And what I think we’ve ended up with is that we’ve got a form of regulation—and I noted the Minister’s reference to the existing economic regime in Part 4 of the Commerce Act, and it specifically talks about the Telecommunication Act, the electricity lines services, gas pipeline services, specified airport services, and fibre fixed line access services. All of those involve private sector entities, and that’s why you have a higher level of economic regulation.

I’d suggest to you that—we’ve had officials cut and paste regulation from what would normally require quite heavy regulation, and shoved it into this bill without thinking for a moment that, actually, the nature of these entities is quite different, if we are to accept the Government’s proposition that these entities are essentially for the public good, and not there to derive a profit. So the only issue around—the second bit is the Commerce Commission—the Water Services Commissioner may be able to set a price path. And I’d have to ask the Minister—and certainly we’ll be covering it in the select committee—why would the Commerce Commission be required to set a price path? Because I think if we accept, again, the Government’s proposition—and again, the Minister quoted it earlier; it’s a deficit of infrastructure spending of between $120 billion and $185 billion, which is obviously subject to a lot of dispute, particularly by councils—are we expecting the Commerce Commission to say that the entities are not spending enough money, not investing enough and therefore being over-aggressive in their pricing regime, or are we requiring the Water Commissioner to review every asset management plan and funding plan, and use of equity and debt, to come up with an optimised structure and then reflect that into a price path? This seems an extraordinary level of overcomplication in terms of economic monitoring of these four water companies as proposed in this bill, and, as I said earlier, I think what we’ve seen is officials cut and paste provisions from other Acts, put it into here—of course, we haven’t had a Minister of inquiring mind to say “Why in the Dickens have you done that, why have you put this into this bill?”, because it’s inappropriate, and it’s certainly something we’ll be looking forward to canvassing in the select committee. But here we go again, the third of the trilogy—wow.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call as the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, who will be happy to receive the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill. I just want to acknowledge the comments made by the speaker on the opposite side of the House who just sat down, Andrew Bayly. Thank you for your considered speech. A number of the policy issues that you raised in your comments are actually issues which this select committee needs to pay attention to, and that is the purpose of the select committee: to actually make the bill workable, or to make a bill more workable. You know who actually told me that comment? It was David Seymour. It was David Seymour during a select committee process for the Water Services Entities Bill. As we were sitting on a select committee in Auckland on the Water Services Entities Bill, David Seymour actually said to me that the purpose of the select committee is to make a bill more workable, and I absolutely agree with that statement.

As we know, this bill is around bringing in some economic regulations. When you have a market that is rare and is usually for an infrastructure such as gas, airports, and other measures such as fibre, what you do is you bring in some economic regulation, because it is such a unique market. So it’s going to be really great to be able to receive some submissions, hopefully from other markets such as airports and gas and fibre, as to how it works in their industry, in their market, so that we can take those learnings, like the previous speaker who just sat down, and customise this bill for water services.

I just want to pay attention to two parts of this particular bill which I’m hoping we will get submissions on. In Part 2, Subpart 3, “Input methodologies”: input methodologies are rules, requirements, and processes that underpin regulations which will regulate these particular water services. I’m hoping to see that we can get some more information around what are the types of frameworking regulations; what are, sort of, the boundaries we need to set in order to make these regulations work better for this market.

The second part of the bill I will touch on briefly is in Schedule 2, which is the “Consumer dispute resolution service”—again, another type of framework, type of schedule, within this bill. It is something that we need to look at as to whether we need to customise it for water services entities. So the rules which are set out in Schedule 2, clause 3, the “Rules of approved service”—there is a whole list within this bill of areas that we’re hoping we will get submissions on. Does this work? Do the local authorities who do have shares in water service entities—would this work for them if they had to get into a position where they needed to dispute a particular part of the water services infrastructure?

So, as the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, I’m looking forward to having really constructive debates within our committee, and I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise as a member of the National Party and as a member of Parliament for North Shore, on the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill. As my colleague Andrew Bayly outlined in his opening address, this is the bill which looks to introduce the concept of economic regulation and consumer protection in regards to the four co-governed mega-entities that the Government are going to be establishing in order to manage the three waters infrastructure across this country. National will be repealing that bill when we are in Government in the future, and as such we will also be opposing this bill.

I’ll outline, this morning, in regards to some of the context, but I think it is important, firstly, to outline that the National Party do support the concept of sound economic and commercial regulation, including economic and consumer protection in regards to water infrastructure. But the challenge here is that this legislation is applying that regulation to a four-entity co-governed model which we do not believe is the appropriate model in order to achieve the outcomes that we require in order to produce a safe, a reliable, and a sustainable water infrastructure model in this country. And so, on that basis, we will be opposing it.

There are a number of issues within this bill that will be canvassed through the select committee process, but what is clear is that the regulatory impact statement notes, and I quote, “Over time, it may become evident that scope or form of economic regulation is not in the best interests of water consumers.” It is clear that this is a complex area, and if we look at the challenges that the Government are facing at present, the headwinds in which they are sailing into—into 2023—they have a huge agenda, wide-ranging reform that is currently under way, and the Prime Minister has indicated that that scope of the reform agenda and policy positions that the party are undertaking will be narrowed. But the concept of economic and consumer protection regulation, in itself, is a complex burden that will be placed upon the sector, and why that is the case is because this does not currently exist today. And so the reality for us moving into a new model is going to create significant burden on top of all the other aspects of reform.

Don’t forget they are going to, at the same time, transition all the assets and liabilities out of 67 councils around the country into one of these four mega-entities. That in itself, as we’ve seen play out in the conversations over the last 141 hours since the bill was passed on Thursday, articulates the complexity and challenge that the Government is still trying to work through—i.e., what is even in scope in terms of those assets and transfers that will move into these new entities? And this bill is going to, therefore, have the regulation elements around that. The other aspect that we hear, as the Minister outlined in his opening comments in regards to this bill, is in terms of the basis or the case for change for this legislation. And, as I’ve said continually, no major party in this House believes that our water infrastructure in this country does not need to be improved. It does. The question is: how do we achieve that future state, which will be a future state which is sustainable and achieve the outcomes that we require? The difference between the National Party’s position and that of the Labour Government—and only the Labour Government, because it is important to recognise that no other party within this Parliament, other than Labour, are supporting the current reform agenda on the table. And I think that is something, as well, across to New Zealanders watching, that this isn’t a bipartisan reform programme for one of the most fundamental aspects of human life, which is the provision of water to our country. And so that is what it is. But I think that also sends a signal in terms of the fact that this reform agenda is not going to last very long.

The element around the case for change is based upon the Scottish water model, as the Minister said in his opening statements, and the comments in regards to—the Minister quoted $180 billion of capital expenditure required in regards to that reform. I mean, the assessment by the Scottish water authority has been reviewed continuously through the Water Services Entities Bill process, and has, on multiple occasions, been found to be based on inaccurate assumptions. It is not comparable in terms of the New Zealand context, and the concept or the comments in regards to the capital savings that are available in terms of achievable have also been assessed as they’re not available in the New Zealand context. So the case for change is a house built upon sand. It is well known that when the Government stands up and uses these numbers, they are simply unsubstantiated and not evidenced by independent assessment, and that, in effect, just puts the whole case for change, you know, where it should be, which is one that is not substantiated.

The other element that you hear from the Government, and the Minister articulated as well, is the cost implications in regards to costs on consumers. He noted a 13-factor increase of water bills for rural consumers and a seven-factor increase for urban households. This is simply, again, in my view, scaremongering the New Zealand consumer in regards to trying to create a case for change for a reform programme that has been destined to failure right from the start. An independent assessment undertaken in a number of councils across this country in regards to exactly this point, you know: will the alternative models that have been put on the table by councils deliver the implication and the savings—

Hon Stuart Nash: But nothing by National.

SIMON WATTS: —in regards to water charges? And you can hear the Minister on the other side—

Anna Lorck: Where’s your plan?

SIMON WATTS: —adding a little bit of comment and stuff like that, and it’s interesting because in the time that we’ve heard—

Hon Stuart Nash: Where’s your plan?

SIMON WATTS: And you can hear the Minister, you can hear them all saying—we’ve got the member from Tukituki there commenting in the background, but they’re only taking 60-second calls. Isn’t it ironic on the day before this Parliament—

Hon Stuart Nash: We’ve got a plan, and you’ve spoken for eight minutes and provided no solution.

SIMON WATTS: And I can hear the Minister again—Minister Nash is commenting again and he is outlining—but he hasn’t taken a call, because this Government, this Labour Government, on the day before this Parliament breaks, is ramming through another piece of legislation, taking the opportunity to undertake only 60-second calls while they ram through legislation which is strongly opposed by Kiwis across this country. This is a Government that is under pressure. This is a Government that is struggling in order to get any cut-through, and this is another example of legislation which, at a conceptual level, has benefits, but, in terms of detail, is significant overreach. And, as I said, it isn’t going to last beyond next Christmas.

The outline in regards to further implications, in regards to the asset management considerations in regards to this bill—the councils have already submitted through the select committee process that they believe that what they’ve been told by Government and the numbers within the Government plans do not correlate with what the councils on the ground have seen. And we had submissions on the prior bills in regards to the capital expenditure required in order to undertake what is the future capital expenditure required in councils around this country. And the numbers that the Minister articulated, around $180 billion, simply don’t correlate to where the councils believe the capital investment is required in order to improve their systems. And this bill, in terms of the asset management plans that will be incorporated, will, in effect, substantiate what that actual number is.

And it’s interesting that so far through this process the Government still does not know what exact assets will actually transfer to these new entities. Isn’t that remarkable? After four to five years of planning, they still do not know what assets will transfer from local councils into these four mega-entities. And that is testament to a fact that the complexity that this Government came into this was completely underestimated, and also the fact that the bottom lines that the Government had in regards to the structuring of the reform solution for water infrastructure were based on a four-entity co-governed mega-entity model that had no basis—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): When it comes to the water infrastructure reforms, this particular bill is about ensuring that there’s value for money for all New Zealanders so that New Zealanders can get clean, safe, and affordable water. What this bill does is it creates a water services commissioner to ensure that the market is competitive but also fair, that there’s monitoring of services, and that there are consumer protections. The Mayor of Clutha, Bryan Cadogan, advocated very hard to get consumer voice fairly into the mix, and I think that this piece of legislation is a good reflection of that consumer voice that will ensure value for money for New Zealanders.

We’ve got similar types of regulations in the electricity sector, with airports, with natural gas, and currently in my electorate there is still a boil-water notice in place. Although the infrastructure has now been fixed, I am told, a week ago, this week the boil-water notice is still in place as the water flushes through, which means people need to boil water in order to drink, in order to cook, and so on. That’s exactly what we’re trying to fix, and this is the legislation that will ensure that when we do so there will be value for money, that it will be done in a fair and regulated way. I commend it to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I’m pleased to take a call on the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill. The Green Party will be supporting this bill. Obviously, we need an economic regulator and we need some consumer protection mechanisms, because these four new entities—given that Labour has the majority to get the legislation through—will each service between 800,000 and 1.7 million customers. They’ll be big organisations, and big organisations are not always the most efficient. They can have quite cumbersome bureaucracies, they can have additional layers of management, and they can have inflated overheads. And when you’re a big entity and when you’re in a natural monopoly, there won’t be the same incentive to be innovative, to maintain and operate assets cost-effectively, and you won’t have the ability that citizens have at the moment when they have an issue with their three-water services to raise it with their elected representatives, whether that’s a member of a local board or a city councillor.

And, certainly in Ōtautahi Christchurch, the city council has an enormously effective snap, send, solve system where if you see a problem with leaking water pipes, you take a photograph, you email it through, and usually a short time later it gets fixed. So where you’ve got this natural monopoly, no alternative suppliers, the entities would be able to charge unjustifiably high prices or provide a level of service which is below what citizens expect.

And if I can just quote from the regulatory impact statement (RIS), which really summarises the need for the bill, “Without a fit-for-purpose economic regulation and consumer protection regime, the potential consumer outcomes (in terms of factors such as price, service quality, infrastructure resilience and network reliability) could be worse than under the current system. This would undermine the outcomes that the reforms are intended to achieve, particularly given the loss of existing accountability through elected territorial [representatives].”

So if these changes are going to happen, then we really do need this bill because we need to protect citizens when they are operating as water consumers. And there’s an emphasis in the bill in terms of transparency and accountability through using the Commerce Commission, with its experience in regulating other sectors, through having a water commissioner on the board or the commission to actually have a greater focus on water services, and the bill does build on some consultation that was done in 2020.

It’s also important because there is, as the RIS notes, a lack of robust information about the current state of three waters assets, though I think that there’s been more information being provided by councils to the Department of Internal Affairs recently. But just, for citizens, knowing the state of their pipes and knowing the investment that is needed is important—as it is for the equity markets, because the whole premise of the reform is that these entities will be able to borrow quite substantially, and in the absence of economic regulation, the credit rating agencies and the debt markets aren’t going to have clear information about the risk associated with the entities. They will need that information for the entities to be able to obtain finance.

So both elements of this bill—the economic regulation and the consumer protection—are critical. The consumer dispute resolution service is something the Green Party supports, because while you can go to councils at the moment, you won’t be able to under the new regime. And while the Taumata Arowai—when it was established, there was a backstop consumer complaints service there. If people have got concerns about drinking-water quality, the quality of their supply, they can go to Taumata Arowai as the drinking-water regulator, but Taumata Arowai can’t deal with issues like billing and just the continuation of the supply. So that’s why we need this consumer disputes resolution service.

There are a number of issues that the Finance and Expenditure Committee should look at closely. One of the issues, I think, was one that Mr Bayly raised in terms of whether the entities are investing enough, because we’ve had the Office of the Auditor-General, as an Officer of Parliament, warning local authorities over a number of years that they weren’t investing adequately in three waters infrastructure, they weren’t providing adequately for depreciation of that, so whether the economic regulator has a role in that space is an interesting issue for the committee to consider. So I look forward to the bill being improved, as Barbara Edmonds noted, through the select committee process and to submissions.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you. What a mess this Government has got us into on three waters. What a mess has been made by stripping democratic control from our own water system. When the councils were responsible, if they made decisions that people didn’t support, they could simply have been voted out. Instead, the Labour Government has stripped away water and councils. They’ve created a State-established monopoly in these mega-entities.

Soraya Peke-Mason: What’s your plan?

DAMIEN SMITH: I have the plan. ACT cannot be accused of not having a plan—and that’s why we’re the fastest-growing party in the country, because people are hearing what we’re saying—and it is infrastructure-based. We’re allowed to have an alternative opinion, so let me purport it.

Now, they want to create yet another regulatory body to rein them in. They’ve created a monster. Now, they need to keep it under control and leash it up through economic regulation and pricing that I would say that even Mr Clark knows doesn’t make sense, and it’s heading towards another Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act moment. It all sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

There’s a risk that without sufficient independent scrutiny, the entities will act inefficiently, this Government says. The Labour Party’s philosophy is—guess what!—what better way to improve efficiency than another hefty bureaucracy? But I think Kiwis see through this, and I think the time has come for the public to have their say.

Kiwis want the Government to show a bit of sense with their spending and to make sure that money gets to the right places, where it’s needed most. But this Government is determined to spend on middle-managers and top-heavy bureaucracies. The Government has talked at length about the three waters reform keeping prices down. They even said that without the reforms, our rates would rise by $9,000 per year. And then, later, it came out in the wash that these numbers simply didn’t reflect reality. Now, even with the reforms, officials are warning that water bills could increase significantly without regulation.

So do we need yet another regulatory body in the Commerce Commission? How many new regulatory bodies has this Government crammed into the Commerce Commission? We’ve got the Grocery Commissioner, we’ve got the petrol regulator, we’ve got the new Fonterra regulator, and now we’ve got a new water regulator. But wait, there’s more. I feel like I’m getting déjà vu here—hasn’t this Government already set up a water regulator? Taumata Arowai was established as a water regulator last year as part of these reforms. This Government has set up so many regulators and commissioners that I feel like I’m singing The 12 Days of Christmas just listing them: the fuel regulator, the grocery commission, the airports, the lines companies, the gas companies, the Fonterra regulator, the electricity regulator, and two water regulators—two water regulators.

The Commerce Commission has gone from a corrector of market inefficiencies to the strong arm of the Government’s market interference, which I’m sure Mr Clark would appreciate.

Dr James McDowall: It’s all gone wrong.

DAMIEN SMITH: Perhaps this is where it’s gone wrong. Under this Government, it would be more accurate to call it the “Communism Commission”.

But back to the bill at hand. I’m afraid to say that ACT can’t support this bill. ACT rejects the three waters reforms as a whole and is committed to repealing them. The reforms are an exercise in forced centralisation and a Treaty settlement by stealth. These reforms are stripping power away from local communities and putting it in the hands of mega-entities, which are now being sought to be reined in by this bill.

We’ve heard that 31 councils representing 1.2 million people have signed up in opposition to these reforms as proposed. That is incredible and it’s no wonder as to why. Surely it’s a sign of bad relations and bad reforms that before the reforms are even completed, the bodies they’ve set up need to be reined in. If you look at the law and if it’s passed, it will allow the Commerce Commission to regulate the rate of price increases and even impose short-term revenue caps to mitigate the risk of price shocks in entities that are established. The regulator is trying to avoid the sharp and embarrassing price-hike scenario in the first few years of the reform system. So, basically, this isn’t pure regulation or pure pricing management; this is to stop any embarrassing pricing decisions inside the entities which could make the Government look bad. That is not economic and regulatory policy that we should be buying into in New Zealand.

The economic regulation of the new three waters would look into pricing practice for consumers, and officials would have water charges, which would affect new corporations. Water services entities are unaccountable, non-democratic organisations. They have little or no competition, and little or no likelihood of a substantial increase in competition. This is a step backwards. In the Finance and Expenditure Committee, we need to really look at the dynamics of that situation.

It’s a nebulous principle, also, that the commissioner and the Government Minister have to look at the principles of the Treaty and take into account climate change at the same time when setting the price around water.

I said that these Government approaches to regulation and the three-water reforms are like The 12 days of Christmas. We now have four mega-entities, three hefty bills, two new water regulators, one determined Minister, 50 percent iwi appointees in regional representative groups, 31 councils representing 1.2 million people opposed, and a partridge in a pear tree.

ACT opposes this bill, its excessive regulation, its non-democratic leashing of the four water companies, and its nebulous approach to leveraging the principles of the Treaty around economics. That is not suitable. Price fixing is in the hands of those entities. At the moment, I don’t think there’s any experience in setting regulatory opinions.

So ACT has an alternative infrastructure plan which would allow the community control of water assets and to improve the necessary infrastructure to ensure safety and efficiency on water allocation. We would provide for councils to enter voluntary assured-service agreements, gaining the benefits of scale while retaining local ownership and control, and to establish long-term 30-year central government – local government payment systems and partnerships to put water infrastructure upgrades, tailored to specify, in any area and in any local authority. We would also put in plan rateable charges that the community can assess and ensure are commensurate with the infrastructure that they require.

It’s really kind of Barbara Edmonds to say that David Seymour said that the making the bill good is something that is the job of the select committee, but David has always told us as well that sometimes you just walk to the shredder and stick it in there and start again. All ACT wants for next Christmas is a new local government Minister and to repeal these three waters reforms which have the nation offside with the Labour Party—Jamie Strange obviously knows how that feels. Thank you.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): Hello. It’s a lovely thing to be able to talk on the second bill today which is going to fill out our response to water. It’s always a pleasure to go after the ACT Party in these debates, because there is quite a stark contrast. There was a list just read of the things that Labour has done to reform what are actually areas that really affect New Zealanders. Things like electricity and water are essential to actually having a good life. Our world is changing, and we actually do need to respond to those things maturely. We can’t just throw stones into the arena; we have to get in there, get stuck in, and fix them in a modern world.

And what we have are these big entities that are actually coming into our world, which can actually control and skew things, and we need to make sure that we are actually controlling that space for people so that we have decent utilities. Minister Clark talked about the power imbalance in those areas of utilities. They are really very serious. If we don’t actually put in consumer protection, if we don’t put in things like a regulator, then we end up with a bloody mess, and it is very much a mess. That’s what we have at the moment: we have rivers we can’t swim in, we have beaches in Auckland we can’t swim in, and we have had people die because they drank the water. That’s not good enough for New Zealand, and we need that response to actually consider all infrastructure. And that’s what it does. So, yes, there is no apology for our actual response to things like our need to regulate in areas of fuel and electricity and, yes, pipes and infrastructure and water, because every New Zealander needs to be safe when they use those facilities. Every New Zealander has that right. That’s the real difference between one side of the House and the other: one throws stones; one fixes problems.

I am very pleased to be on the select committee, the Finance and Expenditure Committee, that will look at this bill. I’d like to finally thank the Minister responsible for this bill, which is Minister Clark. I’ve learnt a lot from Minister Clark because he is looking at the entire picture, and I will be sorry to lose him from our Government, and I wish him well, but I thank him for the work he’s done in this area, which is informed by all those other areas that are important. All those utilities that we rely on in New Zealand need to stay working for the public, not the multinationals, not for interest groups, but for us all. I am satisfied that we will work on this bill and make it absolutely the right response to this situation. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House.

SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Sam Uffindell—five minutes.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real privilege to be able to stand here on the last sitting day of the House and talk on this matter. We’re talking a lot about throwing stones and other people fixing it. I think this Government has been throwing a few stones, but they’ve mostly been going straight up in the air and landing on top of New Zealand, and, by the way, it’s looking as though it will be the National Party that will have to come in and fix everything up. But we are ready—we are ready to do that.

This bill is something that we will have to fix as well, and we will do that by repealing and replacing three waters.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: What with?

SAM UFFINDELL: It’s good to have the future local government Minister in the House, so let me talk through what we are looking at in this. We definitely see this bill as something that we will get rid of, because what this does is it builds on the three waters legislation that went through the House unceremoniously a couple of weeks ago. This will look to create an Auckland-style Watercare bill. There is huge transitional uncertainty in the way it will work. We expect this to create more costs and, ultimately, the mega-entities are going to charge those to ratepayers. We know that this is going to result in some of those costs being passed on through higher rents, and that is going exacerbate—

Anna Lorck: It’s going to keep costs down—keep costs down.

SAM UFFINDELL: —what we already have in New Zealand, which is a higher cost of living crisis here, Anna Lorck. This bill is only going to increase it—and you’ll be happy that I’ve got your name into Hansard again today.

Now, we see here that this is just a—and we’ve seen it right through this bill. There’s been a complete lack of transparency from this Labour Government. We’ve seen the bill come in a couple of weeks ago—Kiri Allan is looking at me, quite unamused, at the moment, but that’s all right. We have seen a lack of transparency, and the two bills that have come in in the last week have been really rushed through. Numerous more clauses have been brought in, and we’ve seen it—I’m not sure what’s going on to my right here. I’m glad my colleague has found her notes. But this bill is another slap in the face to democracy from an increasingly, frankly, out-of-touch and arrogant Labour Government.

We had 88,000 submissions on this bill and most of them were disregarded, and I expect that my five minutes of talking away here will be as well. But we are very strong that we are against this. Everyone on that side of the House is talking about a lot of fear—you know: “We have water that is completely unusable.” Well, frankly, in my electorate of Tauranga, we have excellent water because we have invested heavily in it over the years. We don’t have a council at the moment, unfortunately. That hasn’t helped, and we’d like to get them back.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: That’s right!

SAM UFFINDELL: So, Mr McAnulty, perhaps when you’re the new Minister next year, you can help expedite local body elections in Tauranga.

But we have done a really good job with our water, and to have that taken away from us and put into four mega-entities in Wellington is not going to help us. It’s not what we want. I was just on a call before I rushed down to speak on this bill, and it’s certainly not what the people I was talking to in the South Island wanted, either.

I’m really concerned about where we’re heading with this, because you’ve got mega-entities trying to get in touch with what is happening on the ground. We talked earlier a little bit around what the investment would have to be to ensure that our water infrastructure stays up to date, and I do acknowledge that that is, ultimately, what you guys are trying to achieve on that side of the House. I don’t think that what you’re doing through this is really going to get that feedback mechanism from local and regional New Zealand into the mega-entities, and I think there will be opportunities in investment missed there.

But I think that a lot of this has been run on fear, and I think that the Government has run a strong fear campaign, as they did—and they’ve really seen it work for them over the last three years, but I think New Zealanders are slowly waking up. But that’s pretty much the only trick that they’ve got, because it’s certainly not on delivery, it’s certainly not on working for New Zealand, and it’s certainly not on working for lower and middle class New Zealanders, who are getting increasingly hit by a cost of living crisis.

They are going to get further hit when more costs are passed on to them by people who now are being billed by the mega-entities. Are they still going to get billed by their local councils for water services? We don’t know around that one. Are they going to be double-dipping on that? There are going to be significant costs there.

There is a lack of transparency around that and there is significant uncertainty, and I am very happy to be able to stand up here and say that I condemn three waters and that we will repeal it. Mr Speaker, thank you.

SPEAKER: Shanan Halbert—five minutes.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Meri Kirihimete ki a koe, and happy holidays to all of my colleagues across the House. It’s my privilege to speak on this Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill. Last night, I spoke openly about the contaminated waters across Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland, and my shared concern for my constituents that they suffer swimming in our local beaches with human waste. That’s not good enough, in my view.

Secondly, today, under this bill, the importance of acknowledging the water rates that Aucklanders have experienced in the last year; a 7 percent increase—7 percent increase—Aucklanders have had to pay for their water. So that’s why it’s important that, under this Government, we’ve got on and taken action on the things that really matter. If we look at the issue and the problem that we’re actually trying to solve with water reform that we actually all agree on, then those are the things that we need to work on and the action that we need to take.

So this particular bill: the Commerce Commission will become the economic regulator of water infrastructure services. That is important, in my view, because we do need to have some eyes across the way that water operates, the costs that are incurred to every constituent in this country. It’s important that collectively we do take action, and I look forward to, after this first reading, being a part of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, that New Zealanders are able to come and have their say once again. I know and feel confident that they will be looking at the cost of living and ensuring that we keep our water prices down. I commend this bill to the House.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The whole purpose of the water entities bill is to keep rates lower. We are facing a between $125 billion and $185 billion bill to fix our water infrastructure across this country. Of any piece of legislation that is coming through, this is the one—this bill is what ratepayers want to know about. It is about making sure that what we are paying for our water infrastructure is fair—is fair. If we don’t keep it fair, prices are going to go through the roof. We have seen rates going through the roof over and over and over again, up and up and up. Rates are going up across this country. This bill will make sure that the cost of fixing our water infrastructure is fair to all. This is about making sure that we have transparency, regulation, and protection for consumers and for ratepayers so that when they open their rates bill, they can see exactly what they are going to pay for water and what they’re going to have to pay in the future, because without this type of legislation and protection we can’t make sure that it’s fair for all. That is why I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sometimes I wonder why I bother preparing speech notes, particularly when I’m on call 11 in a debate, because I diligently beaver away at what I want to say and then spend most of the 10 minutes refuting the nonsense that comes from the other side of the House. I’ll be doing a little bit of that.

But, before I do, Mr Speaker, I trust you’ll indulge me as this is the first time I have spoken since the announcement by the sponsor of this bill of his intention not to stand in the 2023 election. Dr Clark and I go back a wee way—over 10 years now and it’ll be—well, 11 years now, isn’t it? How has he been here? About eleven years? We certainly don’t see eye to eye on all things, but I want to wish him and his family all the best for his future. He has been a diligent worker for the city that we both love, and I wish him all the best.

Now, that’s probably where the love fest ends, because this bill establishes an economic regulation and, according to the explanatory note, a consumer protection regime. But let me be really, really clear: the protection the water users of this country need most is from this Government.

The irony is extreme: that we are considering a bill at first reading here to control the prices that water users will pay—so to prevent them from being too high—only a week after this Government passed a bill that took away the assets at bargain basement prices because the Government wasn’t prepared to pay for them.

Those assets were taken away at nearly no cost. Where was the protection of the owners of those assets when they needed it? It certainly did not come from the Government. I’ve said it before, I’ll keep saying it: this is the largest State-sponsored theft of assets since Treaty breaches in the 19th century. It is unconscionable and there’s no way to polish that up.

Rachel Brooking: Oh, goodness gracious!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Oh, here they go. Yeah. Oh. See, when they don’t have a good argument, they just attack the arguer. And here’s a remarkable admission: remember that the case for water services entities is that the prices that users will pay are going to be lower than they otherwise would be had the 67 councils continued to rate their ratepayers for water as they have. If that’s the case, why do we need to regulate to control the overcharging by water services entities? I’ve got a reason why. My theory is this and it’s a pretty strong one, I think: there is no way in hell that those four water services entities can deliver the cost reductions in capital and operating costs that were purported by the Water Services Entities Bill. It’s just not possible.

There’s another admission in here, and that is that the consumers need protection—the protection that was taken away from them in the ability to vote out councils they don’t agree with when they’re not doing the right thing on water. So, on the one hand, we take away the very strong powers that consumers have if they don’t like what their councils do, and then provide a legislative protection from the very council that took those protections away. It’s a complete oxymoron.

Now, we’ve heard from both Shanan Halbert and Anna Lorck—ad nauseam, as the Labour members have done—that our water quality is poor. Now, Auckland had extreme weather events over the weekend. I was actually there on Monday and it was beautiful, 27 degrees, hardly a cloud in the sky, not a breath of wind. Aucklanders were breathing a big sigh of relief because they had had significant downpours that had led to the faecal counts in stormwater going into Auckland harbour to be unacceptably high. That’s not good enough.

What they don’t say is that that problem is being fixed by one of the largest infrastructure projects in Auckland’s history—the Central Interceptor, I think it’s called. Andrew Bayly and I visited it, didn’t we, when they put the Tunnel Boring Machine—I’m not sure if it had a fancy name like the City Rail Link, but it was heading underground and going under Manukau Harbour; a massive water tunnel that will more clearly separate our storm and foul water and prevent the sorts of unacceptable discharges into the areas like Simon O’Connor’s electorate—the beautiful area of Tāmaki—and on the North Shore, as Shanan Halbert said.

But the point is: we didn’t need legislation for Watercare Auckland to do what it needed to do. It had sensible rates, and it has gone ahead and fixed it. Even in Anna Lorck’s electorate, which was the so-called genesis of this State centralisation project, they’ve already fixed their water-quality issues, a $35 million project by the Hastings District Council. That has not needed State intervention, it shouldn’t have happened in the first place; it was fixed. It didn’t need a State intervention.

But the most ironic thing is trying to reconcile Ms Lorck’s comments with the Minister’s. Because the very case for a fees regime is that larger metropolitan areas like Auckland are going to subsidise smaller metropolitan areas like, I don’t know, Waipukurau or Havelock. Because, as he said, if this didn’t happen, then the water rate increases on those smaller councils would be disproportionately higher than Auckland’s. So Aucklanders are going to be paying more for their water—or rather, more for water—and it’s going to be going to other parts of the country.

Now, I’m not sure what I think about that. There are many reasons to live in smaller areas, and sometimes that comes at a cost. So the lower house prices, lower land prices, the ease of getting around, the quality of schools, and the opportunities for jobs in the regional sector—all good reasons for living in smaller cities and towns around New Zealand, but one of the costs of living in those areas is sometimes a slightly higher rate on things like water. Now, that is being taken away and the 1.5 million Aucklanders are going to have to pay more than they otherwise would, because of this arrangement. Labour’s own Phil Goff opposed that very, very strongly when this regime came out, and not surprising.

The other very interesting part of this bill is the nexus between price and quality that the regulator is going to be required to enforce. Which begs the question, really: what the water-quality regulator—which was set up with the support of the National Party last year—is actually there to do. It is the principal water-quality regulator. Why is a branch of the Commerce Commission then going to make arbitrary judgments about the nexus between price and quality? Because if it does have to regulate on price, it’s probably going to have to say to a water services entity, “In order to control the prices that you charge to your users, there needs to be some compromise on quality.” Otherwise, I’m not sure why this bill actually even mentions that. So I want the Finance and Expenditure Committee to have a very close look at how this is going to play out and how it reconciles with the water regulator that’s been established by last year’s regulation.

We’ll oppose this because we oppose the State-sponsored theft of assets. We oppose the candy-coating of the benefits, the catastrophising of water quality right now, and the demonising of councils. And we will reverse this legislation at the first opportunity.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to speak as the last speaker on this fourth bill that’s part of the package of reforming our three waters—being stormwater, waste water, and drinking water.

Now, Simon Watts, in his contribution, said that the case for change for this package of reform has been built on sand. I refute that totally and say that it’s built on under-funded pipes and treatment stations, and the need for more of these things.

We see here that this bill establishes an economic regulator and consumer protections by using the existing Commerce Commission and adding in a new water services commissioner. I recommend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 74

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

Noes 45

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 74, Noes 43.

Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

SPEAKER: The question is, That the

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Instruction to Finance and Expenditure Committee

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I move, That the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill be reported to the House by 25 May 2023.

Voting

Correction—Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Point of order, Mr Speaker. My apologies. I should have cast two votes against the bill for Te Paati Māori.

SPEAKER: OK. That’s what I thought I was asking. Can you seek leave that—

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: May I seek the leave of the House to correct the voting record on the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill and cast two votes against the bill, on behalf of Te Paati Māori?

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. We’ll just get that updated. Therefore, the record will be altered to say that the Ayes are 74 and the Noes are 45. Thank you.

Bills

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

First Reading

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Human Rights (Incitement on Ground of Religious Belief) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I move, That the Human Rights (Incitement on Ground of Religious Belief) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

This bill gives effect to a key Government priority to respond to the recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry into the terrorist attack on Christchurch masjidain on 15 March 2019. The key change that this bill makes relates to the parts of the Human Rights Act which prohibit speech that excites hostility against or brings into contempt people based on their colour, race, ethnicity, or nationality. We’re expanding these provisions so that they will now also protect groups based on the grounds of religious belief.

This change responds to a part of recommendation 40 of the royal commission. A key part of this recommendation was to add religion to the list of protected characteristics under the law which prohibits speech which incites hatred. The commission considers that religious beliefs should be added for a number of reasons, including, and most significantly, in order to reflect the current realities of Islamophobia and the association between hate speech and terrorism. In addition, the commission noted that the change aligns the incitement provisions with comparable jurisdictions, brings New Zealand into compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and removes the current discrepancy where Jews and Sikhs are protected under provisions as ethnic groups but followers of Islam and Christianity are not.

This work also meets part of the Labour 2020 election manifesto commitment to strengthen protections for groups under the Human Rights Act from speech that is likely to incite others to feel hostility or contempt towards another group. This type of speech is about influencing how people see a population group and causing hateful views about people in that group. Speech that incites hostility or contempt causes significant harm to both those specific groups and to society as a whole, seeking to divide communities and hinder our social inclusion.

At the extreme end, there is evidence of the spread of this type of speech, alongside other circumstances, being a precursor to violence. Victims can experience the loss of their right to feel safe, freedom of movement and expression, and, at the right extreme end of the spectrum, the right to life, if someone is killed as a result of incitement or hostility.

The royal commission found hate speech to be on the same spectrum of harmful behaviour as terrorism and that there is a link between hate speech and hate-motivated crimes. They saw value in seeking to reduce hate speech, not only to prevent the direct harm it causes but also to limit escalation of such speech to hate-motivated crimes. Today’s online world of communications creates particular challenges, adding to the potential harm and highlighting the need for solid laws to protect vulnerable individuals and communities.

Evidence and analysis has shown that faith-based groups are vulnerable to extreme forms of harmful speech, in addition to those groups already covered by these provisions. For example, Netsafe’s 2018 survey on the impact of online harmful speech found that religion was the most frequent perceived reason of being personally targeted with online harmful speech.

The current incitement provisions consist of both civil and criminal provisions—sections 61 and 131 of the Human Rights Act, respectively. The bill adds religious belief to the existing grounds of national and ethnic origins, race, and colour to provide more protections for faith-based communities. Our engagement last year on proposals to strengthen the incitement and discrimination provisions in the Human Rights Act generated extensive public debate. Face-to-face feedback from affected communities largely showed support, including for the protection from incitement on the basis of religious belief.

The Government has carefully considered what next steps should be taken, considering this response as well as the need to respond to the significant harm caused by speech that incites hostility or contempt, and to hate crime. We’ve decided to take a staged approach to tackling hate-motivated offending. This bill is the first part of this approach and will immediately provide better protections from speech that incites hostility towards groups based on their religious belief.

The second part of our approach is to have the Law Commission carry out a comprehensive review of incitement, discrimination, and hate crime laws. Other proposals in last year’s discussion document on incitement laws such as harsher penalties and different thresholds, and for explicit protections against discrimination for other communities, will be also considered by the Law Commission.

By taking action on our incitement laws, the Government intends to enhance the ability of all New Zealanders to enjoy their rights and freedoms free from harm. The Government remains committed to implementing the recommendations of the royal commission as a key priority. This change will implement an important part of recommendation 40 of the commission. I commend this bill to the House.

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

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Human Rights (Incitement on Ground of Religious Belief) Amendment Bill. It’s an important proposal that’s been made by the Government and we should place it in the context of the work that they say they’re doing in relation to the matter more generally.

I do want to comment on the way that this particular piece of legislation interacts with the Human Rights Act as a whole, and other aspects of our statutory regime. So, within my time share, I’d like to concentrate on that, under the heading of “regime”; also another “R”, “religious belief”, and the particular reasons that it’s actually quite dangerous, I think, for us as a Parliament to seek to legislate, certainly in a criminal way, against freedom of expression in relation to religious beliefs; and the other “R” is “response”, the response that we should instinctively look towards in answering the question: how do we as a Parliament and as a society and as a democracy want to respond to language that we might regard as untrue, unfair, or unreasonable?

So, first of all, in relation to the regime—actually, I should start, in case it’s not been obvious from my introductory remarks, by stating National’s position on this. We have made it clear through public comments, but I state for the record now clearly that we don’t support this bill. We think that while it may be well motivated in the sense of looking to protect certain sections of society, we don’t think it will be effective to do that, and, at the same time, it will also risk major unintended consequences in terms of the chilling effects on free speech and all that that implies for our democratic and, largely, free society.

So taking the first of those “Rs”: the regime. I want to talk about the fact that the Human Rights Act already prohibits discrimination on certain grounds—essentially, protecting, therefore, certain groups, under section 21. Of those, some, but not all, are currently protected against what has loosely been described as an incitement provision. With all due respect, we need to examine what the provision actually says, because it’s quite loose merely to talk about incitement, as though that were something along the lines of inciting violence.

But if we look at those various groups in section 21, and we say, “Well, it’s anomalist that they’re not all included.”—at the moment, we’ve got, I think, colour, race, and ethnic or national origins. So that’s not the full list. So why don’t we have the full list? Well, that’s a good question. We could add, as has been proposed here, religious belief. But why then will we not add the other grounds in section 21? Why don’t we add other basis for communities forming together, having a shared identity? These are questions being asked by those who would say that the Government should go further. So they’re pleasing no one. I don’t think it’s one of those situations in which political analysts can say, “Well, there’s dissatisfaction in one direction and also the other.”—let’s say right, left, or liberal or conservative, or whatever, and say, “Well, they’ve probably got it about right in the middle.” In fact, they will please no one, because this is an incoherent approach to lawmaking. They haven’t added all the rest of the section 21 grounds. They haven’t even said, in more general terms—as probably they should, if they’ve determined to restrict speech in this way—that any group defined by its identity should be captured by whatever we decide the offence is and whatever those elements are. So that’s the first thing, is to say, “Well, who’s actually going to be protected or captured by this kind of a law?”

Then we ask where the line is drawn. So we can say, on the one hand, inciting violence against such people should be illegal—the good news: it already is—on the other hand, we could say that merely speaking ill of a group or offending their sensibilities would be the other option. Somewhere in between, you could have, for example, doing or saying a thing that could lead another person to discriminate against or harm, or whatever. So we have a choice on where we draw the line.

Where the line is currently drawn in section 131, which the Government is looking to introduce in relation to religious belief, as well, is the publication or distribution of words that are threatening, abusive, or insulting. There’s a huge range there. I mean, to threaten someone is a very serious thing, but merely to insult them, I would say is very much different. Then, we have the result being either to excite hostility or ill will against or bring into contempt or ridicule. Well, again, these are quite different things.

So while those who proposed this bill might say that it’s important that we don’t allow the incitement of violence—again, to which we say, “We agree.”, and which is already on the statute book—but if you take the low watermark of those elements and we say that it should be a criminal offence merely to insult in a way that would incite ill will or bring into ridicule, we have a very dangerous position in which we have not only an incoherent law but one that is taking us down a very dangerous path in restricting freedom of expression, particularly when we then ask the question of who gets to decide this and how this thing is decided.

Of course, it’s the lack of clarity in such laws that we should always be very wary of because the person or persons, whether it’s the judges or the Attorney-General who’s asked to provide consent to prosecution, naturally have their own prejudices, their own perspectives—and I say that not to cast any dispersions on any such decision makers or any of those who would aspire to those roles; it is human nature and the fact of the matter that we all have either a religious belief or a lack of a religious belief or, in many cases, people have some sort of combination of ethical or moral or religious perspective. These things are complicated and they can’t be distilled easily into a provision in a piece of law in a way that would be proposed or suggested to be black and white and provide protection. So, so much for the regime.

My next “R” was “religious belief”. It’s my submission that, in the 21st century, it’s inappropriate for this Parliament to be making laws that protect merely the sensibilities of those who have a religious belief or, again, a lack of religious belief. It wasn’t that long ago—in fact, it was the previous term of Parliament—in which this institution repealed the crime—yes, the crime—of blasphemous liable. We said, at that time, collectively and, I think, unanimously, that it wasn’t appropriate merely to protect the feelings, in essence, of those who have particular views or beliefs, given that we live in a pluralistic society and, also, I would say, at least as importantly, because the free exchange of expression of ideas is such that when a thing is proposed, a thing can be opposed, and it’s, of course, in that market place of ideas, that to and fro, that we have the best opportunity as a society, as a democracy, of arriving at the truth.

It’s also the case that, when it comes to political or policy debates and discussions among us more generally as human beings, those who have a religious belief might put forward a certain perspective—that’s their right, even their responsibility. Well, that’s fine and that’s good and that’s as it should be, but to allow such people the protection against criticism back the other way—or a counter-proposal, in policy terms—would seem to privilege one group against another. Therefore, I don’t think it would be helpful to them or the cause of democracy, freedom, and the pursuit of truth more generally.

Of course, it’s in the nature of faith or belief of a religious nature that these things can’t be proved or disproved—that’s almost by definition. So if we say that certain beliefs are beyond challenge in a way that might risk bringing into contempt or ridicule, then we are in a very dangerous situation again, as I would suggest.

The third and final “R”, having covered the regime and the nature of religious belief, is the response. So what is our response more generally to the idea that things can be said that might be untrue or unfair or unreasonable? The answer, of course, should be that things that are true, fair, and reasonable, respectively, are the best counters to those. This is obviously not a new idea—it’s certainly not original to me or this discussion or this debate—but I think it’s an idea that’s worth recanvasing.

If we consider ourselves an enlightened society—and I use that term in the context of having gone through an enlightenment and believing that there is such a thing as an ideal of a pursuit of truth that can be gained in a democratic—as opposed to a theocratic or an autocratic—way, then we should be very careful, indeed, about the possibility of restricting that flow, that exchange of information and ideas.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act discussion on the matter, which was provided by the advisers, as opposed to the Attorney-General himself, concluded, actually, after a really good discussion about the importance of freedom of expression, the breadth of that right and the possibility of chilling effect of such legislation, we heard ultimately that this was a justifiable limitation. I respectively cannot come close to agreeing with that.

So, for all these reasons, National says, with all due respect and understanding the good motivations that might underlie the introduction of such legislation, we cannot support it. It is a dangerous place for our democracy to head to.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Kia ora. Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a brief call on the Human Rights (Incitement on Ground of Religious Belief) Amendment Bill. Currently, under the Human Rights Act 1993, it is illegal to publish or distribute threatening, abusive, or insulting words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group on the grounds of race, colour, ethnic, or national origins. Those grounds, under this legislation, will now be extended in both the civil and the criminal provisions to cover religious belief. The changes being undertaken are part of this Government’s response to the recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry into the terrorist attack in Christchurch on March 15th. This change will protect more groups from harm and strengthen social cohesion in Aotearoa.

The Government has carefully taken consideration in this space as to what next steps should be taken. We’ve decided to take a staged approach to tackle hate-motivated offending. This bill is the first part of an approach that will immediately provide better protections for people from speech that incites hostility towards groups based on their religious belief. The second part of our approach is to have the Law Commission carry out a comprehensive review of incitement, discrimination, and hate laws.

This is a good piece of legislation. I look forward to the select committee process and receiving submissions from across New Zealand on how we can strengthen our laws in this space. I commend it to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): You wouldn’t believe that 2½ years ago, this Parliament reversed blasphemy laws in New Zealand. Now, I better be clear: that in itself was not unbelievable. I personally think reversing our blasphemy laws at that time was a good and appropriate activity. As some with wit put to me, the big guy upstairs isn’t easily offended and nor is he going to turn up in the court room.

But what is unbelievable is that 2½ years later, the left wing and the Labour Party are reintroducing, in effect, a blasphemy law into New Zealand. It is here to entrench a very particular view on hate speech. And let’s be very clear, as I have been in the House before: this piece of legislation has very little, if anything, to do with hateful speech, but speech which the left, in particular, hate. It’s a very, very dangerous bill. There is no need for it in general, and there is absolutely no need for it around this ground of religious belief, and I want to tease a little bit of that out.

First and foremost, this is another attack, another affront, on one of the most core and basic elements of a democracy: free speech. It is being eroded. It’s already been eroded. This Government has form when it comes to undermining and dividing this country. It doesn’t matter if it’s the notion of co-governance, which, as I’ve written recently, is absolutely mutually exclusive to democracy. We’ve had a Government that’s passed laws which restrict where people can stand and protest. They’ve passed laws which even restrict the speech that parents and professionals can have with their children and other people. This is a Government that already has form when it comes to eroding and undermining our democratic principles. And here we are today, on this morning, debating how, from the left, they can undermine freedom of speech.

We must, as a House, push back against this. There is no need for it. Free speech is what enables us to get along, and the irony in free speech, at times, is that those conversations, those speeches freely had, can be confronting, challenging, critical—you name it. That’s the very nature of democracy. What is being suggested here is the social cohesion theory, which is bouncing around at the moment, that, somehow, as human beings, we can all just be wonderful and civilised, and we’re just all going to agree, and it’s all going to be nice. Well, that’s not how it works. The only regimes in history where everyone agrees are called totalitarians regime, and everyone is monological.

Now, let’s be really clear: I don’t like argument, as such. I don’t like angry, aggressive, nasty, critical speech. However, we’re human beings; we have different views, different viewpoints, different things we are passionate about, different moral views, different ethical views—this cuts and undermines the heart of it.

And we already see—we already see—those barrelling in behind this law, who think it’s a wonderful law. These are the people, already, who tried to exercise the thug’s veto across the society. They’re the very people who stopped women talking about women’s rights at the Auckland University of Technology earlier this year. They are the same people who tried to ban others turning up to university to talk about such topics as, I don’t know, the Treaty of Waitangi. These are people who protest the ability of others to speak a different viewpoint. They’re the ones who have all the isms and all the phobias that are thrown about in labelling people to condemn and stop them. They are the ones enthusiastically behind this bill, because, as I said at the start, their interest is not really around hate speech—what even that is, by the way?

The media and others throw the word “hate” around like lollies these days. What does it even mean? How is it even defined? Who gets to define it? My previous speaker and colleague Chris Penk put it forward: how does one define “harm” and “hate”? Do I get to define it or does someone else get to define it? It’s indefinable, and that is quite deliberate here, because this is ultimately about power and control, which is what this left-wing Government is wanting to exercise.

And be under no illusion, this is a stalking-horse piece of legislation. The Minister confirmed it at the start—this is just the first tranche. They think this is an easy win, to bring in religious belief as a grounds to limit speech. Be under no illusion: those who suffer from PVS—or what I call “perpetual victim syndrome”—are already lining up to add themselves in here, that they must be protected. Their views on life are so fragile—so fragile—they need laws to protect them from, as they would call it, harm. We do not need this legislation. We actually do not need to protect many, if any, groups for hate speech, per se. We should all be free to critique and challenge, and this is deeply, deeply inappropriate.

I want to turn to the religious side. There is, as I say, no need for this, for at least two reasons. First and foremost, I am proudly a religious man, unapologetically Roman Catholic. I do not want this. I don’t need protection. I get challenged every day for my views. If I wanted to use this piece of law, I could say it’s all hateful and harmful to me. “Someone challenged my belief system.” Well, la-di-da, I can accept it. That’s the nature of religion. Religion, by its definition, is arrogant. It really is, and I say that as someone who’s well theologically trained. The thing about religion is it makes massive moral claims. I’m Catholic because I don’t agree with views on other religions, and other religions are not Catholic because they don’t agree with me.

I don’t need a piece of law to stop those people having conversations. What we do is we talk more. We talk, we challenge. It’s called ecumenism. You talk. This attempt at law is to shut that down. It says that if you say something that might insult my religion, ridicule my religion, insult or be contemptuous, it could now be hate speech. That is going to shut down discussion in something which is, by its nature—by its very nature; religion, as I say, is bold, it’s beautiful, but there is an arrogance to it. It believes it’s right—it believes it’s right—and that’s going to be stopped, effectively, by this law. And I say again, as someone with a religious belief, there is absolutely no need for this. In fact, if we’re going to confront the challenges, if you will, within religious belief, we need more conversation, not shutting it down.

I mean, what on earth is this going to look like where different groups and religious groups say, “Well, I don’t like you challenging my belief about the big guy in the sky. You’ve insulted me.” What’s this going to mean for various cultish groups in society who claim that now they are being incited on the grounds of their religious belief? The Minister mentioned Islam, predictably. That’s fine. We’ve got Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Pastafarianism—where’s it going to end?

Hon Member: Jedis.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Jedis, of course. God help us if anyone decides to say, you know, Star Trek’s better than Star Wars—that’s probably ridiculing. This is all about belief and this is why it is such a dangerous piece of legislation. There is absolutely no need for it. And I want to put on the record again, as someone who supported the removal of blasphemy laws and unapologetically has religious belief: we do not need this.

And I want to finish by suggesting to people who are listening at home of what to do, and it’s twofold. First and foremost, submit to the select committee. Say that you believe in democracy, that you believe in free speech, and that you are against this increasingly left-wing Government which is attacking and undermining the core foundations of our democracy. Explain your reasons why you believe free speech matters, why it so critically matters.

And, as I said at the start, those supporting this bill are already the ones who try to exercise the thug’s veto. They write copiously into media that everything that, you know, affects their argument harms them. They’re the people who throw around those isms and phobias. These are the people who never—well, actually, anything they disagree with now is disinformation or misinformation. Of course, often it’s not the case; it’s just, simply, that which is misinformation is what’s put forward by someone who’s not left wing.

And the last point—the last point—and it’s somewhat tongue in cheek, but if this law, unfortunately, passes in the House, it’s certainly my encouragement to New Zealanders: use it. Overwhelm the system. Any time a person feels that their religious belief has been attacked, write and call the Human Rights Commission, call the police, go to the courts. In recent weeks, we’ve had people attacking the likes of Bethlehem College, that they have a certain view on marriage and on religion. Well, this is going to be great for them, because you know what? That’s now an incitement on the ground of religious belief. Take those people to the Human Rights Commission. Drag them before the courts. Overwhelm the system and show the absolute absurdity of this law.

Now, let me be really, really clear in my final seconds: I actually don’t want this bill. I don’t want this to be happening, but if this Government’s going to pass such a stupid law, show them how absurd it is and overwhelm the system any time your belief is challenged, and show up those activists and others what this really means, and just how dangerous this is for democracy.

SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): I’m pleased to stand and take a call on the Human Rights (Incitement on Ground of Religious Belief) Amendment Bill. I hope that what happened in Christchurch masjidain in 2019 never ever, ever happens again in Aotearoa. Regardless of what your religious beliefs are, to do nothing is not an option.

Section 21 does not cut it. I’m pleased to see these extensions in both the civil section 61 and criminal section 131 provisions in this amendment bill. I commend this bill to the House.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to begin by acknowledging the shuhada of the masjidain terror attack on March 15th, 2019, when our collective hearts were broken. As the shockwaves of that attack rippled through our nation, we heard from Aotearoa that we had never thought something like that could happen here. We heard that we stand for inclusion, we stand for equality. But the other thing that we did hear—and it’s important to acknowledge that—is that we heard from our most marginalised communities about all the ways that that hate, that extremism, that, to some extent, formed our experience, was known. We heard from Māori who lifted the voices of the Muslim community. We can’t shed our skin or our disabilities or change who we love. One of the heartbreaking lessons of March 15th was that the Muslim community had been reporting an absolute increase in incitement, in threats of violence, in hate against their communities. They had travelled around New Zealand to meet with different police chiefs in different police stations, and our systems and our institutions had no way of recording or responding to what that community was trying to alert us of.

So when the Opposition says that this law is about banning debate, I want them to also answer this question: how, then—how—can we change our systems and our laws to become responsive to incitement, that those marginalised communities are experiencing and, in many cases, are reporting? How do we prevent the next real-life act of atrocity from happening? I want to say, as someone who has spent years of my life working in atrocity crime courts and having to read thousands of pages of witness evidence and looking at the history of those atrocities, that they begin with hate. They begin with dehumanising a particular group based on its inherent characteristics. Those groups are race groups, they are gender minorities, they are the rainbow community, disabilities groups, and they are faith communities.

So we know that the faith communities do need those protections. In that respect, this is a good change. It is one that is overdue by many years. We know that this work began with a comprehensive review conducted by the Human Rights Commission in 2016, and that that review more or less shadows what we found in the royal commission report on Christchurch, that our hate speech laws and our hate crime laws are not fit for purpose. They don’t reflect what modern extremism looks like.

Now, it’s important to hold that we do limit speech in many, many ways already in our laws to protect individuals. We do outlaw incitement. We even outlaw defamation, which is damaging someone’s reputation. But all the ways that we recognise that harm through speech is possible and not acceptable in our laws only apply to protect individuals, never groups.

But we know, and we have learnt first-hand in, now, modern memory, that atrocities are begotten of harmful speech—not debate; incitement, harm. All modern human rights - based democracies recognise this and acknowledge it with strong hate speech laws, so it’s well defined and it exists among jurisdictions that we normally compare ourselves to. It exists even in the United States, that bastion of free speech; in the European Union; in Canada; and the UK. They recognise that hate speech is harmful, that it leads to real-life violence, but also that it is, in fact, a threat to free speech itself, that it silences groups, silences marginalised communities from debate, from public life. Every woman in this House knows a little bit of that.

The Holocaust and Antisemitism Foundation, the Islamic Women’s Council, and the Human Rights Commission support this law change. To write all of those groups off as woke or leftist is absurd. What we owe and what this Government owes is to listen. One of the responses to the recommendations of the royal commission report that came quickly—and this one did not come quickly, so this law is still overdue, and I hate that we’ll be debating it in an election year where we will hear from all of the traditional groups that have something to gain from marginalising groups further. But one of the things that the Government did respond to quickly was to commit to holding annual hui on extremism nationwide, to include all the groups that are affected by extremism, by hate, by terror, and bring them together with experts, with Government agencies, and talk about what the threat looks like now, to be forward-looking. That’s what the royal commission recommended.

This year, I sat through every session of that hui, and, in Auckland, we heard over and over again on what threats are on the rise. We saw the charts. Yes, faith communities are still at risk, race communities are still at risk. But the one that everyone was screaming about in terms of their research and experience was violent misogyny.

So I want to talk about what this bill does not include and the U-turn that the Government did from its initial released draft. It does not include gender, the disabilities community, or our rainbow communities; that is a failure. From a month or so ago when this bill was first announced, we heard from the communities that are being left out. They were forced to campaign, to make themselves visible to those traditional threateners of their peace, of their safety, in order to campaign for inclusion. While we have a Centre of Research Excellence for Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism, an annual hui being held as a response to a royal commission report that has told us that violent misogyny, that the threat against rainbow communities, and, in the wake of COVID, the threat against disabilities communities is what is, in fact, on the rise in New Zealand. It breaks my heart that those communities now have to make themselves visible and vulnerable in order to retell their trauma, to reprove their vulnerability, for lack of a better word. They are strong, but they are also vulnerable, in order for us to act.

So this bill, whilst it does a little bit of what we need in order to make our nation truly inclusive, truly equal, is also a failure in courage for standing with the communities and responding to what real extremism looks like in Aotearoa today.

I want to go back to those days following the Christchurch terror attack. I want to remember that our nation came together with courage and with love, that we gathered together across this beautiful country in all our public places. We wrapped our arms around our Muslim community. We held our little ones a little bit tighter as we cried, and we committed to making that safe, inclusive, equal place a reality. The city of Dunedin ran out of flowers because they were all at the mosque. Those people out there are watching. They expect us to show courage. They expect us to shine a light in all of the dark little places where hate, where extremism, where those threats do exist among our otherwise loving society.

So we, the Green Party, will continue to fight. We will continue to stand in solidarity with the communities that are now being exposed, having to publicly campaign again for a responsive, progressive, human rights - based law change. We will stand with you and we will ensure that you are protected. Come to select committee, tell your stories, and we will stand with you and lift your voices.

Kia hora te marino

Kia whakapapa pounamu te moana

Aroha atu, aroha mai

Tātou i a tātou katoa

[May peace be widespread

May the ocean become like pounamu

Give well, receive well

Let us show respect for one another]

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this Human Rights (Incitement on Ground of Religious Belief) Amendment Bill, this narrowed-down hate speech law Labour has finally brought to the House. And I start by saying what a back-down, what a massive back-down by this Government, and what an enormous victory for free speech in New Zealand. To put this in perspective, here’s the letter that I received from Kris Faafoi, the Minister’s predecessor, on 9 December 2020. And the proposal was to redefine the criminal offence, shifting the criminal offence from the Human Rights Act into the Crimes Act, increasing the penalty for the criminal offence, extending incitement provisions to protect all groups listed under the “Prohibited grounds of discrimination” section in the Human Rights Act, and extending the civil provisions in line with international obligations by including prohibition of incitement to discrimination against a group and amending the prohibited grounds of discrimination to explicitly protect transgender, diverse, and intersex people. That’s what Kris Faafoi was promising on 9 December, two years and one week ago.

And, today, we have the Minister coming to the House with this enormous back-down bill, where they are going to add one grounds of discrimination—with the same penalties—to the existing bill, staying in the Human Rights Act. And, people might ask why the Government has backed down so much. Well, actually, we could have told them. They could have found out for themselves if they’d just taken the time to read the royal commission report that they say they’re following the recommendations from. It says, “The difference between legitimately criminalised hate speech and a vigorous exercise of the right to express opinions is not easy to capture—at least with any precision—in legislative language.” Well, that’s what the Government’s found. It goes on to say as well, “The more far reaching law creating hate speech offences, the greater the potential for inconsistency with the right to freedom of expression.” That’s what the Labour Party’s discovered in the last two years.

And so what have they done? Well, they’ve backed down in a victory for free speech. And it’s a victory, for example, for the over 40,000 people who signed ACT’s free speech petition over those two years—those people who value the liberal traditions of this country and the right to freedom of expression enshrined in our Bill of Rights Act. And what this back-down bill really says is that they are going to extend a law that the Minister openly admits will never lead to a prosecution. That’s why, previously, they wanted to change the nature of the criminal offence. They’ve dropped that. And I asked the Prime Minister in the House yesterday: is she saying that this law is going to do nothing, or is she saying that people are going to be prosecuted for criticising religion? She can’t have it both ways, and she couldn’t say which one it was either. And that seemed to frustrate her, leading to some hate speech of her own, but we won’t go into that now.

What we’ve got is a victory for free speech, but the remnants of this particular law are still wrong. This law still chills and curtails free speech on the most unusual candidate there could possibly be, and that is religion. You see, I can understand wanting to protect people against being attacked for unchangeable aspects of their identity—particularly your ethnic identity—but I can never understand why, if the Labour Government was going to ban debate about any issue, it would be religion, because the only way that movements like the labour movement, a liberal-left movement that has done a lot of good in its time, were possible was because of an enlightenment where people who insisted that you could not have valid views unless they were with the current church of the time were challenged, and it was made possible for people to express their views regardless.

And then we come back to what the Human Rights Commission said about it being difficult to capture the nature of hate speech, in legislation, with any precision. Well, that’s the other big problem. Apart from the fact that the law probably won’t do anything, apart from the fact that religion is a very odd thing to ban debate on or to try and restrict debate on, there’s also this fundamental problem of consistency with the rule of law, and it goes back 800 years to Magna Carta—the simple idea that I live in a free society and I can’t be imprisoned or in any way sanctioned by the State without the right to defend myself against objective laws that apply the same to anyone. But the great difficulty with this law is that it’s so subjective. You take something like burglary set out in the Crimes Act: did you enter the premises? Were you legally allowed to enter the premise? Did you commit another crime like theft? Someone accused of burglary can go to court and defend themselves based on facts and evidence, defend their rights against the Crown—something that we have fought long and hard to win and maintain in our liberal society. But hate speech laws—to the extent that they do anything—take away that certainty and our basic liberal right. What they do is they mean you don’t know if you’re guilty to the point of prosecution, because, as the Human Rights Commission has said, the difference between legitimately criminalised hate speech and vigorous exercise of the right to express opinions is not easy to capture.

And I should correct myself; that was the royal commission on Christchurch—we don’t hear such wise things from the Human Rights Commission, which should be gone. We are not only abandoning free speech; we are abandoning the rule of law for something that will not actually deliver any benefit, and, if it did, it would be restricting the ability to debate religion, which is what brought about the Reformation and the Enlightenment that made a Parliament like this in a democracy like New Zealand possible. That’s how stupid this law is.

But let me also give you a glimpse into what this means for our future. You see, I heard from somebody recently about the climate of debate and discussion in Western societies at the moment, and they said something that has really resonated with me. They said, “This is supposed to be an age of enlightenment, but you have to walk on eggshells with everything you say.” A lot of people feel like that. They feel that if they say the wrong thing, they’ll be cancelled, possibly face consequences at work, be beaten up or piled on or doxed, or any other number of modern social media phenomena. This is a time when we need to be encouraging free and open debate, not siding with the thugs and bullies who thought the only response to Salman Rushdie was to stab him in the neck because they didn’t like his opinion. We should be standing up for freedom of expression and making it easier to share your views.

But let’s give a glimpse into the future. We just heard from a Green member. This is the University of Auckland Greens on Campus on 10 October: “The University of Auckland Greens have chosen to abstain”—that’s a big word for 17-year-olds—“from attending this year’s baby back-benchers debates and any future debates.” And then they give a list of seven demands: one of them is that at this debate, they want the instituting of trained equity officers for the event, who are responsible for maintaining safety provisions and enforcement protocols; anyone in breach of the rules should be immediately removed. This is my alma mater. This is the University of Auckland, a top 100 university in the world, where young people who engage in politics boycott a debate until enforcers are installed at the debate to immediately remove people if they don’t like what they say or if they think that something being said makes them feel unsafe.

This is a culture in a climate where the right to free expression—hard fought, hard won, and hard maintained over centuries in our society—is endangered in a very real way. And one thing that doesn’t help—even though it’s a massive back-down; even though it probably won’t do anything—is this House and this Government introducing more laws to chill freedom of expression. Well, I could tell you, one party in this Parliament is always committed to upholding our traditions of free speech, and that is the ACT Party, and I can tell you that if you want to uphold free speech and have this law and other chilling hate speech laws reversed, then the best bet to achieve it is a party vote for ACT. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Madam Speaker, thank you. This will be a very brief call. This is to remind everybody in the House that the introduction of this piece of law is in response to the royal commission’s recommendations after the Christchurch terrorist attack. This is our new normal, and this is our response to that.

It is important to understand for those that are listening today that this is a two-stage process, as the Minister has said in her introductory remarks. The first is this piece of legislation, and, second, the Law Commission will carry out a comprehensive review of incitement discrimination and hate crime law.

As a member of the Justice Committee, I look forward to receiving submissions on this bill and to carefully considering them. I commend this bill to the House.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Oh, look, Madam Speaker, I’ve just, I think, got a split call on this, the Human Rights (Incitement on Ground of Religious Belief) Amendment Bill. As has been made clear, the National Party is going to oppose this bill, but it’s not because we don’t agree with the intent—in fact, the intent is laudable—but, as is so typical of this Government, this proposed legislation demonstrates a real lack of intelligent academic scrutiny. It is a complex and convoluted area, and I do think that we do need to start from the beginning.

As a previous speaker has alluded to, this has come about why way of one of the recommendations of the royal commission on the Christchurch terrorist attacks, which the National Party does take very seriously. Nobody in this room, or, indeed, in this country, would condone the acts of atrocity that took place on 15 March 2019. I myself see the ramifications almost daily in my own electorate, I have a number of widows and families impacted by that attack living in region. However, this proposed amendment bill is not going to impact the very crux of the issue that caused that attack to come about. I think Golriz Ghahraman, when she made comments about how atrocities begin with hateful speech—that is true. It’s true. I agree with her. But it the societal condemnation of that hateful speech that is the solution; it’s not passing once-over-lightly bills like this.

The legislation proposes, as has been discussed, that it will be a crime to bring into contempt or ridicule upon any group due to their “religious belief”, which risks criminalising speech that is a part and parcel of public discourse. We ask, on this side of the House: how on earth will that be policed and how will it be enacted, let alone how will it be proven?

National firmly supports building greater social cohesion and inclusion, and we value diversity above many, many other aspects of society, but to achieve this safety for these kinds of groups, we need to be able to ask questions, we need to be able to discuss, and we need to be able to debate. For example, I think a right-thinking society should be able to challenge a fundamentalist organisation that murders homosexual people on the grounds of its own religion; we should be able to call them persecutors and terrorists.

I’d like to ask the question: will there be impacts on the survivors and critics of religious communities like Gloriavale? We’ve seen many, many examples of evidence go in front of the courts recently, where girls and women are sexually assaulted, where they are raped, and where they are forced into marriages on the grounds of religion. Surely, we as a society have a place and, indeed, have a right to criticise that. That, by the definition of this bill, will make us in breach of this law.

We do not support adding religious belief to criminal hate speech laws, it is going to significantly narrow the scope of free speech and expression in this country. Many people may not enjoy having their religious beliefs insulted, ridiculed, held in contempt, or questioned, but, as many speakers in this Chamber this morning have discussed, that is a fundamental right of the freedom of expression and speech in our society. This is a Draconian bill with a Draconian penalty regime that is only going to impact one of the fundamental tenants of a liberal democratic country. More speech, not less speech, and more debate, not less debate, is the best response to speech that people disagree with—not bans and police investigations. We oppose this bill. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on Naisi Chen for five minutes.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I’ve listened very carefully to the debate going around in this House, I do think that, often, including some of the speakers that have participated in this speech—have lacked the views of a migrant. And when we talk about religion, obviously, a lot of times it does come in together with different ethnicities as well, and often these groups are not able to defend themselves in these spaces of public debate. And so that’s why this bill will fundamentally help them in protecting their human rights. And so that’s why I commend this bill to the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker. As previous speakers have said, the Government has given very careful consideration about how to respond to the inquiry conducted by the royal commission, and that’s the reason why I support this bill. Members have also referred to the fact that it is a staged approach, and while this is step one, it will seek to tackle hate-motivated offending and to tackle that offending head-on. This will go to select committee, and no doubt the members of the Justice Committee will hear from submitters, and I’m sure that many people will have much to say. I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Well, I consider Kris Faafoi a friend, but it is fair to say that he left a series of landmines across Government that have now blown up in the Government’s face, whether it’s immigration; the justice portfolio more generally; or the TVNZ-RNZ merger, which seems to be coming apart at the seams; and then, of course, we get to hate speech, which poor old Kiri Allan—again, someone I consider a mate—has inherited from Kris Faafoi and has been asked by the Prime Minister to fix. But in the process of doing so, in the introduction of this bill, it has managed to please absolutely nobody, because this bill is being attacked from the right by the National Party and the ACT Party, and, of course, it’s being attacked by the left as well. So we’re in this bizarre position, or the Minister is in an invidious position, where nobody—nobody—basically, likes what she is proposing.

Frankly, this bill should be consigned to the dustbin of political history, and it shows, I think, a Government all at sea with its priorities in justice, because I do not believe and the National Party does not believe that this is the priority in the justice portfolio.

In response to Tangi Utikere’s point before about how this is the Government’s considered response to the royal commission, there is nothing considered about this process. The royal commission reported three years ago and the Government said that they would do a bunch of things, and this bill is about the most minute response ever and everything else has been kicked off to the Law Commission, again. So it’s the Government kicking this issue off into the long grass, and, no doubt, the Law Commission will do its very important work, it will come back in the life of the next Parliament, and we may well go round again.

But I want to make the point and defend free speech, because I don’t think the Government has made the case for why this is a justified limit—the addition of religious belief—to the Human Rights Act, or why this bill is a justified limit on section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, because, fundamentally, that’s what this issue is all about. Section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act protects freedom of speech in all its forms, and freedom of expression in all its forms—all communication. That’s the starting point, and that’s a quasi-constitutional statute. It’s of fundamental importance, and I don’t think the Government has made the case for why this is a justified limit.

I want to make the case in my speech for free speech, because, as the Chief Justice of Canada, Beverley McLachlin, has said, free speech is “the indispensable condition of nearly every other freedom”. It is of paramount importance in a free and democratic society, and I think that it is a right worth guarding jealously and protecting fiercely. Millions of people have died for free speech, and I worry that we betray their legacy too much.

Now, as David Seymour points out, free speech is a fundamental Enlightenment value, and the left used to be the party of the Enlightenment. The left used to be the party that protected Enlightenment values, and how things have changed. Now, the left tries to shut down speech that they don’t like. We’ve got the rise of cancel culture on universities. There was that absurd debacle four years ago, when the vice-chancellor of the University of Massey banned the mild-mannered Don Brash from speaking on campus in case some people were offended by what Don Brash said about whatever he was going to talk about.

But I want to start with the simple proposition that free speech is integral to what makes us human. Free speech is important in and of itself. It allows individuals to articulate their own conception of the good life and to develop and realise their potential, and it protects everything—that’s the point about free speech. It protects the offensive T-shirts people wear, provocative art, challenging novels, the speech in this place, the finest parliamentary oration—this is not a fine parliamentary oration, but I’m sure we can all think of speeches in the past—and the most boring Civil Service documents that we all consider on a daily basis. It undergirds our liberal, democratic society.

You can’t separate our democracy from free speech, and there’s a reason why authoritarians from time immemorial have sought to control the press and not allow the free and democratic expression of the polity in the public domain. A Government that can hear its citizens and their demands is responsive to them. Freedom of speech protects good governance, and, of course, the classical liberal conception of free speech, I think, is important—the market place of ideas. Unrestricted public debate allows the truth to prevail. The best ideas win out over the bad ones.

As Oliver Wendell Holmes put it in the Supreme Court in Abrams v United States, “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market”. Think about the best changes of the last 40 years: the market economy; the destruction of “Fortress New Zealand”; homosexual law reform; marriage equality; gay conversion therapy, in the last two or three years; or the Treaty of Waitangi settlements process, to take another example. Those big public policy debates that we’ve had in the Parliament and in wider society over the last 30 or 40 years, all of them—all of those debates—have depended upon free speech.

The ability for people of good faith and conscience to make the case for or against made those changes sustainable and endurable in the long term, and, of course, free speech is a social safety valve. Speech that is suppressed doesn’t cease to exist. Shutting down the mocking of religion, as this bill seeks to do, doesn’t make those thoughts or make the speech go away. It just makes it more difficult to criticise in the market place of ideas, and it means that conspiracy rather than truth is likely to triumph. So I’d rather have dumb, offensive ideas out there in the public domain for the debate and for mocking, rather than have them suppressed.

The whole point is that freedom of speech protects everyone and everything. It protects speech that’s crazy, it protects speech that’s rational, it protects speech that’s unpopular at any given moment, and it protects offensive speech, humorous speech, and even ridiculous speech. As Chomsky said a few years ago, “Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views that he liked. So was Stalin.” If you’re really in favour of free speech, then you’re in favour of freedom of speech for precisely the views that you despise. Otherwise, you’re not really in favour of free speech, and, of course, this bill is an impingement on free speech.

It sounds mild—“Oh, I’d just add religious belief. Who could be opposed to that?” But, of course, religion is a choice. It’s not like ethnicity or race. You can’t choose how you were born, but you can choose what religion you are.

So of course this bill raises significant concerns, because we want, in a free and democratic society, to be able to mock and excite hostility and condemn and criticise religion. Of course we want to be able to do that, and I have every respect for people of faith—of all different faiths—but the simple reality is that this bill will have an impact on people who want to criticise religious communities like Gloriavale. The Book of Mormon musical, for example, which is artistic expression, will raise serious concerns under this bill, and, of course, there is religious opposition to things like vaccination, for example. I, for one, think that those views are wrong, and I don’t want to get in trouble for standing up and saying that.

Actually, I have freedom of speech in this Parliament, but that right should be extended beyond that, and, of course, we should be able to mock a quasi-religion like Scientology. They believe in absurd things. Not everyone would say that, but I, for one, think that. So the ability to be able to mock and ridicule and excite hostility towards a religion like Scientology, Heaven’s Gate, or any other religion that someone might choose to talk about is important.

So this bill looks mild, but it isn’t, because it ties into this culture of shutting down speech that we don’t like, and it is reflective of a Government with the wrong priorities in justice. We oppose it.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): This bill is pretty mild. It’s a simple change that people can understand and appreciate, that makes speech that is likely to incite hostility unlawful. It should be read as part of the Government’s staged approach to the royal commission of inquiry into the terrorist attack in Christchurch in March in 2019 that recommended these changes and others which the Government is making. This is a sensible bill. I look forward to interrogating it in select committee and having these fun debates that Chris Bishop enjoys, and I hope he comes along. I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Human Rights (Incitement on Ground of Religious Belief) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 76

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is, That the Human Rights (Incitement on Ground of Religious Belief) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Instruction to Justice Committee

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Human Rights (Incitement on Ground of Religious Belief) Amendment Bill be reported back to the House by 25 May 2023.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Are there any objections to that motion?

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

This bill responds to persistent issues with the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 that have been identified across communities across New Zealand. When the Act was introduced it aimed to ensure the safe and responsible sale and consumption of alcohol. It also aimed to minimise alcohol-related harm. It is clear that the Act isn’t working and it hasn’t been effective to reduce harm. It has not given communities the voice that was envisaged when the Act came into force nearly 10 years ago.

The bill makes targeted changes to the licensing process set out in the Act, addressing three key issues. Firstly, the bill makes changes to how local alcohol policies, or LAPs, are adopted and applied. It removes the ability for parties to appeal provisional LAPs to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority whilst retaining the avenues for judicial review. It also enables district licensing committees to decline a licence renewal application if it would be inconsistent with the policies set out in the relevant LAP. And there are a few clear reasons for making these changes. When the Act was passed in 2012, councils were given the ability to develop their own LAPs in consultation with the communities that they represent so that the alcohol regulation would reflect the unique character and circumstances of their local area. For years now, many LAPs have been held up in the appeals process, costing ratepayers millions of dollars while delaying and sometimes preventing councils from adopting LAPs at all. As of May this year, 86 percent of provisional LAPs have been appealed by supermarkets and 73 percent by bottle stores. Meanwhile, nearly two-thirds of New Zealand’s population live in a council area that has not yet adopted an LAP. And so it is very clear to us that this balance needs to change. These changes to how LAPs are adopted and applied will minimise the barriers to adopting LAPs and ensure that they are more effective once they are in force, better serving as a tool for communities to reduce alcohol harm in their area.

Secondly, the bill will remove existing barriers to community participation in alcohol licensing decisions. It will allow anyone to object to a licence or renewal application. This will also make the process more accessible. To support this we are also making changes to ensure licensing committees and the licensing authority have a range of measures available to effectively manage objections and appearances at licensing hearings. The current law allows people to object if they have greater interest than the public generally. However, only a small number of those who want to object to an application actually get the chance to do so because the law has been constructed and interpreted so narrowly. For instance, those who want to object on behalf of organisations or groups that have an interest in alcohol harm reduction may only be able to object in their personal capacity, if at all. I’ve heard of school principals, addiction clinicians, and iwi that have not been able to object to applications on behalf of the communities that they serve. Only a fraction of applications for alcohol licences are refused. This demonstrates that communities are struggling to impact these local alcohol licensing decisions. In the last five years across our three largest cities nearly 7,000 alcohol licence applications were granted, with only 22 being declined. By allowing anyone to object, whether as an individual or representing a group or an organisation, the bill removes another barrier that stands in the way of community engagement and involvement.

Thirdly, the bill will change how district licensing committee hearings are conducted so that they are more accessible—they are fairer for participants. I’ve heard that these hearings are often legalistic and adversarial. The current process is incredibly formal, with some participants saying they felt intimidated and harassed while under cross-examination by incredibly experienced lawyers representing the interests of well-resourced parties. This bill will require licensing committees to set up procedures so that hearings are run without any unnecessary formality. The bill removes cross-examination and does not permit those who appear at hearings to question other parties or witnesses of other parties. We will also make changes that enable licensing committees to hold hearings remotely, increasing the accessibility for participants who will now be able to join proceedings by phone, video link, or other remote-access facilities.

It was always envisaged that people would have the opportunity to be heard when it came to how alcohol is sold locally. I’ve heard loud and clear that this part of the Act just simply is not working. By making these targeted and much-needed changes, this bill addresses three key issues that have been identified across Aotearoa, particularly those that are battling the devastating effects of alcohol-related harm.

Our intention with this reform is to correct the balance of opportunity in the alcohol licensing process. This bill will enable communities to better participate in licensing decision-making in ways that they know work best for them. It will boost their influence to reduce alcohol harm in their local areas, and it’s the first step in bringing power back to the people, where it belongs. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 was a notoriously difficult piece of legislation to get through this House. It came out of the Law Commission’s 2009 report, Alcohol in our Lives, and its supplementary report Curbing the Harm, which came out in April 2010, with over 150 recommendations for changes to our alcohol laws. And most of those recommendations, the National Government supported—some it supported in part, and others it did not support because it didn’t believe that it would actually reduce harm and improve our regulatory framework for the sale and supply of alcohol. Now, I think Ministers Power and Collins did an outstanding job in navigating through all of those recommendations and coming up with what was a very good piece of legislation. Despite the many criticisms that came of the previous Government, most of those criticisms were that it didn’t go far enough or fast enough. But it’s worth keeping in mind that that 2012 Act was the first material constraining of alcohol regulation for nearly 80 years, and there’s no doubt that it had a positive impact—the degree to which it has is open to a bit of debate, and certainly our alcohol use and misuse is quite lumpy, as was indicated in the supplementary analysis report, which I’ll come to in a minute—but it did certainly reduce the per capita consumption of alcohol in this country—that was probably happening a bit anyway.

What’s also happened over the years is that while we may be drinking less overall, there are pockets of our community that do drink hazardously and harmfully, and for some of them—particularly our young—that hasn’t been perhaps as effective as we would’ve liked. Page 7 of that supplementary analysis highlights that lumpiness: around 20 percent of New Zealanders drink hazardously; that rate remains stable over six years; males are twice as likely to drink hazardously than females; 18- to 24-year-olds; and Māori and Pacific people—Pacific people are less likely to drink, but if they do, they’re more likely to drink hazardously, so it really is a complicated picture.

Now, one of the number one principles that underpinned that legislation was the idea that communities would have more control of the nature, number, and location of alcohol outlets through these local alcohol policies. And I strongly supported that, even though I wasn’t convinced that it was going to work. Paragraph 11 of that supplementary analysis says that alcohol-related harms fall disproportionately on New Zealanders living in the poorest neighbourhoods, who are 1.3 times more likely to report drinking hazardously than those living in the wealthiest. Now, that implies that the nature and location of liquor outlets is actually driving that harmful drinking, and I wasn’t convinced by that in 2011 when we were considering the base bill.

But in actual fact, we had a small number of live laboratories around the country to test that theory—Invercargill was one of them. Invercargill has been under alcohol licensing for generations, so the licensing trust in Invercargill does just that: it controls the nature, number, and location of alcohol outlets. One cannot go and buy a bottle of wine at a supermarket in Invercargill; there are liquor stores, but they are controlled as to where they are—and, of course, the profits from those liquor stores actually are poured back into the community, and a lot of the sporting and cultural assets in Invercargill are funded by that trust. It’s a very good system, I think. But one would think that if there was control of alcohol outlets, that harm in Invercargill would be lower than the national average. Now, I haven’t looked at it recently, but I do remember in 2012 when considering this, that actually the opposite was the case. Hazardous drinking, alcohol harm, alcohol-related road accidents, and violent crime was higher than the national average. So it does not follow that by simply controlling the location of liquor outlets, harm will necessarily reduce.

All of that said, I’m a strong supporter of communities being able to choose whether or not they have a certain number or type of alcohol outlets; that’s an important principle, I think. I should say from the outset that National’s opposition to this bill—and we will oppose it at first reading—is not an indication that the local alcohol policies framework is not in need of improvement—

Anna Lorck: All you’re doing is opposing—the whole time, all you do is oppose, oppose, oppose.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Pipe down, Ms Lorck, and maybe we’ll have an interesting and sensible conversation, for once, about bills we debate.

Anna Lorck: You just never—you just oppose, the whole time.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That’s why they call them debates, Anna Lorck! People have different views; it’s called free speech—although we’ve just had a bit of a conversation about that as well.

So the fact that we’re not going to support this bill at first reading is not an indication that the local alcohol policy (LAP) framework is not in need of improvement; it’s an indication that this is not the solution. This is not the way we should go, and essentially what this bill is doing is picking favourable and unfavourable submitters on a local alcohol policy, and I don’t think that’s right. Actually, in the explanatory note of the bill, on page 2 it says—and this is really interesting—“DLCs” (district licensing committees) and the “ARLA” (Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority)—under this bill—“[will] have [the] provisions available to manage the volume of objections and appearances before licensing hearings”. That’s picking winners, but that’s consistent with a Government that, when the number of submissions on bills and things gets a bit unwieldy for them, they just ignore them—they try and control the ability of people to submit. Now, I accept, without question, that competitors have overly slowed down the process of getting LAPs through, but the solution is not to prevent that; the solution is to expedite it in a more timely fashion, and we have a considerable problem in this country with civil delay, and it’s gotten worse in the last five years. The solution to civil delay is not to curtail people’s democratic right to make a submission on a bill or a policy; it’s to streamline that process and make those voices heard but not get bogged down in it. So we understand the problem—we don’t believe this is the right solution.

Now, there are many good elements, I think, in this bill, and I look forward to the select committee process actually fleshing them out, and it may well be that there is a place we can get to where National can support this bill—but curtailing people’s ability to contribute is not the answer. Now, the Minister in her first reading speech actually made a comment that I wanted to touch on in my conclusion, and that is the number of councils that haven’t actually adopted a local alcohol policy. That concerns me greatly, because what we’re trying to solve is a problem where the policies are being usurped, but, actually, councils have it within their power to work with their communities to create the local alcohol policies that are appropriate to them, and that has not happened in many cases.

Arena Williams: No, they’re being repealed.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Perhaps—well, no, that’s not what the Minister said. That is happening, that’s true, but there was a separate comment which they hadn’t even got going in the first place, and I think it behoves those councils to work harder. In my own home city of Dunedin, we had the opposite problem, where the alcohol policy—according to the mayor of the time, the late Sir Dave Cull—was not sufficiently robust to stop a liquor outlet going in on the corner of Princes Street and Moray Place, right in the heart of where hazardous drinking occurs, particularly by our young; and he threw his hands up and said, “Oh, well, we couldn’t do anything about it”. That is wrong—he had the power, through the local alcohol policy, for him and his council and the licensing authorities to do something different. So I think we need to make sure that the councils use the powers that they do have, and then support them with a more expeditious process for finalising that does not involve curtailing the right of people to have a say on those policies.

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

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Well, in my days when I worked in Parliament, I was taught a really important lesson: you shouldn’t go to a Minister with a problem unless you had a solution.

The National Party, at points of time like this, resembles a children’s birthday party, where they chase each other around without actually knowing what the outcome is going to be. So I weep for the National Party today, for simply bleating about community issues that cause pain and suffering, without having any tangible outcomes or solutions. That is the epitome of the National Party to me.

Communities are battling with the effects of alcohol-related harm, which was introduced by National in 2012 and contributed to the silencing of our communities’ voices and favoured the interests of those in the alcohol industry, who made money at the expense of the wellbeing of our people.

I commend this bill to the House. It is a current appeal process that is failing and is costing our councils and ratepayers millions in legal fees, as alcohol companies and supermarkets thwarted the effects of local councils to limit the sale and the harm that puts upon our people. I’m proud to be part of a Government that is strongly taking a stance to make this work better, and I’m ashamed of those opposite who can’t stand up and back an outcome.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the chance to have a contribution to this, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill. As the Hon Michael Woodhouse has already said on behalf of the National Party, we don’t support the bill in its current form; therefore, we won’t be supporting it at the first reading. But we do look forward to a discussion and a debate at the select committee process. We’ll hear from submitters, no doubt, on various different sides of the issue, and we’ll see if there’s a shape that the bill can be worked into that will make it worth supporting.

Of course, the starting point is that we acknowledge that alcohol is a dangerous drug—or at least it’s a drug that’s used dangerously by some in our society; of course, it’s capable of being used in a way that’s not dangerous, it’s capable of being consumed—

Simon Court: For hand sanitiser, for example.

CHRIS PENK: —in moderation. Our colleague and friend from the ACT Party points out that hand sanitiser contains alcohol.

But if we’re talking about sale and supply and, actually, I’d add “consumption” of alcohol—that’s word’s not in the title of the legislation—we can distinguish this from some other drugs that are not capable of being consumed in moderation. So that’s the starting point: an acknowledgment that there is harm caused in our community by the way that some of our fellow Kiwis consume alcohol. If you doubt that, there’s the press gallery party tonight, and anyone who wishes to head along and gain any content for their submissions at the select committee process—you know, if they’ve received an invite—would be able to do so.

But, actually, this isn’t really a bill about alcohol; this is a bill about civil procedure. This is a bill about processes that currently allow participation by various different groups, community and otherwise, in terms of the way that local area plans are made by territorial authorities—aka, councils—in relation to local ways of allowing outlets to operate, and so forth. It’s actually really important, lest anyone should think that this is merely a bureaucratic or a technocratic matter to ensure that there is a robust process by which these plans are made, because, if an enduring solution is to be reached that will provide, for the long term, a community with a plan and a set of processes—for example, as to the location of liquor outlets—then, actually, there needs to be a process that is respected and respectable in terms of the way that is made.

Now, it might be the case—indeed, I don’t dispute that it is the case—that, at the moment, the process is capable of abuse by those who have a vested interest of a commercial nature. But the solution, as the Hon Michael Woodhouse has pointed out, is actually to enable and facilitate, indeed provide a process that people can have their say much more quickly and effectively than is currently the case so that communities can have in place plans that are appropriate for them, rather than to say, “Well, the way that we achieve such a process is by saying that half the evidence won’t be brought out.” If we doubt the basic nature of what’s happening here, we should look at all the other judicial and quasi-judicial bodies in this country also beset by delays, heartbreak, and, frankly, the ruin of many lives, as across the Family Court, the District Court, the High Court, the Supreme Court, the coroner’s court, various authorities and tribunals—absolutely disgraceful delays.

Yes, there are some longstanding fundamental problems, but, yes, they have got worse in the last five years. Yes, they have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 response. But, no, there hasn’t been enough imagination, there hasn’t been enough technological ingenuity, even to the point of providing a reasonable level of facilities of audiovisual links, for example. And so there—

Arena Williams: Don’t blame the courts. These appeals are brought to delay the courts.

CHRIS PENK: Well, we hear that it shouldn’t be the court that should be blamed. I’m not blaming the court; I’m blaming the Government that presides over a system that doesn’t provide the leadership and—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! Go ahead, Chris Penk.

CHRIS PENK: —thank you, Madam Speaker—a forum in which voices can be heard. How ironic that the other side of the House is shouting down these points that are being made. We have a major problem with access to justice in this country. Justice delayed is justice denied, and we have, in this case, the notion that the communities are denied justice in the sense of having the plans put in place that they need to have because of the systems being overly slow, legalistic, we’ve heard—well, it’s a legal environment. I mean, we do need to have an environment where we have a robust process where everyone can be heard and then an enduring solution can be reached.

So, if we look, for example, at what exactly is proposed—and, as I say, I look forward genuinely to hearing the ways in which this is going to operate, at select committee—we hear that there’ll be the removal of ability to appeal provisions, provisional local alcohol policies—LAPs, so called—and requirements to consult on discontinued ones. Well, the requirement to consult is probably a good one. But the removal of the ability to appeal: well, unless that’s an abuse of process—and I accept, actually, the point that my colleague and friend across the House makes, sometimes it can be an abuse of process, and appeals can be made merely to delay, and that’s, again, a problem in the justice system more generally. It’s often been said that an incompetent lawyer can delay a trial for weeks, but a good one can delay it for months or years. These are things to which we should be aware and alive, but to say, then, that there shouldn’t be a right of appeal, and if we’re interested in evidence-based policy, then to preclude the evidence from the process whereby the community and those affected by these plans—if we’re precluding those voices and precluding that evidence, then, actually, as a House, we’re not interested in evidence-based policy, and that’s exactly what we should be looking to and allowing, and with the result that will apply in each individual community going forward.

So we hear, then, that the bill will have procedures that avoid unnecessary formality. Well, that’s a good thing in itself. I’ve given that a little tick, for what that’s worth.

But I put a question mark next to the next two bullet points: “do not permit those who appear at hearings to question any party or witness”. So it will be possible to put forward a view or an opinion or a feeling or a vibe or a prejudice that may or may not be backed up by evidence. Without the ability to ask questions and say, “Actually, where did that come from?”, and actually to test that and not to permit cross-examination, which is the next bullet point, which is a related point, but to not allow the discussion to be tested by either side actually asking questions of the other, such that the impartial decision-maker can come to a conclusion, it just seems absolutely extraordinary to me. I mean, they’re going about it in the wrong way.

Within my remaining time, I will simply point out the obvious, which is that that there are many good ways of reducing alcohol harm—“minimising harm”, as the phrase goes. One of these, the alcohol and other drug treatment court, for example, was established by National, it’s been extended by the current Government to various places—that’s a positive thing. There are lots of things that we can do in the communities, and it might be that there’s a better process that can be put in place—

Anna Lorck: There is; it’s in the bill.

CHRIS PENK: —for the local alcohol plans. The other side say, “it’s in the bill.”, and that’s fine; we can have that discussion and that debate. But in the meantime, there’s no evidence—and we’re interested in evidence in this law—that this is going to be a better process that actually enables enduring solutions to be reached. It doesn’t appear to us that’s the case. That’s why we do not support this bill.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on what is a great bill. This is an exciting day for South Auckland. I’m really proud as the member of Manurewa to stand here and say that the community of Manurewa, that has been calling for a stop to the proliferation of bottle stores, is getting that because this Minister of Justice is brave and this Government is delivering for South Aucklanders. It is a good day. It’s doing that because the continual appeals of the Auckland local alcohol policy have resulted in very light-touch regulation for the country’s most dangerous drug, that is available to everyone on every street corner in South Auckland. The neighbours don’t want it. The mums of Manurewa Playcentre don’t want it. The church leaders, the principals, the iwi leaders, the Māori wardens—they don’t want those alcohol shops, and this Government is giving them a voice. It’s giving them a voice like the Government tried to do in 2012 and failed because councils weren’t able to put in the local alcohol policies that they want. Councillors around the table have been asking Governments to do this.

We’re doing the hard thing. We’re making it possible for those local alcohol policies to be put in place. We’re making it possible, for when submitters go along to these hearings, that they’re not put under cross-examination by well-paid lawyers who are set to make it so uncomfortable for them that they won’t try again. And we’re making it possible to have a procedure within the room that is respectful of everyone. This is a great bill. I hope in select committee that we can bring our colleagues on the other side on side with it, because this is something that we should all be able to support.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill.

The Green Party strongly supports this bill. It gives power back to councils and it gives power back to communities to avoid harm from alcohol. I really acknowledge the work of my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick, who would like to be here today. As our drug reform spokesperson, she has been working alongside Māori health organisations, Alcohol Healthwatch, Hāpai Hauora, and councils around the motu to advance the need to change the law. It was her bill that was pulled from the members’ bill ballot earlier this year, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill, which has helped inspire Government to put this bill in place because it responds to the concerns of councils around the country. In Ōtautahi, Christchurch, the Christchurch City Council has spent a million dollars and seven years seeking to develop a local alcohol policy only to abandon it in 2017 because of the aggressive work of the industry in seeking to stymie it through the appeals process.

So this bill is a good bill because it means that organisations and individuals can no longer appeal provisional provisions in those local alcohol policies, which the councils have been trying to develop to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority. Those appeals were fundamentally by supermarkets and bottle stores and the alcohol industry seeking to prevent councils expressing the wishes of their communities to control the proliferation of bottle stores and the proliferation of alcohol. So we also support the widening of the discretion to the district licensing committee so that they can more easily decline applications for licences—they can decline them if they’re inconsistent with the local alcohol policy. Previously, that discretion was quite restrictive.

The justice Minister commented on the intention to widen the scope for individuals and organisations to participate in the licensing process because, at the moment, the law refers to people with a greater interest than the public generally being able to make submissions, and that that had been structured and interpreted narrowly. I was really interested in that because that same phraseology, with a greater interest than the public generally, is in the Natural and Built Environment Bill. If in the alcohol area it’s been used to restrict public participation, then there’s a very real risk that if it’s similarly interpreted by the courts, it could be used to restrict participation on natural environment issues. So I hope that that and the experience with this bill is something that the Environment Committee will look at.

Mr Woodhouse, I think, was objecting to issues around trade competition and the inability to appeal on those grounds, but that has also been a key part of the Resource Management Act for a long time: supermarkets cannot object on the basis of trade competition. Despite that, we’ve still seen the supermarket laws, so the provisions in the bill which put constraints around supermarkets, bottle stores, and others objecting solely on the grounds of trade competition are useful.

Alcohol harm, like all drug harm, isn’t inevitable, but we are experiencing it on an enormous scale in Aotearoa. When we’ve got evidence-based regulation, that can make a difference. This bill is responding to the evidence about the difficulties that councils have had in expressing the wishes of their communities through local alcohol policies, removing some of the barriers to councils getting those local alcohol policies completed, enabling greater participation, and enabling a much less legalistic, less adversarial process.

Now, Mr Penk objected to the restraints on cross-examination in those hearings. If individuals are being cross-examined by lawyers in suits representing big companies, that is extremely intimidating. I’m hopeful that the panels, the licensing committees, will be asking questions using more of a mode of inquiry so that all of the information can be surfaced, but it does prevent the community being harassed by well-paid lawyers.

So we support this bill. We would strongly encourage the Government to pursue the commitment the Minister has made to looking at marketing, sponsorship, and pricing, because the second part of Chlöe Swarbrick’s harm minimisation bill is about winding down alcohol advertising and its sponsorship of sports in the broadcast industry to reduce the harm that alcohol does. This bill is a good first step. We encourage the Government to take that second step in this term. Kia ora.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party to oppose the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill in its first reading. It’s been quite a robust debate across the House—I think mainly because Labour on the other side are not taking their 10-minute calls but rather doing 30-second ones, so perhaps that’s why there’s so much yelling across the way.

I think when you actually take the time to listen to some of the debates that are coming about from the Opposition, you might understand the concern. Because while the Government believes that they are fixing a problem with this piece of legislation, there are concerns about what the legislation actually does. That’s why Opposition parties are opposing it, not actually potentially opposing the entire concept of the bill but aspects of the bill. And that’s why we have debates in the House in a robust way.

So if we start off by looking at what these changes will actually achieve—because it’s going to amend the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and we’re told it’s going to improve the community’s ability to be able to influence alcohol regulation—the Government says that the reason why they’re putting this bill through is because what we currently have is not working. Aspects that members have highlighted include going into court and having people in suits going up against individuals because the individual is trying to come against big business and they can’t afford to be able to get lawyers in to debate their cause as well. So this is seen as being unfair and something that is needed to be amended.

I point out, though, this is not the only piece of legislation where individuals find themselves in that situation. The coroner’s court is a really good example of where individuals who appear before the court end up having industries or lawyers for Government agencies actually fighting against what the individual has to say. They also find that intimidating.

It doesn’t mean that we can introduce a law that takes away certain rights for people to be able to have robust debate, but it also means that we do have to introduce some laws where we make sure that there is fairness, that the individual that comes along has a fair hearing without feeling like they’re being intimidated by a bunch of lawyers in suits representing big business. We just don’t agree with the way that this law is going to go about achieving that.

We acknowledge that there is potential harm in alcohol abuse. We see it, especially when we look at young kids with foetal alcohol syndrome, kids being born to alcoholic mothers. This is a problem that this bill isn’t going to fix. We need to have a look at how we can address some of the issues from alcohol abuse, but this may not necessarily do it. However, we are looking forward to that robust discussion and debate—and, of course, submissions that come in from all sides—because that’s the fair process and the fair way to ensure that we come out with good legislation.

The problem that we have—and I hope I get this correct—is we have territorial authorities who draft local alcohol policies (LAPs), and they go through a special consultation process. The Government keeps saying, “Well, this isn’t working because that consultation process is being held up with debates and with reviews and it’s causing delays and, as a result, we’re not getting those local alcohol policies actually going through the system. So we have some councils that don’t even have any because they’re getting tied up with the debates and the reviews around them.”

So that’s preventing the territorial authorities from introducing what the communities want as part of their local alcohol policies. The district licensing committees approve those LAPs and they also approve the new and renewed licence applications.

Andrew Bayly: Nude or renewed?

NICOLE McKEE: Both. The new and renewed alcohol licence applications. But the district licensing committee process cannot account for any inconsistencies in the local alcohol policies if they have not yet been approved. So there’s a bit of a conflict going on there. You’ve got this intent to ensure that the process is aligning with what the community wants, but the community voice isn’t being heard because they can’t get through the process because of all the hold-ups. So we do have to look at how we can make sure that everybody gets a fair hearing, the processes go through quickly, and the community is heard.

The problem, though, is that the bill that’s introduced here removes a particular voice, and that’s the voice of the business owner. So when the business owner then has a conflict with what a policy may introduce—wants to have an argument, I guess, or a debate about what the community perceives—they’re being restricted in their ability to do it because they are being blamed for holding up the process.

So while we say, “Let’s have a look at the process, then, to make sure it moves a bit quicker,” actually denying somebody the voice—especially when it comes down to their business—I don’t think, and neither does ACT, that that is the way to work through a situation where we have such major conflict.

The other party, the Labour Party across the way, are being very vocal about this. We get that; we do understand that. But there’s this other side, the other influence on this bill. And that means those people that are going to be affected, and that is the people who own businesses.

How can they know from year to year whether or not they’re going to have a viable business every time they go to renew their licence? They don’t. So what does that mean for the staff that work for them? What does it mean for the families of those that work in the industry? What does it mean? It means that they don’t have any certainty around employment. In this day and age, where we have a cost of living crisis, we need to make sure that they do.

So ensuring this also means looking at the evidence, and it was really hard for me to try and garner what the evidence was because there was so much of it missing. When we look at policy framework and whether or not we’re going to make sure that pieces of legislation are able to be implemented and implemented well, we have to make sure the ducks are all in a row.

The regulatory impact statement for this bill has not been prepared in time, and the reason why is because it’s been done under urgency. How can we make sure good laws go through when it’s done under urgency? In the departmental disclosure statement on page 4 in the sub note, it actually says it was done under urgency—page 4, paragraph 2.3: it was done urgency and then we don’t have the regulatory impact statement. A Supplementary Analysis Report was produced to go to Cabinet because they could not do the regulatory impact statement.

When you look at some of the stats as well, we’re seeing that we’re actually reducing our alcohol intake in New Zealand. Stats New Zealand tells us this. They tell us how much people drink every year; they measure the alcohol consumption. For example, a 150-millilitre glass of wine at 12 percent alcohol by volume is 18 millilitres of alcohol. A 330-millilitre bottle of beer at 5 percent is 16.5 millilitres of alcohol. It’s in the Stats New Zealand evidence.

In 1986, the average Kiwi aged over 18 years old drank 12.2 litres of alcohol per annum—that’s about 1.85 drinks per day. The figure today is 9.2 litres per annum, which is 1.4 drinks per day. So the alcohol consumption in New Zealand is falling. We can do better with this, but it is falling.

What we also need to look at is whether or not we are going to allow businesses such as our bottle stores to continue to offer low- or no-alcohol products, which is also on the rise. Not everybody is drinking, but everyone should have the ability to make the choice. And everyone should have the ability to be able to conduct their business, or at least debate the reason why their business has been taken away from them.

So in this first instance, we will oppose this bill and hope we can sort out a resolution through select committee stage. Thank you.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I have never heard so much nonsense from the National Party and the ACT Party as I’ve heard now. National says it wants to back councils. This bill backs councils. Councils want to be able to have a say on the liquor stores that are built and run in their communities.

I speak on behalf of Henare O’Keefe, who has fought tooth and nail in Flaxmere against a proliferation of alcohol stores. He wasn’t able to get anywhere. This bill—this bill—puts the power in communities’ hands to have a say.

National has no local in them. Everything they’re opposing is just for politics. But this time, National has got it so, so wrong. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Simon Watts—five minutes.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Eleven days to Christmas and my true love gave to me the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill. Well—eleven days to go. And after listening to the contribution from the member for Tukituki, you can understand why this Government is looking forward to Christmas and getting out of this place. This is another bill in a trilogy, in a litany, in a long, long line of bills that are not going to deliver better outcomes for hard-working Kiwis.

We’re getting a lot of jib from the other side, a lot of comment coming across, and I’m going to use the opportunity to say—I can tell you what, I can see who’s driving a lot of people to drink in this country at the moment, and that is this Government. The way in which they are making such dismal decisions no doubt is driving a lot of people to despair and a lot of people to drink, and that is, obviously, not appropriate, but I can give hope to those people that next year things will change.

This bill is not based on any evidence, and if only this was the only bill that I could say that about. But we know, time and time again, bills come to this House, on to this Order Paper, rammed through under urgency by a Government that’s using its majority, that are not based on evidence. The regulatory impact statement, as I heard from one of my colleagues before, hasn’t even been done, and so, irrespective of where we are, this is rushed legislation that is not going to deliver the outcomes for hard-working Kiwis. That is a great shame, but it is reflective of a desperate Government that is on the ropes.

National absolutely acknowledges the impact that alcohol and misuse has and the serious harms that alcohol has within our communities, but we also believe in the premise around personal responsibility. We need to ensure that we empower those elements within our community, particularly our business areas and our local government, to be able to play their role in regards to the implementation of laws in this space. This law takes away an appeals process, which, in effect, precludes the ability for parties that are impacted by this decision to provide evidence in regard to the decision. If this was the only bill that’s taking away rights and responsibilities from hard-working Kiwis—but, again, this adds to a long line of legislation that is following this ideological bent by this Government.

This appeal process and mechanisms to ensure that councils have the ability to implement or play a part in that conversation are being taken out. That’s inconsistent with how this type of process operates in other areas, and it also, I think, as outlined by a colleague and friend, Chris Penk, really goes to the heart of weakening an overall process to ensure that appropriate debate is had on what are important conversations within our neighbourhoods and our communities.

National absolutely support the practical harm reduction initiatives that work alongside those within our community institutions, and, really, the answer to these solutions is very much at a neighbourhood and community level. My role as a volunteer ambulance officer and registered paramedic—I see the impacts face-on in terms of alcohol and drugs, and what impact that has on individuals and family. And in those instances, the challenge, really, is ensuring that we have the appropriate support at both a family and whānau level to support those individuals which have an underlying general addiction to alcohol. The restriction in terms of this process will not deal with the underlying aspects, which will actually provide solutions for those individuals, and that’s a great shame.

National will be opposing this legislation. We will be following its progress through to the select committee process, but I really do wish that the members on the other side of the House use the opportunity over the summer break to reflect on what has occurred this year, and come back in the new year with a little bit more ambition and positivity. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ve never heard such controversy in one single speech. From the other side of the House, we heard that they were “for harm minimisation from alcohol”, then we heard that they “supported local communities”, but what does their deed actually say? They’re against all of that, they don’t listen to their local communities, they don’t actually go out on the streets to the communities that are the most affected by alcohol to hear what will actually help them. This bill is one that was driven through our grassroots organisations. That’s why I commend this bill to the House.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Speaker. In my maiden speech, I stood in this House and I said the community knows what the community needs. This bill absolutely acknowledges what the community needs. Case in point, Dr Grant Hewison, who is representing Communities Against Alcohol Harm, spent 10 years in South Auckland—10 years in South Auckland—advocating for such a bill.

Now, Porirua is one of the few communities that has a local alcohol policy. It took them five years to get to the point where they could actually have a ratified local alcohol policy, and what that has meant is that advocates like Aiga Caroline Mareko and Sose Annandale, from Porirua East, and Liz Kelly, the CEO of the Porirua Whānau Centre, they were able to support their community and use the local alcohol policy plus the current framework to be able to stand there and stop alcohol stores opening across the road from their local school. That is why this bill is in the House, because the community has asked us for it, the advocates like Dr Grant Hewison have asked us to do this, and I’m proud to stand on this side of the House and commend this bill to the House.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): We have heard some great speeches from the Government, haven’t we, but in all they’ve lasted for 10 minutes of the last hour and a half. They must be absolutely convinced that this is the right way to go about it or they’d have spoken for longer. Anyway, sorry, Madam Speaker, I’ll get back to the bill.

Anyone would imagine, having been involved in local government, local alcohol plans, applications for licence, and applying for licence to dispense or sell alcohol, or having watched every second vacant store in their community turn up as a bottle store—one could imagine that you’d want to change the law and you’d want to do something about it. And I dispute the comments from the other side of the House that the National Party are opposed to local communities making decisions for local communities. We’re absolutely not. What we’re opposed to is the manner in which they’re going about it in this bill, and I’ll explain myself as we go along.

Having been a part of this process myself for quite a bit of my life, far too much of my life actually, and having seen the challenges that communities have with every plan that council makes—and you’ve got to remember that every plan that council makes originates in this place here. We cause all these plans to be made; the councils don’t. We cause the costs on ratepayers; the councils don’t. All of this stuff comes and originates in the Parliament, and so the problem that they’re trying to resolve in this bill doesn’t solely relate to alcohol; it relates to every single piece of planning that a council does.

With every piece of planning a council does, you end up, to quote Eugenie Sage—and fortunately for us, not all lawyers wear suits; there are other sorts of lawyers as well, but she doesn’t seem to think so. There are always going to be lawyers involved in legal discussions in the planning that councils do, irrespective of where it comes from and how it works. So the challenge for communities and for us is to find a more equitable way for councils to arrange all of their planning activities, because in almost every aspect you find, whether it’s property development or whether it’s poker machines—and I’ll get on to that in a minute—but whatever it is, the difficulty is always with the community because the community are always the volunteers who are leading discussion on behalf of their community against some form of business interest or professional interest or even local interest who are better funded than they are. That’s just inevitably going to happen. So the problem here isn’t fixing the alcohol law or the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012; the problem here is to find a way that councils can equitably put plans in place and involve their community in making those decisions without the community having to spend an inordinate amount of money getting there.

I want to just touch on the challenges that we found, for example, with the licensing of poker machines in local communities. What effectively happens is you have advocates for and against the poker machine locations—and this is exactly what we’re trying to do with the alcohol bill here. You then have a whole lot of poker machine operators, and they could well be the alcohol store operators, who are advocating on their behalf in retaining the number of poker machines. So when a council puts a cap on the number of poker machines, they, effectively, create cartels because, effectively, you’ve got a group of people who have got control of those poker machines, and the tighter you make it, the more money those people make. Simple as that. The point I’m going to make is that making legislation and regulation to drop consumption and use of things doesn’t work.

I’ll go to the cigarette industry right now to quote that. When I was young, you could buy a pack of cigarettes for 50c; they now cost $37 for the same packet of cigarettes. And do you know who buys them? The people who can’t afford them generally, not the people who can. The people who can’t afford them are the people who buy cigarettes. And so we’re doing the same in that industry: we restrict the number of outlets for cigarettes; it doesn’t make any difference to the people who buy them because they’ll still go to the outlet that sells them. The difference is that they’ll have to travel to get them. So my point is that the only thing that I think has created a huge opportunity in respect of the tobacco industry is education and the fact that we’re now able to, I guess, quantify the harm they do, as well as stop people from smoking. My argument is the same thing would apply to alcohol.

Having said all that, I just want to go back to a point that was raised earlier in respect of the way this legislation is structured. Because if you have a local alcohol plan, and if you change the law in the manner this bill is proposing to do so, you’ll end up with the potential for a perfectly legitimate business—you could look at something like the Hokowhitu Village wines and spirits, who have been there for probably 50-odd years or 45 years in Hokowhitu Village in Palmerston North. They could easily find that, as part of the local alcohol plan, they suddenly are not a legitimate part of that plan. That business that’s operated for years and years could suddenly find that, the next time they reapply for their licence, they’ve lost their licence simply because the local alcohol plan contains content that precludes them from operating in that manner.

I want to just go to something else that was raised in the course of this, and I’m reading it quite modern now. [Member reads from mobile phone] I’ve never done this in the House before, but I want to read a little piece out of a district alcohol plan, and it’s talking—

Andrew Bayly: You’re a quite techno grandfather.

IAN McKELVIE: Yes, I know. It talks about who can object to an application for an alcohol licence: “A person may object to the grant of a licence only if he or she has a greater interest in the application [for it] than the public generally. You would be considered to have a greater interest if you lived close to the proposed premises, operated a business or organisation close to the premises, or had some other close connection with the proposed premises.” When you read that, it’s quite clear that the current licensing system allows an equitable group of people to contest that licence. I don’t see any reason why someone who lives in Taumarunui, for example, should be able to oppose a licence for someone who lives in Ōhākune, which is 100 kilometres away. So this this bill, in my view, is just replicating what is already legitimate in the law.

I go back to the point I raised earlier about the fact that almost all council plans, from the annual plan to whatever plan we’ve got, have inequity in them that the Government are trying to fix. And this particular bill in respect of alcohol, which they’ve also tried to fix in recent days in respect of other issues—it needs to be generally reviewed and the whole collective way we go about these plans and giving communities voices in them needs to be changed.

So having said all that, we basically oppose the bill for some of the reasons I’ve outlined. I think it was said earlier by one of the Government members that they hope they can put it in order so that we might support it at the second reading. Well, I hope they can, too, but they certainly won’t be able to if it’s got the content that’s in it at the moment. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As the final speaker on this side of the House, I want to say some very short, quick comments. I thank all the members, specifically the members on this side of the House, who are very clear, in terms of this bill.

This bill will deliver to the people of our community, specifically to have community participation; there is a lot of evidence in the community—Madam Speaker, just if you could indulge me just for a couple of seconds. I came from the community where we had a very difficult time in trying to go through the process that the legislation enacted by the previous Government said that we had the tools to challenge in the proceedings.

I just want to acknowledge our colleague Grant Hewison who is up there in gallery. For a number of years, we worked very, very hard in the community. For the community, as you’ve heard, the speakers in Porirua, in Lower Hutt, in Flaxmere, in Howick in Auckland—the community and Auckland Council across Tāmaki-makau-rau, we had a very difficult time to challenge the district licensing panels.

This bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill, will deliver the outcomes. I invite our members across the other side to come to South Auckland, come to my garage, I’ll show you that evidence, loud and clear. It will show you that community participation to challenge in the process of district licensing is required.

On that note, we will get the consistency through this bill, through the process, when it goes to select committee. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 76

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is,

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Bills

Therapeutic Products Bill

First Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I present a legislative statement on the Therapeutic Products Bill.

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

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Therapeutic Products Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill.

Today is a somewhat historic step forward towards a more modern, comprehensive, and risk-proportionate regulatory regime for therapeutic products in Aotearoa New Zealand. Bluntly, this bill is overdue. It’s been more than 40 years since the introduction of the Medicines Act 1981, which this bill will replace. The Medicines Act does not cover all of the products used in modern healthcare delivery, and it simply hasn’t kept pace with technological change.

Natural health products, which will be now covered by this bill, contribute $2.3 billion to our GDP. Goods exports are worth $642 million per annum, but the development of a natural health products industry and its potential to create jobs has been stymied by piecemeal regulatory responsibilities spread across multiple Government entities. The regulatory regime for natural health products has been hard-coded into antique legislation—specifically, the Dietary Supplements Regulations from 1985, which is mandated, mysteriously, by the Food Act of 2014.

I haven’t been in this House for very long, which is why I’m very pleased to have the opportunity, hopefully, to continue, but when I was first elected in 2011, the very first piece of legislation that I dealt with before a select committee was the Natural Health Products Bill. That bill never passed, and the issues that it sought to address have now no legislation or proposed legislation to cover them. The Therapeutic Products Bill, which we’re considering today, has been literally decades in the making, and, finally now we have an opportunity to move forward, notwithstanding the work of Todd Muller and his sunscreen products legislation that were put in place temporarily to cover this. The work of Todd Muller will now be covered by this bill.

Following the passing of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act, the Therapeutic Products Bill is one of the two foundational modernisations we must make to the law governing our public health system if we are to achieve healthy futures for all New Zealanders. The other is the mental health Act, and that work is well under way right now.

The Therapeutic Products Bill will provide for the timely, comprehensive, risk-proportionate regulation of medicines, medical devices, active pharmaceutical ingredients, and natural health products, and it will also include cell, gene, and tissue therapies. The bill will regulate how products are manufactured, tested, imported, promoted, supplied, and exported. The new system will align with international best practice and will be futureproofed with flexibility to ensure effective control over new technologies.

Government intervention in and regulation of this sector is fundamental because of the potential for serious harm from the use and misuse of therapeutic products. Given the bill’s significant impact on our future health and disability system, it’s crucial that we get it right. After more than a decade of debate, I believe we have a strong bill for the Health Committee to now have a look at.

I’m conscious also that the bill draws lessons from our COVID experience. A key lesson was that we needed to make safe and effective therapeutic products available quickly during emergencies like that. It’s my view that deficiencies in the current Medicines Act contributed to the rise of disinformation about the safe COVID-19 vaccine at the very time we needed our law to perform at its best. Conspiracy theories around how the vaccine was approved had their genesis in the present prescript requirements around emergency approval. In reality, that was the only mechanism for making an advance purchase order; indeed, it was the only mainstream mechanism, but it was never approval to administer the vaccine in New Zealand.

This bill will finally provide a modern, comprehensive, and flexible regulatory regime for natural health products. This is a significant part of the bill and it will bring New Zealand in line with our international counterparts in export markets. Natural health products are categorised as therapeutic products because they are intended to have a therapeutic purpose. However, they will be regulated as a separate category to medicines and medical devices. The bill is designed to ensure there’s a clear distinction between natural health products, medicines, foods, and cosmetics. The regulations applying to natural health products will reflect that they are generally lower-risk than medicines and medical devices.

I want to talk a little bit about rongoā and Te Tiriti. Rongoā are spiritual practices and taonga. Rongoā is not medicine by the Western definition. The kawa and tikanga on the safe preparation, practice, and application of rongoā is diverse across iwi and hapū. I’ve seen commentary that rongoā is not presently regulated under the current law, but that’s incorrect. Goods supplied with therapeutic claims are already captured under many parts of regulation. What has been missing has been appropriate and respectful protection of rongoā.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles are woven throughout this bill, reflecting how this is a fundamental component of it. However, rongoā is not mentioned or referred to in the bill. It’s important that our overall regulatory settings support the traditional practice of rongoā while balancing this objective against the need to provide assurances for patient safety and export market access for rongoā practitioners. The Associate Minister of Health Peeni Henare and I have commissioned a stream of work to consider how these objectives might be achieved. This work will be led by Te Aka Whai Ora and Manatū Hauora—the Ministry of Health—and guided by rongoā practitioners and Māori. I acknowledge Te Kāhui Rongoā, who have met with us and will be engaged in that work.

Turning to one of the bill’s key aspects, there is a requirement that therapeutic products receive a market authorisation before they can be lawfully imported into and exported from or supplied in New Zealand. Market authorisation for medicines and medical devices will be granted following an evaluation by the regulator of a product’s safety, quality, and efficacy or performance. Natural health products will need to demonstrate that they are safe, that they are made to appropriate quality standards, and that health benefit claims are substantiated by either scientific or traditional evidence.

The bill empowers secondary legislation for risk-proportionate approval pathways and determination of product standards. Reflecting their generally lower risk, natural health products will be able to apply for market authorisation through a self-assessment and declaration pathway. Some provisions in the bill will allow for the importation and supply of products without a market authorisation under tight controls.

The bill provides for regulation of controlled activities, including manufacturing, wholesale and non-wholesale supply, exporting, and conducting a clinical trial with medicines and medical devices. The bill authorises a number of practitioners to undertake controlled activities with therapeutic products. For example, health practitioners will be able to prescribe and dispense prescription medicines, and pharmacists will be able to compound medicines for customers. Likewise, natural health practitioners will be able to manufacture natural health products for their clients as part of a consultation. Other individuals seeking to undertake a controlled activity with a therapeutic product will need to apply to the regulator for a licence or a permit. The bill provides for a broad regulation-making power to allow other classes of individuals to engage in controlled activities—for example, surgeons to retrieve a whole organ for immediate transplantation. This provides flexibility to allow the regulatory regime to develop and evolve.

While Medsafe has operated as an effective regulator, providing trusted and quality advice, including during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Medicines Act does not provide it with the modern regulatory tools needed to ensure timely and safe access to therapeutic products. The bill will establish a new therapeutic product regulator and give it the tools it needs to implement and oversee an effective, trusted regulatory regime. This will be a significant undertaking and will form a key part of our future health and disability system.

The new regulator will be a branded business within the Ministry of Health, with an independent statutory officer appointed to head the unit. Although it will exercise functions independently, the regulator will not work in isolation. It will be an integral part of our wider health and disability system and will contribute to achieving a vision of pae ora—healthy futures—for all New Zealanders.

I want to acknowledge two matters where I expect submissions and where I will be looking forward to the considered recommendations from the Health Committee. These are direct consumer advertising of prescription medicines and pharmacy ownership. I just point out that the bill does not change current policy settings on either of those issues, but I’m keen to see what submitters say, because I know that these are somewhat controversial areas in some quarters. But I record for the record that I am open to change on both those matters.

This is a historic and comprehensive bill. It is complex and technical. Along with our recent structural reforms in health, the Therapeutic Products Bill will contribute to pae ora, or healthy futures, for Kiwis. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. this afternoon.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 1.01 p.m. (Wednesday)