Thursday, 11 May 2023

Volume 767

Sitting date: 11 May 2023

THURSDAY, 11 MAY 2023

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

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

Business Statement

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Thursday, 18 May is Budget day. As Minister of Finance, I will present the Wellbeing Budget 2023 to the House on that day. On Tuesday, the annual review debate will conclude with the appearance of the Minister of Agriculture, and the Appropriation (2021/22 Confirmation and Validation) Bill will complete its remaining stages.

Other legislation to be considered will include the second readings of the Business Payment Practices Bill, the Charities Amendment Bill, and the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill; the committee stage of the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, the Customs and Excise (Arrival Information) Amendment Bill, the Grocery Industry Competition Bill, and the Self-contained Motor Vehicles Legislation Bill; and the third reading of the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. A couple of matters. Firstly, in respect of the annual review debate, which we are coming to the end of and for which both the Education and Workforce Committee and the Minister of Education have been before the committee of the whole House, I note with some disquiet that the annual report of Te Pūkenga, a $1.2 billion part of Vote Education, has still not been published. We will be encouraging the education select committee to, effectively, reopen the batting at the end of that annual review debate, but it is very difficult for this House to scrutinise annual reviews if they haven’t been tabled.

Secondly, it is Budget day—seven more sleeps for the Minister—next week. And so I trust that the Leader of the House will give the Business Committee, next week, at least some indication, for planning purposes, of the extent of urgency, noting that Budget urgency where bills are not referred to select committees carries with it some risk that those bills that are not time-sensitive will be sent to select committees for their consideration.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): With respect to the first matter the member raises, he’s answered his own question about what he intends to do about that. With respect to the second matter, I thank the member for his advice. Obviously, we are a busy Government with an ambitious programme of work, and we will refer back to the member, as he suggests, in good time before Budget day.

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

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

CLERK: Petition of Anthony Gore requesting that the House increase benefits by 20 or 30 percent.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. A paper has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: 2021-22 annual report of Waitematā District Health Board (DHB).

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

CLERK:

Report of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the 2021-22 annual review of Research and Education Advanced Network New Zealand Limited

reports of the Health Committee on the 2021-22 annual reviews of the Capital and Coast DHB, Health and Disability Commissioner, MidCentral DHB, New Zealand Blood Service, Tairāwhiti DHB, the Waikato DHB, and the West Coast DHB, and on the petition of Amy Skipper.

SPEAKER: The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK: Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

SPEAKER: Members, please note that we will have a New Zealand Sign Language interpreter with us in the Chamber to interpret responses in New Zealand Sign Language for question No. 12.

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, particularly the excellent work of the notoriously modest Minister of Finance to obtain $4 billion in savings and reprioritisations to support our response to Cyclone Gabrielle and meet the ongoing cost pressures in our public services.

Hon Dr David Clark: Tell us more.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Thank you. We owe it to New Zealanders as they are carefully considering their spending and making trade-offs in their lives that we will do the same. Budget 2023 strikes a careful balance between supporting New Zealanders with the costs of today while charting a course for a more productive and resilient economy.

Nicola Willis: What did he mean when he said there would be no major tax changes in the Budget, and is he intentionally leaving the door open to modest tax changes?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I meant what I said in my pre-Budget speech in the last week of April.

Nicola Willis: How does he define “major”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, as I said in my pre-Budget speech at the end of April, there will be no capital gains tax, there will be no wealth tax, and there will be no major changes to the tax system. I can assure the member, for example, that we won’t increase GST, having said that we wouldn’t beforehand.

Nicola Willis: Can he confirm that there will be tax reductions in the Budget; he’s just hoping an element of surprise will make up for their small size?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member—on behalf of the Prime Minister, I’ve got to be really careful about this. Is it worth it, Mr Speaker? No. What I can say to the member is that as the shadow Leader of the House indicated, it’s seven more sleeps, perhaps not counting some of the daytime naps that the National Party take.

Nicola Willis: Who is correct: Deputy Prime Minister Carmel Sepuloni, who, in Parliament on 2 May, described the clean-car changes for utes as a tax, or his finance Minister, Grant Robertson, who, two days later, argued black and blue that they were not a tax?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think both members will be correct in the context in which they gave their answers, because they are loyal members of my Government—on behalf of the Prime Minister. It is fair to say that the provisions around high-emitting vehicles did change as part of recalibrating that system. On this side of the House, we know that we actually have to take actions if we want to reduce emissions, as opposed to words that we might hear from the Opposition.

Nicola Willis: Does it meet his standards for a senior Minister to delay important education data for 10 weeks to coincide with a political announcement, and would it be reasonable to expect that the Minister of Education would know whose authority her staff were acting under when they deliberately delayed the release of that data?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I have absolute confidence in the actions of the Minister of Education.

Question No. 2—Housing

2. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister of Housing: How is the Government working with the community housing sector to increase the supply of public homes?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): This Government is committed to working with the community housing providers—or CHPs, as they are known—to ensure there is a sustained provision of affordable and decent housing. The delivery of CHPs complements Kāinga Ora’s strong delivery of public housing. Our commitment to CHPs’ role in the crucial provision of public and transitional housing is demonstrated by the numbers. Funding for the community housing providers increased from $95 million in 2016-17 to $535 million in 2021-22. This has meant an increase in CHP places from fewer than 5,000 public houses in October 2017 to 12,175 places as of March 2023. That’s an increase of over 7,000 places since we came into Government.

Rachel Boyack: What progress have we seen with community housing provider public homes in Northland?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In October 2017, there was one public housing place run by community housing providers in Northland, but our Government has had a strong delivery pipeline for this region, and I’m pleased to report that CHPs in Northland are now running 160 public housing places because of the actions of our Government.

Rachel Boyack: What about community housing provider places on the East Coast?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: On the East Coast of the North Island, there were fewer than 40 community housing provider public housing places in October 2017. Increased rental support through income-related rent subsidy funding in successive Budgets under this Government have meant that CHPs have been able to increase the number of places by over 120 on the East Coast.

Rachel Boyack: What progress has been made with community housing provider places in Canterbury?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’m pleased you asked about Canterbury. In Canterbury, there were 569 CHP public housing places in October 2017. Under this Government, we’ve seen an increase to 1,702 public housing places—that’s a 263 percent increase.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Is he confident that every dollar appropriated in the 2023 Budget will be spent better by the Government than it could have been spent by hard-working New Zealanders enduring a cost of living crisis?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I will give the member the charity of not interpreting her question literally, which I think means that she’s shutting up the shop on Government entirely and putting all money into the hands of “hard-working New Zealanders”. I will respond to what I think she meant by the question and say that I’m confident that this Government has prioritised the needs of hard-working New Zealanders during a period of elevated inflation and the need to respond to the adverse weather events, all by keeping a lid on debt. I’m also confident that as of 1 April, the rate of NZ super for a couple will have increased by $326.68 since 2017. I’m confident that over 860,000 or 99.6 percent of children aged less than 14 years old are enrolled at a general practice that provides free visits during the day. I’m confident that 54 percent of all New Zealand families with children will be eligible for subsidised childcare assistance. These are only a few examples. Budget 2023 will strike a careful balance between supporting New Zealanders with the costs of today or charting a course for a more productive and resilient economy.

Nicola Willis: In light of the inflation adjustments he has managed to fund for a range of Government beneficiaries, including Government departments, will he provide inflation adjustments for working New Zealanders in his Budget?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The inflation adjustments that we’ve provided, such as those for people on benefits and those on superannuation, are important ones for people who are particularly feeling the pressure of the cost of living. All New Zealanders are feeling that pressure. What a Government has to do is balance what we can do for them directly and the provision of core services. Health, education, housing—all of these things have been affected by inflation in a negative way. We have to make sure that we have the resources to spend to support those and create a balance with also supporting New Zealanders with the cost of living pressure.

Nicola Willis: Is it his position that a billion dollars’ worth of savings is responsible but $1 more would amount to austerity, and how is that logically consistent?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Clearly, that is not the position that I’m taking. What I am saying is many, many more dollars more would not support the New Zealand economy or society in the situation that we’re now in. It is important to get a balance in these situations. If we did go down the path that the member appears to be suggesting, that would require significant cuts to public services. Now, that may well be the member’s position, but she needs to make sure that New Zealanders understand that and explain how she’ll pay for it.

Nicola Willis: How is spending $1.7 billion on consultants, and $97 million on Government advertising the right use of funds for “the society we are now in”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Much of the spending on consultants in recent times has, for example, been in response to COVID; been in response to issues that emerge that the Government needs to move quickly on. We have given a signal that we want to see the reduction in the spending on consultants and contractors, but the member needs to explain, if she thinks that every single dollar of that is going to be available to her in the future if she were to become the Minister of Finance, how roads will be built in New Zealand, because that is where a lot of contractor and consulting spending goes.

Nicola Willis: How much of the less than 1 percent of the Government’s Budget he has identified for savings will be prioritised for tax relief?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we’ve noted before, not too many sleeps for the Budget, but the Government has indicated that our priority in this particular Budget is to make sure we actually fund the public services that New Zealanders rely on properly, that we actually invest in the resilience of our future infrastructure. I know the member wants and is obsessed by giving tax cuts in this Budget. I simply believe it’s not the right time. But regardless of that, the member has to be able to explain how she will be able to pay for that. And it’s no good doing it just a month before the election.

Question No. 4—Education

4. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of Education: How is the Government supporting teachers to prioritise maths and literacy teaching?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): This Government has an ambitious plan to turn around maths and literacy attainment in this country. To help teachers prepare for the changes coming in, we have listened to the advice from the professional advisory group and deferred the mandatory implementation of the other subjects by a year. Schools that are ready to implement these subjects on the current time line still can, but the new maths and literacy curriculum will be available to teach from term 3 this year. For secondary students from next year, all school leavers sitting NCEA will be required to demonstrate a minimum maths and literacy base knowledge to gain their qualification. Three years of COVID-19 disruptions have left teachers and students exhausted, so we want to make sure that we are easing that workload and are focusing on what matters to families the most.

Angela Roberts: What are the objectives of the new NCEA maths and literacy assessment?

Hon JAN TINETTI: The Government has prioritised maths and literacy as urgent foundational learning that needs a dedicated focus. Currently, students can gain their required literacy and numeracy credits from over 500 literacy-rich standards and over 100 numeracy-rich standards. Most of the available standards do not directly assess literacy and numeracy skills, nor have a strong conceptual link to those skills, which impacts the credibility of the qualification. That is why, from next year, there will be a mandatory assessment that students must pass to gain their NCEA qualification, to endorse their knowledge of foundational maths and literacy skills.

Angela Roberts: Will students be ready for this new NCEA maths and literacy assessment?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Students will be well supported to prepare for this assessment, with the new maths and literacy curriculum being taught from the middle of May this year to improve the quality of learning, combined with the provision of free tutoring classes for students who need additional support and the investment we have made into more teachers in the classroom. I do acknowledge that this is quite a significant uplift in the assessment requirements for students, but students will have until their final year of high school to sit the assessment. They should only be sitting the assessment when their teaching professional considers them ready to do so. This Government is prioritising the teaching and learning of maths and literacy for all our young people.

Angela Roberts: What feedback has she had from the education sector on these changes?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Well, these changes were based on advice from the professional advisory group to NCEA and were made with deep consultation with the sector. The sector is supportive of the Government’s changes but have sent a clear message that they didn’t have the capacity to cope with the scale and pace of all the changes in light of the disruption experienced in the schooling sector from COVID-19 and other weather events. I’d like to highlight comments from the president of the Secondary Principals Association: “With this adjusted timeline, schools will have more time to build their capacity and adequately prepare for the changes, ensuring that the new standards can be more successfully integrated into teaching practice.”

Question No. 5—Statistics

5. DAMIEN SMITH (ACT) to the Minister of Statistics: What was the total cost, if any, of the One NZ Warriors census promotion, including free tickets, $25 food vouchers for the game, and a draw for a holiday to Australia as an incentive for completing the New Zealand census, and how many entered the draw?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Minister of Statistics): We need to do everything we can, in the final stages of collections, to help reach all communities which might not otherwise participate in the census. The value of the data far exceeds the amount that is spent on arrangements like this. A maximum of $150,000 was budgeted for the Warriors promotion, and as of today the total cost is sitting at $126,694. In terms of how many people have entered the draw, we do not know that yet, as the promotion is still open until 13 May 2023.

Damien Smith: Does the Minister believe that it’s fair that people who completed their census on time got no rewards while those who didn’t complete their census on time received rewards for doing so?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: The great majority of New Zealanders have completed the census, as required by law, and in fact the return rate is tracking along reasonably well. However, at this end of the census, we are getting to the stage where we need those last few responses in order to get a viable and robust response. That is why we are taking whatever steps necessary to ensure that people do the census, and if that takes promotions and the like, then that is what we will do in order to get the census completed.

Damien Smith: Does the Minister consider an 86 percent completion rate for the census acceptable?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: As of today, the completion rate for the census of raw numbers of forms returned is sitting at around about 87 percent, and it is continuing to go up day by day. The acceptable result is one that gives us a robust data set going forward into the future, for decisions to be made for our communities. Stats NZ is confident that, together with the raw forms returned and the subsequent addition of administrative data, we will have an excellent completion rate.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Did she consider freezing benefits for those who did not complete the census, as advocated by the ACT Party?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: There are accepted—

SPEAKER: Hang on. The Minister doesn’t have responsibility for that.

Damien Smith: Does the Minister believe that spending more than $300 million on the census for only an 87 percent response rate is a success or a failure, and who is responsible for that?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: What matters, in terms of the census, is the extent to which we can gather a robust data set. That is done with a combination of census returns—the raw data returned to us—and the administrative data that is filled in subsequently. The cost of the census comprehends both those sets of values, and, in terms of the costing that is done for it, we know that the return from completing the census, from getting this work done, is a return of roughly 4:1 in terms of the capacity that people have to make decisions going forward based on an excellent data set.

Damien Smith: Does the Minister intend to provide future incentives and freebies for people who do not bother to complete their census, in the next census?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: There are standard processes for encouraging people to complete the census. At this stage, it is a matter of people doing their civic duty and incentives. Going forward, we will be looking at prosecutions, but that is an operational matter for Stats NZ to pursue. In terms of what we do with the next census, that will depend on the evaluation of this census, and that won’t be completed for a long time yet.

Question No. 6—Education

6. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Education: Whose authority were her staff acting on when they sent an email on 9 February 2023 to the Ministry of Education stating that “FYI, the Minister’s office are looking to potentially release the Term 3 attendance data early next week”, when the Ministry of Education had scheduled the data to be released on 22 December 2022, and does she still believe that the ministry’s plan to release that data before Christmas would have been cynical?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): To the first part of the question, staff in my office have some general authority to act on my behalf to engage with the ministry and make suggestions on the timing of announcements. In this instance, the correspondence to the ministry went too far in presenting this as an instruction to the ministry rather than a suggestion. I have spoken to my staff and been clear that those emails sent to the ministry do not meet my expectations. As I have always said, attendance data is the responsibility of the Ministry of Education. I did not instruct that email to be sent. To further increase the transparency around attendance data, I have asked the ministry to consider publicly publishing when future attendance data will be released. To the second part of the question, yes.

Erica Stanford: Can she explain how the public can have confidence in her management of an $18 billion education budget, when she has no idea that her closest staff are taking actions on her behalf to deny schools access to data that they needed to inform their annual plans?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I believe the member is conflating two different issues there, and coming to a conclusion that I believe is wrong.

Erica Stanford: When did she first become aware that her office did have a say over the release of the term 3 attendance data which was released later than the Ministry of Education’s scheduled date of 22 December?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I was made aware of the email that was sent, as I’ve said in this House previously, when I came back from question time on 22 February.

Erica Stanford: If she knew on 22 February that her office did have a say over the term 3 data publication date, why didn’t she realise she had misled the House when she said, “I have no say over that.”, and immediately correct her answer?

Hon JAN TINETTI: As I have said in this House in the past, at the time I still felt that my answers reflected what I was intending him to mean at the time of delivery, because the Ministry of Education has the responsibility of the data. I have accepted that this is an incorrect judgment to make, and I have since remedied that by correcting my statement in the House.

Erica Stanford: Does she regret that the term 3 attendance data was not released on 22 December as the ministry intended, when principals have told me they were working up until Christmas and in January and needed that data to better inform their annual plans?

Hon JAN TINETTI: No.

Hon Andrew Little: And then that member would have accused her of fudging it; you can’t have it both ways.

SPEAKER: Order!

Erica Stanford: Why did her staff engage in delaying the term 3 attendance data to coincide with her policy announcement on 22 February?

Hon JAN TINETTI: That member has just made an assertion about my staff delaying that data. I believe that assertion is wrong. The email is something that I was unaware of. I have instructed my staff about the intent behind that email, and it did not meet my expectations.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Mr Speaker, we have some difficulty with that answer, because the Minister has earlier in this question time confirmed the assertion in Mrs Stanford’s question that she now denies.

SPEAKER: Yeah, but the assertion made the assumption about why her staff had done it. That’s the assertion that I believe the Minister was addressing.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: My point is that the wide question was not addressed; rather, the Minister has challenged the subsequent statement, which is “Why did something happen?”, and the Minister has said, “That’s not what happened.” Indeed, the question does have an assertion, but it’s an assertion that’s backed up by an answer the Minister has given to an earlier supplementary question. So the why has not been answered.

SPEAKER: I will go back and read carefully the Hansard. But from what I heard, the assumption was made within the assertion that they did that for a particular reason. Now, if I am correct, then the Minister has addressed the question.

Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment

7. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Has she seen the New Zealand Food Network’s statement, “We’re seeing people having to cut their food budgets in order to pay for housing and rental hikes, increasing fuel costs and power bills”; if so, what actions will her Government take in response, if any?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: I am aware of recent reports around the New Zealand Food Network survey findings, and I am proud that we as a Government have invested around $56 million in food infrastructure so that our community food providers can better coordinate and support their communities. We are aware that Kiwis are doing it tough, and that’s why, in response to cost of living pressures, this Government has already increased main benefits, increased Working for Families for over 300,000 families, rolled out the winter energy payment for over 1 million New Zealanders, and expanded Ka Ora, Ka Ako so that it’s benefiting 220,000 learners. As a result of these actions, there has been a drop in children in food-insecure households from 24.1 percent in 2012-13 to 12.5 percent in 2021-22, an increase in after-housing incomes for those on benefits by, on average, 43 percent in real terms since 2018, and we have 77,000 fewer children in poverty using the after-housing cost measure. There is more to do and this Government remains committed to continuing our positive track record.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she accept that food banks are a symptom of inequality and deprivation, rather than a solution to these issues?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: As I have previously said as well, I do firstly acknowledge that it is tough and I also do acknowledge that ensuring that people have an adequate income is the primary means of ensuring food security—and that is exactly what we are doing.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she accept that a 165 percent increase in food bank use across the country over the last three years demonstrates that main benefits need to be increased beyond the planned indexation adjustment for inflation in this year’s Budget?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I have acknowledged that the way that we ensure that people can have food security is to ensure adequate income. We’ve done that in many different ways, including, as I’ve mentioned, the Families Package, the various payments—the winter energy payment, for example—and increases to main benefits consistently.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she think that depriving someone’s income via benefit sanctions, some of which the Minister has been on the record as not even agreeing to, is driving more people to use food banks as a means to survive?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: What we are trying to do on this side of the House is to strike a balance between ensuring that sanctions aren’t overly punitive but also encourage people off benefits and into work; at the same time, encouraging incomes to lift through various different measures, and I’ve outlined those already.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she think it’s a good use of Ministry of Social Development staff time to investigate whether someone on a benefit—and I’m quoting from the Work and Income website—is “having sexual relationships”, for the purpose of determining whether someone can access income support, when so many people are struggling to put food on the table, and, if not, when will she individualise benefit entitlements?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Our current system is based around the household as a unit of entitlements that reflects financial interdependencies and scales of economy for many families. However, I do recognise that further work needs to be done so that the welfare system reflects the modern family structures. That’s why, as part of the welfare overhaul, I have committed to exploring relationship definitions and unit of entitlements starting next year. This will have a specific focus on sole parents and cohorts who are unable to work—for example, consideration of individualising the supported living payment.

Question No. 8—Justice

8. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Justice: What announcements has she made about trading hours for licensed premises during the men’s Rugby World Cup?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Yesterday, I announced that the Government would amend the law to ensure licensed premises can stay open during the men’s Rugby World Cup matches later this year, ensuring a much-needed boost for the hospitality sector. The men’s Rugby World Cup is one of the most significant events on the rugby calendar for fans, and coming together with family, friends, and the community to watch matches live is a special part of being a New Zealander. A bill will be soon introduced to Parliament, which will be progressed in time for the commencement of the tournament in September 2023.

Tangi Utikere: Why were these changes necessary?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The men’s Rugby World Cup 2023 is being hosted in France, and the time zone variation means that many of the games will be broadcast live, outside of the usual trading hours for licensed premises in New Zealand. Similar to the changes made in 2015 and 2019, the amendments will allow eligible licensed premises to open over the course of the tournament for the purpose of televising live games. The amendments will provide the flexibility, and certainty the hospitality sector needs to plan for this busy period of time.

Tangi Utikere: What safeguards will be included in these changes?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: The extended trading hours will be treated as the usual permitted trading hours under the Act, and licence holders will be required to comply with existing controls in the regulatory regime. Based on experience and feedback from police and other stakeholders, this year’s amendments will also include additional provisions to enhance police’s ability to allocate resources. Licensed premises will be required to notify police and local councils of their intention to televise matches outside of normal trading hours and provide details of a noise-management plan.

Tangi Utikere: What matches affected by these amendments is the Minister most looking forward to?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: A wide range of matches—firstly, the opening match of the tournament, at 7.15 a.m. on Saturday, 9 September New Zealand time, between the All Blacks and France at the Stade de France in Paris. It will be an absolute cracker. And, of course, quarter-final No. 4, at 8 a.m. on Monday, 16 October, in which the nation can collectively back the boys in black as winners of Pool A, while continuing their celebrations of the return of the sixth Labour Government in the general election held two days previously. Up the All Blacks!

Question No. 9—Transport

9. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Transport: What is the total amount of unspent revenue collected from the Auckland regional fuel tax, and how much revenue has been collected from the Auckland regional fuel tax to date?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): To the second part of the member’s question, I’m advised that as at 31 March this year, approximately $728,461,000 has been collected through the regional fuel tax. That has been applied to projects currently under construction, such as the Eastern Busway through the Pakuranga and Botany areas and the Matakana link road, which Mr Penk will be very well familiar with. However, as the member knows, while Waka Kotahi collects this money on behalf of Auckland Council, it is Auckland Council and Auckland Transport who are responsible for how it is spent. Therefore, the member will need to direct that part of the question to them.

Simeon Brown: Point of order. I put the same question to the Minister as a written question and received an answer on 4 April which actually included both answers to both parts of that question, so I’m not sure why the Minister can’t respond here in the House to a question on notice to the same.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: Oh, go on then.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Ha, ha! Mr Speaker, thank you for indulging me. Obviously, my office received this question this morning. We engage with the agencies that I have responsibility for who hold information. They do not hold this information. The information is held by a local government agency that I am unable, in the course of responding to this question, to receive the information from.

Simeon Brown: Speaking to that. I mean, it appears that, whilst the Minister might be saying that, he has provided the information to me before in a written question, so he clearly does have access, because his office would engage with the same agencies to get the answers to the written question as a question on notice.

SPEAKER: Well, the Minister clearly is saying that he doesn’t know, which is an answer. I will give the member an extra question so he can examine it further.

Simeon Brown: Thank you. So with $327 million of the Auckland regional fuel tax revenue remaining unspent according to the New Zealand Herald, does he agree that the Auckland regional fuel tax has just simply become another example of this Government’s ability to raise taxes but not deliver?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Responding to the member’s question, the information which he identified, as I understand, has come through the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. I would reject the assertion in the member’s question. The Auckland regional fuel tax is being spent on important projects like the Eastern Busway, which the member says that he supports, and the Matakana link road. It has delivered important projects like the city centre bus infrastructure improvements, electric trains and stabling for the Auckland rail network, the downtown ferry terminal, and park and ride facilities across the city. When our Government came into office, we inherited a $6 billion hole in the Auckland Transport Alignment Project. We’ve been getting on with the job of properly funding transport in Auckland to deal with this longstanding under-investment.

Simeon Brown: Does he agree with former transport Minister the Hon Phil Twyford, who said in 2019, “Take this regional fuel tax away and Auckland would be back in the position of having empty promises of projects.”, and, if so, what does he say to Aucklanders, who have seen $85.8 million spent on the empty promise of Mill Road, which was meant to be built with revenue from this tax?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I say to Aucklanders, including the member himself, that projects such as the Eastern Busway, which have long been demanded by the people of East Auckland, would not be getting delivered were it not for the regional fuel tax. For the member to stand there and pretend to support projects like that but then to oppose the very mechanisms which fund them leads me to a word that I’m not able to use in this House.

Simeon Brown: Does Auckland Transport have funding to deliver the Eastern Busway all the way to Botany, including the Botany station, as promised would be delivered under the regional fuel tax?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Auckland Transport is currently delivering the Eastern Busway and it is delivering the Eastern Busway from Pakuranga through to Botany—that is stage three of the Eastern Busway. Stage four, which would include a station at Botany, is planned for future investment.

Simeon Brown: So the Minister’s telling the House that despite the 2018 regional fuel tax, which said that the Botany station would be completed using the regional fuel tax, that now is no longer funded? Another empty promise.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No, that is not what I am saying. The Auckland regional fuel tax is a flow of revenue which lasts for some time for Auckland Council. At this time, the Eastern Busway—which, as I have noted before, the member has stood and celebrated and said that he supports but is being delivered by a mechanism that he opposes—is being delivered through to Botany for stage three. That does not preclude future investments being made.

Simeon Brown: Does he agree with Michael Wood, who said in 2018 that the Auckland regional fuel tax provided a “vision for a congestion-free city”, and, if so, what does he say to Auckland motorists who have been paying this tax for five years, while congestion only continues to get worse, and only about half of it has been spent?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: What I would say in response to that member’s question is that congestion in Auckland would be considerably worse had we not made investments through the regional fuel tax in city centre bus improvements, in stage two of the Eastern Busway, in the downtown ferry terminal, and other projects, including electric train stabling, that have helped more people to get on to public transport. Decades of neglect of investment in high-quality transport in Auckland have led us to the point of having congestion and high levels of carbon emissions. Our Government is getting on with the job of making the investments to futureproof the network in Auckland, in contrast to the Opposition’s relentless negativity and lack of any ideas as to how to actually solve any of these problems.

Question No. 10—Public Service

10. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East) to the Minister for the Public Service: What updates has he received on the progress of pay equity settlements?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for the Public Service): Since the 2020 amendment to the Equal Pay Act 1972, which created a practical and accessible process for making a pay equity claim, 39 claims have been raised and 10 claims have been settled. These claims have come from a range of sectors, including health, education, corrections, the funded sector, local government, and the private sector. The 10 settled claims have corrected the pay of over 110,000 employees, with the average pay correction being 32.4 percent. I meet quarterly with the pay equity task force and unions to monitor the progress of the pay equity claims, and at our last meeting on 4 May this year, there were 29 active pay equity claims at different stages of completion.

Jamie Strange: What pay equity claims are currently in progress for the public sector?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Currently, there are 20 active pay equity claims in progress across the public sector. These claims include, but aren’t limited to, Te Whatu Ora nurses, teachers, Public Service—administration and clerical—midwives, and education therapists. The majority of the active pay equity claims in the public sector are on track. Since the gender pay gap action plan was launched in 2018 and the Equal Pay Act was amended, the gender pay gap in the Public Service has fallen from 12.2 percent in 2018 to 7.7 percent in 2022, and since Kia Toipoto was launched in 2021, the Māori pay gap has fallen from 8.3 percent in 2021 to 6.5 percent in 2022, demonstrating the effect of taking positive action to reduce pay gaps, including through pay equity.

Jamie Strange: What pay equity claims are currently in progress for the funded sector?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: In 2020, the Government approved a framework for the oversight and support of funded sector pay equity claims. The funded sector framework supports employers and claimants in the funded sector to get advice and support in working their way through a pay equity claim while preserving the rights and responsibilities of their employer and employee relationship. Currently, there are nine active pay equity claims in progress across the funded sector. These include NGO social service workers, general practice education programme or general practitioner trainees, kindergarten administration, kindergarten teacher-aides, kindergarten cooks, Kōhanga Reo, care and support workers in the health and disability sector, care and support front-line managers, and community midwives.

Jamie Strange: What are the next steps in the pay equity claims space?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The pay equity task force will continue to support the efficient and effective resolution of pay equity claims across the system. The team will continue to work with unions and stakeholders to build capability in the pay equity process, deliver education and resources, and look at sustainable and effective ways to review and maintain the pay equity process. Achieving pay equity will allow women to better support themselves and their whānau and save for their retirements. It will give families more choice to participate in paid work and balancing family roles. This Government is committed to paying employees what they are worth and fully utilising their skills, and the work being done in the pay equity space recognises that.

Question No. 11—Police

11. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, “It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer”; if so, why?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): I stand by my full statement: “It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra police.” As police Minister, I remain committed to making New Zealanders feel safe through the actions this Government is taking, including the delivery of 1,800 additional police officers. The alternative is a drop in police numbers like we saw under National.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Can she confirm that 55 percent of police stations around New Zealand have either lost or not had an increase in constabulary staff since 2017?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No. In fact, all police districts right across New Zealand have seen an increase in police officers, and I’m happy to give that member those numbers. If I read through the police districts, Northland has had 73 more police officers; Waikato, 114; Bay of Plenty, 129; Central, 91; Eastern, 99; Wellington, 89; Tasman, 49; Canterbury, 126; Southern, 56; and also in Tāmaki Makaurau, 388 additional police officers.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if you would agree with me that the Minister answering a question about stations with data about districts does not address the question.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I have to agree with you. I’ll give the member an extra question.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Can the Minister confirm that 55 percent of police stations around New Zealand have either lost or not had an increase in constabulary staff since 2017?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The information that I have is by district. What the member may be getting confused with, with some of the data he’s received, is that the additional police that have gone into areas such as Wellington and Auckland have been the increase in those working on organised crime. This includes a mix of investigators, specialist authorised officers handling areas like cyber-crime, financial forensic investigators, and asset recovery.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Mr Speaker, I’m seeking leave to table a Police Official Information Act request which shows that 311 police stations around New Zealand have either lost staff or not gained any between October 2017 and November 2022.

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

Document not tabled.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why does she keep saying that the Government’s response to record violent crime is 1,800 new police, when over half of all police stations have received no extra staff?

Hon Andrew Little: What a stupid question. [Interruption]

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Yes, well, you might want to ask your colleague to be quiet.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I’d like to give the example of Auckland. So police has centralised a number of functions in Tāmaki-makau-rau, meaning a large number of police formerly within districts are now counted in a centralised group. This central group includes the dog section, the Eagle, much of the road-policing staffing, and the deployment workforce managements. This kind of work should be centralised because it improves efficiency for the front line. When you add all the police working in Tāmaki-makau-rau, there has been an increase of 388 additional staff since 2017. I’m aware that that member has not been on the front line for some time. If he would like a briefing from police to understand how police structures work, I’m more than happy to provide that.

SPEAKER: That was a pretty straight-up question, you know. It didn’t really need the personal attack at the end. I’ll give the member another supplementary.

Hon Stuart Nash: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, I’m going to the Hon Mark Mitchell.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Have front-line police officers expressed to the police Minister that they don’t feel like they’re receiving reinforcements on the front line?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No.

Hon Stuart Nash: Is it true that the new policing model actually means that there are more police out in our communities, solving crime and preventing crime, as opposed to sitting in police stations filling in paper?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: That’s exactly right. And I’d also like to point out that with additional staff, we’re able to support the front line. Under National, we had a sinking lid on non-sworn as well as sworn, which meant that you had sworn officers doing the work of answering emails. I consider that to be not a good use of Police resource.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why is the police Minister not aware of the fact that police officers in stations in rural and provincial locations are losing or haven’t gained any additional police officers at a time when they need them most?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I’ve provided the information that each police district in New Zealand has received additional police officers. In addition to that, Auckland has received more for an Auckland hub to be created for coordinating responses, and we have more in Wellington on top of that to make sure that police recruits—the new 1,800 by the end of next month—are trained and deployed.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Has the police Minister, having talked to the front line and been engaged with them, worked out that with a 33 percent increase in violent crime, with a 41 percent increase in victimisations, with over a 500 percent increase in ram raids, and with a 60 percent increase in mental health call-outs, 1,800 police is going nowhere near to meeting the demand that they’re currently having to deal with?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I engage regularly with the front line, and I’ve visited districts right across New Zealand. It’s been interesting to learn that increases in acts to intend to cause injury is strongly influenced by an increase in reporting assaults by victims of family harm. The increase in reporting of assaults at family harm events follows the introduction of two new offences: assault on a person in a family relationship, and impedes breathing, which is strangulation or suffocation. Those were introduced under this Government in 2018 as a way of addressing family harm. These two offences now represent 70 percent of all acts-intended-to-cause-injury offences reported to police. Many of these offences were previously not reported. I stand by and am proud of a Government that wants family harm to be reported and addressed within our community.

Question No. 12—Disability Issues

SPEAKER: Members, we now come to question No. 12, and I’ll invite our New Zealand Sign Language interpreter to come to the Table.

12. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister for Disability Issues: What recent announcements has she made about New Zealand Sign Language?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for Disability Issues): [In New Zealand Sign Language: “Thank you, Mr Speaker. On Monday, I launched New Zealand Sign Language Week. The theme of that week is ‘Together we can make New Zealand Sign Language thrive.’ I also announced that the Government had agreed to make improvements and amendments to the New Zealand Sign Language Act to protect an official language of New Zealand Aotearoa. Thank you.”]

Angie Warren-Clark: How were Deaf New Zealanders involved in the consultation for the changes to the New Zealand Sign Language Act?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: The consultation was done through a New Zealand Sign Language - first approach, allowing the Deaf community to participate in a process led in their language. We heard how important it was to strengthen the role of Deaf leadership, to hold Government agencies to account for action, and recognise the identity and culture of Turi Māori, or Māori Deaf, and these are the changes we intend to make to the Act.

Angie Warren-Clark: What other support does the Government give to New Zealand Sign Language?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: The Government continually supports community-led initiatives like the New Zealand Sign Language Week, the New Zealand Sign Language Dictionary, and New Zealand Sign Language youth events that promote and maintain New Zealand Sign Language in New Zealand. These initiatives take place across the country throughout the year and are successful existing examples of promotion of the language.

Angie Warren-Clark: How can Kiwis get involved in New Zealand Sign Language Week?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: New Zealand Sign Language is for everyone. Starting is as simple as learning to fingerspell your name or introduce yourself. This week is the perfect opportunity to learn your first signs, and for members across this House, Deaf Aotearoa have a leaders’ challenge that I encourage all to participate in. Thank you.

Bills

Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 May.

SPEAKER: Members, when we last considered the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill, we had completed call No. 8. We come to call No. 9, which is a split call. I call the Hon Scott Simpson.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Mr Speaker, thank you very much. As indicated, this is part of an interrupted debate, and it’s been well interrupted. I think this is about the third time that this House has tried to complete the second reading of this Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill. I didn’t sit on the Education and Workforce Committee, which considered the bill, but I think it’s important to remind people who may be listening to this debate that has been interrupted and who may have missed some of the earlier contributions from other members that this piece of legislation is a response by the current Labour Government to a review that they undertook, back in 2020, looking at migrant exploitation.

Migrant exploitation is never acceptable, and it’s a matter that I think would be agreed by every member of the House—that the problems that confront migrant exploitation are real, they are present, and they are serious—but this is a piece of legislation that attempts to bring a desktop solution to this very real and serious problem. At first reading, we in the National Party supported the legislation. We did so, so that people and members of the public—stakeholders, immigration consultants, and businesses—could participate in a select committee process, but we had reservations at the time the bill was introduced, and I am sorry to say that our concerns at the first reading have not been sufficiently considered to give us cause to continue supporting this bill at second reading. We don’t think that the responses that the current Labour Government have brought to this Chamber by way of this bill are appropriate, and we think that they are actually going to create more problems than they solve. As I said, the Government is attempting, in this piece of legislation, to, effectively, bring a desktop solution to this problem.

I want to just go through the headline points of what this piece of legislation is seeking to do. Firstly, it’s going to empower desk-based officers to request employment documents to ensure that companies who hire migrants are complying with the law. There’s the first problem. The first problem is that this will be a process of infringements and requests that will be originated and given effect to by people sitting at a desk, in front of a screen, a long way from the actual businesses that are concerned. It won’t be a matter of engaging with those businesses in any meaningful way; it’ll simply be a request—probably a digital request, through an email or another digital communication—insisting that they comply by providing forms, documents, papers, and materials to the immigration personnel. The second part of this piece of legislation will allow labour inspectors and immigration officers to issue fines for non-compliance with those requests that are made of businesses by the desk-bound official. Then, thirdly, this legislation establishes two other infringement offences under the Immigration Act and Employment Relations Act.

If this was a Government that was serious about cracking down on migrant exploitation, surely the better thing to do would be to go after the perpetrators of migrant exploitation, go after the serious offenders, because in many cases—many cases—businesses just want to do the right thing. Immigration and migration law is complicated, it’s detailed, and it requires a careful attention to form filling and to getting the right documents, and all those sorts of things. Most businesses actually do want to comply. The fact that some of them get it wrong is not necessarily any indication of a complicit or illegal migrant exploitation; it is simply that the area is confusing and it’s complicated. So to approach this area with infringement fines and then no appeal rights—absolute discretion by desktop officials working in a cubical somewhere in Wellington, probably—we think is inappropriate, and so therefore we are not going to support this legislation at the second reading. We think it’s the wrong approach being taken by the Government to a very serious problem.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Angie Warren-Clark—five minutes.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): [In New Zealand Sign Language: “Thank you, Mr Speaker.”] I got it right that time. Look, it comes as a great surprise—nevertheless, a great pleasure—to be speaking today on the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill. It is a bill that I have not sat in on in select committee; nevertheless, it is an extremely important bill for the community that I currently live in, the Bay of Plenty. As we will all know, the Bay of Plenty has many migrant workers, particularly during the kiwifruit and harvesting seasons that we have operating in our community. So it is a pleasure to stand and speak to this bill.

I understand that the bill amends the Immigration Act, the Employment Relations Act, and the Companies Act, in order to better support our fit for purpose delivery of services and also an offence and penalty regime.

I think it’s really important that we acknowledge that, sure, people sitting at a desk, requesting documentation may seem to be a somewhat weak suggestion from the Opposition. We can understand what they’re saying. Nevertheless, what I know is the records that these employers are required to provide enforce and force people to actually go about taking care of their workers.

We know that when a worker is paid cash under the table, they’re exploited. They’re often not paid what they’re entitled to. We see that in our community of the Bay of Plenty quite often. Therefore, I think it is actually quite a powerful tool to be able to require employers to furnish these records. It also gives the opportunity, if they don’t do so within 10 days, that there is a penalty applied. Further, it also gives that if an employer continues to do this, they also may be unable to be an employer under these regimes.

So, as I say, this is not a bill that I have sat in on. It is an important bill to ensure that the workers that come to this country are protected. I therefore commend it to the House.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Noa’ia, Mr Speaker. I rise to make a short contribution to the second reading of this bill, the Worker Protection (Migrant and other Employees) Bill.

I do want to thank the Education and Workforce Committee for this bill, as I have recently joined the select committee. The bill sets out a number of recommendations, and the policy intent of this bill is to allow, regulate, create, update, and enable the required conditions as listed. It is really important, because migrant workers, who we need in this country, have helped us, particularly pre- and during COVID, and also post-COVID, and employers are getting these people as workforce. The bill sets out to improve the compliance and enforcement legislation, because it is required to deter employers that they need to follow the law in its practicability and workability.

Just quickly, in my previous role, I was an immigration specialist through an MP’s and Minister’s office. It was really important that applicants—members of our community—would find themselves in really difficult situations when an employer set out to employ them under working conditions but did not carry that out as they had said, and exploited these workers.

Applicants who relied on a respectful and fair decision-making—their personal situation was sometimes really contested, and so communities would approach MPs’ offices for confidential and important advice. The migrant workers would share confidential information and were quite fearful. Being in New Zealand, they wanted to be obligated to do the right thing, because they came here and they were invited here by other family members. So, on that, if our employers are going to employ migrant workers—who add so much value to our society—that is what is required. So there being a problem in our society, it needs to be rectified. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill in this second reading.

As we have noted already, National tentatively supported this bill at its first reading, thinking that, in the select committee process, some of the issues that we saw in this bill could be sorted out. Sadly, the Education and Workforce Committee, which I sit on, did take this bill but we were not able to get the changes that we felt would have improved it enormously. So I now speak in opposition to this bill.

The main provision, as we’ve heard, is that it empowers immigration desk officers to request employment documents. It feels much more like a cost-cutting exercise and an ability to go after low-hanging fruit, rather than a serious attempt to prevent serious exploitation. It also establishes two other new infringement offences. Migrant exploitation has absolutely no place in New Zealand, and I saw how devastating this could be with international students and graduates who had post-study work visas. But this bill will not have the intended impact.

No migrants coming into New Zealand should ever be exploited, and we absolutely agree that those migrants deserve the same rights and protections as anyone else working here. However, this bill is only going after low-level breaches of law that, for the most part, are because of misunderstandings of what is very complicated law and very complicated regulations. It does not go after the bigger and more serious perpetrators of migrant exploitation, and that is where our attention and our resources should be focused.

I have a constant stream of constituents coming into my office, both workers regarding their visas and employers trying to navigate the immigration regulations. They are complicated, they are complex, and they are difficult for both employers and workers to comply with. In most instances, employers want to do the right thing but they simply struggle to understand the complexity of immigration law. And it changes so frequently that they struggle to keep up. Most small employers do not have a big HR department to keep up with changes, and I saw—as an accredited employer with the Southern Institute of Technology and an HR department—how difficult it was even then to keep up with the changes.

This needs to be addressed through education, not through slamming employers that make mistakes. The real offending will continue to go ahead because of a lack of resources at Immigration New Zealand’s compliance department and the labour inspectorate. We know that just 10 percent—10 percent—of complaints for migrant exploitation received by the labour inspectorate in the past year were investigated. So in 2021 and 2022, 1,018 complaints—allegations—of migrant exploitation were received, and just 108 of those were investigated. And the inaction will embolden these serious offenders. They will know that they are not going to get investigated; they will know that they can continue on with these exploitative practices.

Serious issues of migrant exploitation need to be dealt with through investigations. They can’t simply be dealt with through immigration officers requesting documents; they need inspectors on the ground investigating.

In the select committee process, we had 44 written submissions, and I want to refer to the submissions by two serious business growers, Zespri in New Zealand—kiwifruit growers—who said, “We are concerned about section 275A and clause 17 of the bill”, which give immigration officers and labour inspectors the ability to require the provisions of employee information from employers without reasonable cause; they can go on fishing exercises.

So 10 percent of complaints get investigated, but they will now be able to go instead on fishing exercises. This is absolutely contrary to the principles of natural justice. Reasonable cause could have, and should have, been included into this bill at the select committee process. It was not.

BusinessNZ, another submitter, said, “Most accredited employers are not intending to exploit their migrant employees. With a dearth of New Zealanders to fill vacant jobs, these workers are just too valuable to them.” Again, the select committee could have taken notice of this and could have shifted the focus from desktop requirements of employers’ documentation to investigation. The focus needed to change to investigations.

So, look, the Minister needs to be more concerned about ensuring that there are resources to be able to investigate serious exploitation, rather than trying to trip up and make it more difficult for businesses and employers that are trying to do the right thing. Immigration officers must have reasonable cause before they start requesting documents from businesses. They are just going to tie up businesses in trying to get documentation that may not have any bearing at all on an investigation, should an investigation go ahead.

There is no ability for the employer to appeal infringements. There is no ability for businesses to take appeals where they believe that the immigration officers have been wrong in what they have requested. This bill removes the defence for offences from businesses that took reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to ascertain whether a person was entitled to do the work. Employers will simply get caught out sometimes—that they did not know someone was not entitled to do that work—and there is no ability for an employer to appeal when that has been the situation.

Immigration New Zealand needs to be investigating cases of serious exploitation, and 10 percent of complaints being investigated is not good enough. They also need to be doing things like speeding up variation of conditions to ensure that migrants can have changes made to their visas when it is a simple and sensible thing to be giving flexibility to both employers and employees where there have been changes that require those variations to the conditions of their visas. But instead, they are done so slowly that it puts employers in a situation where they may be in breach and get pinged by this sort of desktop exercise.

The Government undertook a review of migrant exploitation in 2020, and this bill is the result of that review. So the Government knows that there is exploitation occurring, but they have simply gone after what is low-hanging fruit in a way that is going to be cost-saving and not going to address the issues. We oppose it.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I’ve had a week of actually reflecting on some of the experience I had as an employment lawyer, and in this particular space I think I can add value. One of the early cases that I had that really shocked me was some workers at a restaurant called Oh! Calcutta. That is not a very small chain, but, actually, I would say it was a problem that we had in Indian restaurants that was quite widespread. It wasn’t helped by the fact that so many of those businesses were fledgling businesses and they were small, so it was very hard for an inspector to get around them all. But it was also important that they had rigour around them, that they were expected to keep their wage and time records in order, etc.

What these immigration powers and these powers will do in terms of these desktop people is they will allow people to go and have a look at the records of such restaurants. And I just want to explain what it was like for those workers. I’ll just explain what happened. What happened was that those workers were working 92½ hours a week. They were working lunch and dinner and they were also living upstairs. The employer had their passports—

Erica Stanford: That’s why you need someone to go in.

HELEN WHITE: —and absolutely, Erica Stanford, people can go in, but we need this to be systemic across the board. We do not turn a blind eye to any business. This is going to allow people to shine a light on what’s going on, and it’s going to set an expectation. We have had an experience of an economy that’s been built on exploitation of overseas workers, and we have to change that systemically.

This is a tool in the tool box. It won’t solve everything, but it’s a damn good start. And those workers who were working 92½ hours a week and were being paid $350, even though they had a contract which said that they were to be paid $450 and were not paid overtime because there was no agreement—those workers will be better off and that is a good thing. And there won’t be just one worker; there’ll be a lot of workers in that. We are resetting the standard here. We are saying it is not acceptable. We are going to have a more nuanced system. We are going to have many tools in the tool box. This bill is good because it is providing some of those tools. I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 73

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Minister of Statistics) on behalf of the Minister for ACC: I present a legislative statement on the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I move, That the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I want first to acknowledge the Education and Workforce Committee which has reported back on the bill. The bill makes three changes to the Accident Compensation Act, all broadly focused on improving equity of access to the accident compensation scheme.

ACC is an integral part of our social support system in New Zealand, and it has become part of the fabric of the country. However, we know that access to the scheme is currently not the same for all New Zealanders. As Minister for ACC, I want to ensure that ACC and the Government have high-quality data regarding access to the scheme by Māori and identified population groups. That includes injured people of those groups who have not yet made a claim to ACC. The bill helps us to do this.

The bill delivers on two of our 2020 election manifesto commitments. The first: to return ACC to its original purpose of assisting all New Zealanders who have had an injury. The second: to address the changes that National made while last in office, which unfairly disadvantaged tens of thousands of New Zealand workers. I thank the select committee for its diligent consideration of such an important piece of work.

I also want to acknowledge everyone who has submitted on the bill during its select committee stage. I understand the committee considered submissions from many representatives and organisations. Their input has proven to be invaluable in this process. I am grateful for the thorough and careful consideration that the committee gave to the points submitters made.

Some submitters were concerned that the wording of the bill did not appropriately acknowledge Māori as tangata whenua and as Te Tiriti o Waitangi partners to the Crown. This was because it referred to Māori and other population groups without acknowledging that status. This is why I’m pleased with the change the Education and Workforce Committee has made to the bill. This was to change wording requiring ACC to report on access to the accident compensation scheme by “Māori and other population groups” to “Māori and identified population groups”. It also changes associated wording to be consistent with the change. I am confident that the committee’s change ensures that the bill now acknowledges Māori appropriately.

The select committee process also thoroughly explored the idea of specifying population groups that are to be reported on. Access for Māori will be reported on every year, but the identified population groups to be reported on by ACC are not specified in the bill. This process has given me confidence that the approach taken in the bill is the best one to ensure that the wording allows ACC flexibility to evolve its approach over time in response to the evidence while still having confidence that appropriate groups will be included in the reporting.

I also want to acknowledge the differing views of ACT, the Green Party, and the National Party in the select committee’s report. I understand that these concerns have been explored during the committee process. That said, I look forward to having a robust debate of these differing views today and at the committee of the whole House stage of the bill.

As has been said before, this bill also addresses one of the changes National made while last in office, which unfairly disadvantaged tens of thousands of New Zealand workers and returns ACC to its original purpose of assisting all New Zealanders who have had an injury.

This bill is our commitment to gather high-quality data on how Māori and identified population groups are accessing the accident compensation scheme, any disparities in access, and the causes and drivers of any disparities. Putting the reporting requirement into legislation means it will endure across Governments and Ministers. It also allows for the creation of time series and clear visibility of trends, given the extent of time for which data will be collected and reported.

I look forward to seeing the outcomes of this work and to ACC and the Government having the data needed to understand the picture of what accessing accident compensation looks like for all New Zealanders. I intend the changes in this bill will be used as a basis for better understanding of and improvement of access for those not currently accessing the accident compensation scheme, to ensure that all workers will be better supported by ACC. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to talk on this bill at its second reading.

One of the trends I see emerging out of, certainly, this Government, since the last election, is the number of well-meaning changes sought to be made that could easily be done without legislation. The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee has been considering the Companies (Directors Duties) Amendment Bill—a waste of time. The Business Payment Practices Bill—a very well-meaning waste of time. The Governance and Administration Committee wasted its time and this House’s time on a member’s bill about plain language—we all want plain language in documents, but is the State legislating for these things actually going to improve outcomes? To that list, and many others, I would add the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—a well-meaning waste of time.

Now, as I’ve mentioned in this House, between 1996 and 2001, I was a manager at ACC.

Tama Potaka: Oh, you lucky thing!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I was its national contracts adviser—lucky me!—where we implemented the elective services purchasing framework for the delivery of contracted health and rehabilitation services, a framework that endures 27 years later; it was a very good framework. I was on the first floor, for at least some of that time, of Shamrock House on Molesworth Street; the department next to me was the department that gathered and reported on ACC statistics. From the mid-1980s until about 2006, ACC produced a very comprehensive document—I recall it was larger than its annual report—that summarised all manner of ACC statistics. I find it somewhat ironic that Minister Russell, in moving this motion, talked about how this being put into legislation will ensure that the expectation endures across Governments and across Ministers. Well, that’s highly ironic, because it was the Clark Government that dispensed with the collection, collation, and reporting of ACC statistics in 2006. Nevertheless, the data still exists.

Now, we talk about in this bill “and other groups”, but, actually, this is about equity for Māori—a very important goal because we all want Māori and all communities to have access to Government and publicly funded services at the same rate and at the same quality and quantity as non-Māori. We also know that Māori in our fatal and non-fatal injury statistics are largely overrepresented, and in our workplace injuries that’s actually understandable. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment reports that sectors with higher harm rates have greater representation of Māori. Take forestry—I mean, I think forestry is still our riskiest industry—34 percent of that workforce are Māori. Construction and manufacturing is also highly represented by Māori and overrepresented in our injury statistics. Māori workers have high rates of temporary and precarious work, and there’s a high correlation between that and injury rates. We know that, in the last 20 years, fatal injuries amongst Māori are about 20 percent higher than the overall population—I think it’s between 40 and 50 per 100,000 over the last 20 years; whereas the total population rate is about 20 percent below that. When it’s combined with fatal and non-fatal together, it is marginally higher, not quite as marked a difference.

But there are some particular highlights. I think we have a 67 percent higher rate of motor vehicle injuries amongst Māori, usually young Māori men—and if one goes to the Ōtara or Burwood Spinal Unit, tragically, young Māori men are overrepresented in those wards. We know that assault victims are three times more likely to be Māori than non-Māori. And in our work stats, as I say, they’re certainly more highly represented. Interestingly, they’re lower by half in the statistics for injuries by falls, and one wonders whether that’s a genuine data point or, in fact, whether they are truly being underrepresented in that having suffered an injury by a fall, they’re less likely to lodge a claim with ACC or seek medical attention.

But the point is this: why do we know all of this? We know all of this because we’re already gathering and reporting the data. The data is easily found in ACC databases. And on our Statistics New Zealand website, a simple search of this tells us what we already know. You don’t need to legislate for ACC to report; they’re already doing it—not nearly as well as they used to before the Clark Government dispensed with that requirement, but it is there. It’s not that hard to find.

In our pursuit of equity, we need to ask ourselves three questions. Are Māori at increased risk of injury? Well, on the face of it, one would suggest yes. Secondly, when they are injured do they access health and ACC services at the same rate as non-Māori? Well, when they are seriously injured, it’s very hard to avoid those services, but it’s worth verifying: particularly when one looks at the falls data, perhaps there is an issue. And the third question is this: when they are accessing those health and rehabilitation services, do they access those services at the same level of quantity and quality as non-Māori? Now, Minister Sepuloni in her first reading speech actually addressed this to some degree by referring to the Ngāi Tahu Māori health research unit data that actually found that, “at least for some injuries”—I’m quoting the Minister here—“ACC supportive claimants, once they’re already in the system, appeared to be on par for Māori and non-Māori.” I mean, that’s good. On the face of it, there doesn’t appear to be material inequity, but we should redouble our efforts to make sure that we continue to ensure that equity.

But equity, for me, is not making sure that when they are injured, they are accessing those services at the same level of quantity and quality. Injury prevention has to be of paramount importance—that actually preventing injuries at home, in our workplaces, in our motor vehicles, on our rugby fields is lowered for Māori, because, at the moment, it is unacceptably high. There are a number of ways we can do that, and, in particular, those high-risk areas we need to continue to focus on are health and safety and harm reduction, rather than counting the number of deaths or injuries. If only we spent as much time in this House and in select committee and in the ministries taking steps to reduce the incidents and prevalence of injury and harm as we have wasted on needless legislation, then perhaps our iwi would be better off.

So I say again that this is a well-meaning waste of time. Let’s deploy these resources in a much more productive manner. Let’s find those ways to prevent harm before it occurs, but when it does let’s ensure that all New Zealanders—Māori, Pasifika, of whatever ethnic and cultural background—are cared for equally. This bill will do nothing to improve that, and, as a consequence, National will continue to oppose it.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I just want to mention that the Hon Michael Woodhouse said that this bill is a “well-meaning waste of time”; a well-meaning bill cannot be a waste of time.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Yes it can.

IBRAHIM OMER: No, it can’t—no it can’t be. This bill simply amends the purpose of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 to help people with personal injuries, including those who have not yet made a claim, to access and benefit from the accident compensation scheme. The bill, as introduced, would require ACC to monitor access to the accident compensation scheme by Māori and other population groups. I say by Māori because Māori are specified in the bill to reflect the Crown’s obligation to Māori as partners under the Treaty of Waitangi.

Toni Severin: What about the other identified groups?

IBRAHIM OMER: The other groups are mentioned as well. This is another step towards our manifesto—for us, simply, this is another step towards our manifesto commitment to return ACC to its original purpose of assisting all New Zealanders who have had an injury. The Government is laying the foundation for a better future by improving equity and helping outcomes for all New Zealanders through amending ACC legislation, including taking the steps to modernise ACC and make support more accessible to New Zealanders who need it. This bill seeks to bring forward the eligibility for the minimum rate of weekly compensation from six weeks’ to one week’s incapacity.

We received about 15 submissions from 15 people—individuals and organisations; we heard from nine oral submitters. I’d like to thank the people, everyone who submitted to our select committee. I happened to be a member of the Education and Workforce Committee that oversaw this bill. Even though we disagreed with other political parties in views, I’d like to thank them for their hard work and collegiality and respect—because sometimes we can disagree but we can disagree respectfully, so that occurred in our committee. I would like to thank the members who were members of our committee.

This bill is a good bill. It’s going to make a difference in a lot of people’s lives. Regardless of how the Opposition try to portray it, it’s a good bill, and I commend it to the House.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking on the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, second reading. Now, I haven’t been on the Education and Workforce Committee, and I’m probably thankful that I wasn’t, because, as the House knows, National won’t be supporting this bill.

I just want to start off with that comment from the former member who just sat down, Ibrahim Omer, who said, “If something is well meaning, then it can’t be a waste of time.” Well, I’ll give you one example: you can have a well-meaning Government that is a waste of time. That is the best example I can think of.

Unfortunately, this bill is a waste of time because if we had good management, if we had good governance around the ACC, they would be doing this anyway. They would be putting in place proper reporting, working out how often people get access to claims, when they get it, how much they get paid, and all of those factors, right? And they would be monitoring it. They wouldn’t be loose. They wouldn’t be allowed to just float in the ether.

Now, all of us know this—well, certainly if you’re an electorate MP, because we have many people front up to our offices. Currently, probably 30 percent of my time is taken up with ACC matters. And why are these people coming in to see me? They’re coming in to see me because they have put in claims for injuries—and many of them are Māori—and said, “Look, I’ve put this claim in.” And what’s the reaction? Well, there’s either been a long delay in getting a response to their claim, or there’s been a view, after several months of going through the process, of an assessment of a pre-condition issue—right?—which means they don’t get any claims. Now, that is the big issue for ACC: people not getting timely access, and not getting resolved quickly and getting a fair outcome.

Now, if this bill was about that, National would support it—would be absolutely over it. But this bill is about creating a framework to try and find out what is happening to one particular group—and, of course, Māori are significantly affected. But what this bill should be doing is requiring ACC to do a better job in terms of assessing all of the population and making sure that we’ve got the measures in place to report. But we know the Government has chosen to get rid of all the reporting requirements of many of our organisations because it’s simply not a great step to be able to assess and monitor, because it makes it transparent and makes it public.

So if this was about this—about adequate reporting; about making sure people get access to the right outcomes—then, yes, National would be supporting it. But to go down this route of just saying, “Let’s do a bit more reporting and make it tailored to one particular ethnic group.”, albeit an important one—that is not the outcome that New Zealand should be striving for. We should be striving for an outcome where all New Zealanders—those most in need—are getting access to timely, fair outcomes from the Accident Compensation Commission. And I think that is probably the biggest issue about this bill and what we look at. Obviously, it has some aspects to it about the minimum return or minimum rate of weekly compensation—changing arrangements around that—but the prime issue about this is ACC should be doing this anyway; if it’s not, we would have a good Minister that would be overseeing it.

My wider view about this is that I feel like this is part of a scorecard that members of the Government are trying to do, which is to say, “How many pieces of legislation have I got through?” So we’ve got Ginny Andersen pushing through the business payment practices—waste of time; even the select committee had problems with it. Then we’ve had Duncan Webb pushing through a bill around directors duties, which even the Law Society said was an absolute waste of time. Here’s a third example of another bill going through—a waste of time. I think it’s Ministers trying to say, “I’ve done something; I look like I’m busy, even though I’m doing nothing.”, and that is what is an example of a well-meaning waste of time bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I take it you’re finished, Mr Bayly.

Andrew Bayly: Yes.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to reassure the previous speaker, Andrew Bayly, that, actually, this bill, the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, is about improving access for everybody. I’m really, really pleased to be taking a call, because this bill does deliver returning ACC to its original purpose of assisting all New Zealanders—all New Zealanders—who have had an injury. There are two main ways that we’re seeing that happen in this bill: one we’ve talked about—the data—and I might get on to that in a moment, but I really want to talk about the fact that we are restoring access.

In 2010, the previous Government made changes to ACC to lower scheme costs by restricting access to cover and entitlements. We are restoring ACC and improving access. The previous speaker was concerned about our intent and our ability and our actions around making sure that more people in this country get what they need to become healthy after an accident, and we are doing that. One of those, when we bring forward the eligibility for the minimum rate of weekly compensation for people who worked full-time at the time of their incapacity, is a restoration. We get challenged that we’re not doing enough. We are taking action. This Government is a Government that does things. We don’t complain; we take action, and I’m really, really proud to be able to say that we’ve done that.

The data is important. It isn’t about the politics—which Government took something away or didn’t do something. I think that was a really great example of why we need to lock it into law: so it doesn’t become something that is at the whim of politicians but enables those of us who love statistics. It gives us longitudinal data, rich data, to make sure that what are doing is effective. That is why I commend this bill to the House.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party on the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I wasn’t privy to be able to sit on the select committee to hear the hearings, which had nine submitters and 15 individuals that submitted. However, most of the submitters recommended that our other population groups be named.

So the ACT Party supports the aim of the bill to provide quicker access to the accident compensation system, and the collecting and reporting of data on population groups, so that there is equality for all to access the ACC system. The ACT Party recognises the importance of improving the access to ACC system for individuals—partly those who are on that lower-income system—and so we are now bringing it back down from six weeks.

However, we cannot support this bill in its current form, primarily because it creates a double standard by specifying a data collection reporting requirement for Māori above all other population groups. We are concerned about the high numbers of Māori and the accessibility of the ACC system for them. However, every New Zealander is inherently equal in society, and we found it inconsistent and unfair to single out that one group above the others. Most of the submissions in the select committee, as I said before, suggested that we name the groups—and once we’d named those groups, we could put other identified groups at the end. Now, these identified groups that ACC have mentioned that we need data on is a very huge range, which fits into all of New Zealand. We find that we don’t have enough reporting on women, Pasifika, other ethnic groups, refugees, asylum seekers, people who identify as LGBTQIA+, people with disabilities, and young and old people. This singling out of one population group undermines our principle of equality, and we cannot support it.

Government advisers have noted that the regulations would limit the ability to adapt data collection and reporting in the future, and this could create unintended consequences, hindering the provision of healthcare for the future. However, if we named the groups that we know are not getting equality within the ACC system—they should be named, all of them, and we can put that proviso at the end in terms of other identified groups that we are unsure of at this stage.

In conclusion, the ACT Party supports the idea, as we said, about compensation for those who cannot continue working due to injury. The ACT Party also supports collecting and reporting data on accessing the system so that we can see where there are inadequacies in our system in order to make sure it is fair for all New Zealanders. However, we cannot support this bill. It is a “double standards” approach to only specify data collection reporting required for Māori and other identifying groups—for me as a woman who is on that list and who says we don’t access it enough, it is disgraceful. We believe that all New Zealanders deserve equality, and this bill undermines this principle. ACT opposes this bill.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I rise with pleasure to speak in this, the second reading of the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I do want to actually just commend the Hon Michael Woodhouse for his contribution. While I come to a different view from him, at least he was demonstrating a knowledge of the system to a certain extent, which is a significant improvement on the National speeches on the first reading of this bill, where there was the question being asked, like, “Where’s the evidence?” Actually, there is so much evidence that it was a bit embarrassing. So I thank him for at least engaging with some of the real issues around this.

I do want to just note that the Green Party is supporting this bill. Despite what the Minister said, we didn’t put in a minority view on the bill; we just indicated that we supported calls for the legislation to provide direction on an intersectional approach and to include a non-exhaustive list of population groups that would need to be monitored—didn’t amount to a differing view, because we were very much in support of the bill, but as a distinction from where the rest of the committee got to.

I do just want to go back to some of what the bill is about. It’s aimed at helping put more momentum behind the shift that has been started to try and get ACC to be able to deliver on its purpose equitably across all groups in our country. We know that ACC is not delivering fairly to all groups in our country, and it has been mentioned by some of the previous speakers, but I will go over some of the data that we have on this. We know that Māori benefit less than non-Māori in terms of access to prevention, access to care, access to recovery, access to compensation, and even access to the disputes process enabling access to justice. Forty percent of Māori participants who had a disability at 24 months post-injury had had trouble accessing healthcare services, something that should’ve been facilitated by the corporation, and that the Māori population, possibly partially at least as a result of this, has a health burden of injury double that of non-Māori. I think it’s for me that this point is really important and this work is really important, because we’ve acknowledged that our healthcare system has been absolutely failing Māori, and we’ve provided a structural solution to that through the Māori Health Authority.

We need to acknowledge that ACC is part of our social safety net, in terms of incomes, and our healthcare and rehabilitation system. It does not make any sense to me whatsoever to acknowledge the inequities so strongly in the formal health system and come up with these really tentative attempts at just providing visibility and transparency within the ACC part of the system. But it is a first step, and I acknowledge that.

In recognising the change in the language that came through in the bill from “Māori and other population groups”, which failed to acknowledge the fundamental Te Tiriti relationship in the country—that was changed in the Education and Workforce Committee to “Māori and identified population groups,” that tacitly recognised Māori as Te Tiriti partner. I want to acknowledge, again, that the Greens are disappointed that despite all of the submissions on the maternal birth injuries bill that called for a Te Tiriti clause within the ACC legislation, that work has not happened. Again, we had submissions from everybody telling us that we needed that in this legislation, but the work has not yet been done and is not ready, so we just have this step until we get there. I look forward to that work being prioritised to ensure we have consistency across our healthcare system.

We also know that in terms of other population groups, in picking up on the last speaker from ACT, acknowledging that other groups also—we do have some doubts that they are missing out. Women, at least ahead of the maternal birth injury changes, were, I think, per year getting $1 billion less out of the scheme than men. It’s a pretty profound inequity in terms of access to the schemes, and it’s deeply built into the way the scheme is set up. It’s set up, like, on a 50-year-old kind of understanding of work and injury and has a very biased gender lens embedded in that.

Also, for Pasifika, we know that they have low awareness of the scheme and how to access it. They’re lodging fewer claims and getting less support than their share of the population, and that’s exacerbated for Pasifika women. Pasifika people are returning to work more rapidly than other groups, and the assumption around that is because, actually, they’re not getting paid out in terms of ACC compensation at a rate that enables them to actually rehabilitate at the pace that’s needed, so they’re being forced back into work earlier than is appropriate for their health. And Pasifika with serious injuries face inequities in receipt of treatment relative to Pākehā.

Now, I heard the Hon Michael Woodhouse say that, well, all of this evidence is proof that we don’t need this bill because we have this information. Well, we have this information, quite a lot of this, because the previous ACC Minister directly asked ACC to brief her on the access of those groups to the scheme. That was not being provided, that information, to the Minister or the public, and for me that’s a key point. Embedding this into legislation is driving a transparency and accountability for the agency that could not be achieved if this was just the board asking for this information.

After my first reading speech, I had an email from somebody working within the corporation in one of their research teams, who said, “You are exactly right.” They provide the information, but because of the corporatised culture and the culture that we know exists around disentitlement and looking at savings for the agencies instead of delivering on their purpose, the data does not incentivise change across the system. They see the inequities, they note it, they move on.

What this bill does is give us the tools to hold the agency to account, to be able to push for that change. You have to acknowledge that ACC is not a ministry; they are a step removed from the Minister, so that normal sense of the Minister being able to direct an agency—that is not the same relationship with ACC. They do have a board, and that relationship tends to have to be more careful. So these are useful tools.

The Greens, however, would’ve liked to have seen the population groups specified, as I said earlier, and with a clear direction towards intersectional analysis. We were assured by the officials that that would be provided through the process of their work. However, considering we’re needing this legislation to give us that guarantee and confidence, that argument didn’t really stack up to me—“Trust us, we’ll do it anyway.”, whereas, actually, this legislation is saying, “We don’t really have that confidence at the moment, because this has gone on for a very long time without any change, so we would like to see it in legislation.”

The Greens also wanted to see not just reporting on the inequities but we wanted ACC to report on what actions it was going to take in response to this information to be reducing those inequities and taking action to ensure that everyone had access. We were told it’s a very complex system, ACC’s not responsible for all of it—I don’t buy that either. That could’ve included actions that had them talking to other agencies, working with them. It could’ve had them having actions around policy work on legislation.

So it is not as strong as it could be, but it is an important step forward, and I acknowledge the Government for going in the right direction, if too slowly.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have always felt that our ACC system is a powerful statement about who we’ve decided we are to each other. It’s a fundamental part of our ethical architecture, and, because of that, it has to be fair. And that is what this bill is all about. The ACC system we have now arose from the 1967 Woodhouse report, which was a report that resulted from a group chaired by Sir Owen Woodhouse. When he spoke of the system, he said “Injury arising from accident demands an attack on three fronts. The most important is obviously prevention. [The] next in importance is the obligation to rehabilitate the injured. Thirdly, there is a duty to compensate them for their losses.”

If prevention is the most important principle, then you want to know who is accessing the system, and how they’re accessing the system. You want to inquire whether a population grouping is accessing the system more than the percentage that they are of our demographics, or considerably less than.

So I believe that there is a strong argument that we should be including this in legislation. I don’t think any parties around the table believe that we shouldn’t have this information in front of us. The National Party colleagues are really arguing that it shouldn’t be within legislation. However, I would argue that there are plenty of examples where we as a Parliament require reporting and data collection. The Data and Statistics Act 2022 is a great example of this, almost in its entirety, as is the Public Finance Act 1989, which requires a significant amount of reporting. I would say that it’s not unusual for us to be requesting this whatsoever. I do believe that this is a sound piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. I call Tama Potaka—five minutes.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Tama tū, tama ora; tama noho, tama mate. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on a subject matter that dominated my youthful life, being the accident compensation scheme, on this second reading of the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and perhaps as the only New Zealand Māori male—actually, the only Māori male in the Chamber at this late Thursday hour—I feel eminently qualified to speak to this matter. I feel like I am the last cheese roll sitting in the warmer late on an Invercargill afternoon. Everyone is looking at me to understand whether or not I have any issues; what is wrong with me. In many ways, however, I don’t need another statistics inquiry—noting that, over the past two months, I’ve had four or five visits from census workers after I sent in my actual census forms. Another statistics worker coming by my place to ask me about personal injuries is, candidly, one bureaucrat too many at my place. The Education and Workforce Committee—beautiful; it should be acknowledged for hard work, and maybe I’ll make it to that station one day—now brings back more proposed legislation exposed to semantic “slip, trip, and fall” into the legislative waste ether.

Before I go on, I wanted to recognise that ACC Hamilton West now hosts a beautiful ACC building for 650 workers—I couldn’t think of a better place to have an ACC building—and congratulate Waikato-Tainui and Tainui Group Holdings—where’s my brother Jamie Strange?—for their marvellous effort. The lack of parking at the building gives me some discomfort, but I’ll leave that for another forum. In addition, the work that ACC undertook recently at Te Matatini—Delwyn Abraham and others—kei te mihi.

The number of personal injuries I’ve suffered in my formative years is long—heads, shoulders, knees, and toes; eyes, ears, teeth, and nose—and it was only mitigated by the incredible ACC scheme and indoctrination by admired law lecturer and veritable Scotsman John Miller, a sentinel of the Vic Uni Law School and Wellington-based defender of injured persons. My esteemed peer and in-law, the Minister for ACC, the Hon Peeni Henare, for his youthful vigour in presenting this bill, which seeks to improve the focus and understanding of how people with personal injuries are accessing the scheme, to increase transparency of levels of access to the scheme, and to give better effect to the purpose of weekly compensation—kei te mihi.

The amendments insert a new function in the corporation and also bring forward some eligibility for the minimum rate of weekly compensation, although we haven’t talked about that today. Alas, taku taokete toi ahurewa o te Kāpenata [my illustrious brother-in-law from Cabinet], the National Party and I oppose the bill today. I respect the Minister’s honourable intent and effort, however cannot bring myself, as a Māori man—I could say a Māori cis man—to support the proposed pathway forward, and we are willing, as we always are, to work constructively in the select committee, to understand why the bill is in the Whare, in this House, to really understand equity and equality of opportunity and why the Government’s interpretation is more reliant on input and less on outcomes. As my learned Ōtākou colleague Mr Woodhouse commented, and in reflection, we are reminded that, for about 24 years, ACC published in-depth data on injuries each year—not required, but ACC thought it was useful, until the former Labour administration of the day thought it was unnecessary. ACC can do this again and does need legislation and regulatory requirement to crack on with the mahi. In fact, there are a lot of things that the right people in the right place at the right time can do without the need for more regulatory compliance. There was a time, in our short time on this side of Papatūānuku, that we could get reliable statistics in a timely manner; unlike now, when we’ve got more barbecues down at Mount Smart!

The National Party has not seen evidence demonstrated that any Māori or any population groups struggle to access ACC. I’ll happily receive that data. It may be that Māori men are the highest users of ACC per capita, given the propensity of Māori men to be in higher-risk industries—in that regard, reducing accident rates to achieve equity, not by wondering why other cohorts don’t get injured as often as Māori men. Spending more money on gathering stats for statistics’ stake is likely pouring health moneys into Molesworth and Murphy Streets instead of attracting and retaining nurses and supporting them in the delivery of health services. We don’t need another clunky effort to count Māori males like me; what we need is a reduction of personal injuries incurred by Māori males. The easiest way to do that is less spending on the labour workforce in ACC and actually getting the services and the action out there.

In relation to the eligibility, the minimum rate of weekly compensation, as no regulatory impact statement has been done or notified to us, we have no idea how many people this affects, if any. We are yet to receive a number for how many people would be affected, or even any scenario where this could apply. With relevant evidence, National would not be opposed to this change. We wait with it but, with no evidence, we continue to oppose. Kia ora tātou. Love those cheese rolls!

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Thank you so much for that, the previous speaker, Tama Potaka, who read their speech so well—with little conviction, though, sadly. I’m not sure if there was much belief behind it, but a good reader none the less—none the less!

For this piece of legislation, it is around disparities across ACC and disparities across the scheme, particularly for Māori, particularly for our Pacific community, particularly for people with disabilities, our ethnic community, children, and youth. Hence why we’re here this afternoon, on this side of the House, passionately supporting something that is actually going to bring about change, as opposed to the negativity and criticising just for the sake of criticising.

I won’t talk about cactus today, as I did yesterday, but I want to move on and just talk about this ACC. This is a world-leading scheme that we’ve had for many, many years, and we need to continue to hone it and make it actually work correctly. That’s why we’re here today, looking at the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

I believe that most things that have been said on this side of the House have mostly been said, so I think I’ll call it quits right there and commend this bill to the House.

ANAHILA KANONGATA‘A (Labour): Noa’ia, e te Mana Whakawā. Always an honour and a privilege to stand and make a contribution in this House, especially this one—Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

Before I continue, I just want to acknowledge that I’ve just come back from my cousin’s big farewell. May she rest in peace—Lu’isa Mapili Halasili. And, yeah, life is too short for disparities.

So these changes live up to the Government’s pre-election commitment to return ACC to its original purpose of assisting all New Zealanders who have had an injury. This will amend the Accident Compensation Act 2001.

As we’ve heard from members of this select committee, the Minister had asked for reports from ACC that he requested last year. What evidence showed is that there are disparities in the access to the scheme by Māori, by Pacific, by the ethnic groups, by disabled, by young people, by our senior citizens.

I want to say this again: the purpose of this bill is to improve the focus and the understanding of how people with personal injuries are accessing ACC; to improve increased transparency of access, including disparities in access for Māori, Pacific, older people, disabled communities, our ethnic communities—basically, our groups that actually need to have access increased for them.

I started by saying that these changes live up to the Government’s pre-election commitment to return ACC to its original purpose of assisting all New Zealanders, and I commend this bill to the House. Mālō.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I too find it a great pleasure to rise on the subject of the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the contribution, actually, of my colleague and friend Tama Potaka. He’s taken on a number of roles since coming to Parliament, and to that we can add cheese rolls as well.

This is, inherently, an unambitious bill. It’s not about access, it’s not about compensation, and it’s not about rehabilitation. It’s to provide a focus on access, compensation, and rehabilitation; an increased understanding—and understanding’s important, obviously, because it’s a precursor to these other things actually being provided. But there is very little tangible benefit in terms of lives being improved regarding what the service is required to provide to them, except, only—and this is the best that we can say for the bill—that it will legislate to require certain forms of reporting on certain items. But, actually, there is nothing to stop that already taking place at the moment, and I would have thought that government—and I use that term broadly; I appreciate there’s different levels of governance and control within the organisation. But it seems to me if there is something so broken with the way that ACC is operating that they cannot be required by the current masters to provide such basic information as to who is accessing the scheme and whether such access is equitable and so forth, then we’ve got much bigger problems than whether the reporting takes place by way of annual report or not, or whether there is a very specific statute on the books to require that or not.

So however we look at this, and the very worthy arguments about the need for equitable access by way of different population groups—and we can slice and dice those in different ways, and we can examine the way that these are characterised in terms of all groups or naming specific groups and referring “other” undefined groups. But the reality is that every New Zealander should have good access to our accident compensation scheme, and if that’s not the case—and there’s little evidence, I understand, at the moment—and if evidence can be garnered to that effect, then that is a wrong that should be righted, of course.

We’ve got a bit of a logical problem with this bill whereby we don’t know what we don’t know. So, of course, the Government might say, “Ah, well, the lack of evidence of certain groups being precluded is exactly why we need the bill”, but one is reminded of that age-old joke—and I’m afraid it’s not a very good one, but why would I break tradition now? It goes along the lines of asking, “How do elephants hide in cherry trees?”, and the answer, which is deeply unfunny, is that they paint their toenails red—to which, of course, the rejoinder is “Well, how could that possibly be effective?”, and to which the further question is, “Well, have you ever seen an elephant in a cherry tree?”, of course suggesting therefore it must be effective. And the point is: if we don’t know that there’s a problem, it’s not enough merely to say, “Oh, well there might be a problem, therefore we’ve got to pass a very specific law”—primary legislation, no less—“to say that we’ve got to find out if the problem exists or not.” Surely there is some way that the ACC regime can orientate itself towards understanding whether it is working at even such a basic level of access by different demographic groups, and, if not, as I say, we have much bigger problems on our hands.

And, actually, there are quite a few problems with ACC. Let us be honest in this House and say that for every one of us who is a constituent or a list MP based in a constituency, we’ve all had people come through our doors, I’m sure, and my colleague and friend Toni Severin is nodding—she will have seen in her area, no doubt, people say, “Dear member of Parliament, I’ve had a problem with accessing these Government services. I would like you to help me, and my problem is X, or my problem is Y, my problem is Z.” There’s a variety of different complaints that people have about either the design of the scheme or, oftentimes, the fact that in the mind of the constituent, they are entitled, already, according to the design of the system, to certain benefits which they’re not in fact receiving. So there’s sometimes a disconnect between the view of the corporation—and I think that’s the right “C” in “ACC”—in terms of what the entitlement is for that person given certain factual bases on which their claim has been made.

So, for example, a gentleman who was in my constituency—he’s now moved; actually, for reasons related to his post-accident experience—had recently started a business. Because he hadn’t had much time operating the business, and therefore a strong record of income, and therefore an effective basis for which a weekly or hourly wage could be calculated, it was said, well, according to the way the scheme was set up, that he would just be assessed as being at the minimum wage, which was a pretty pessimistic view, but that’s the way the scheme regards these things. Well, he then, of course, received 80 percent of the minimum wage because one receives 80 percent of the wage that they were either on—or deemed to be on, in his case. So he was at well under the minimum wage—or, you know, 80 percent thereof—and that was extremely difficult for him. He faced, therefore, severe financial challenges as well as emotional and mental challenges relating to the physical injury itself, as well as the difficulty of paying a mortgage loan and doing other things that one plans to do with one’s life before one is injured, in his case in a treatment injury, so-called.

So there are many legitimate complaints that can be made about the ACC design. I do acknowledge, actually, in relatively recent times, a bill brought to the Parliament and supported, I think, unanimously in terms of improving access to ACC in relation to maternal injuries—I think I’ve characterised that correctly—and that’s right. I do congratulate and thank those who did that work to bring that forward: the advocates who suggested that in the first place as a piece of law reform; those on the Government side who proposed it, put it forward formally; and those who supported it on this side of the House, too. That’s a good example of a design flaw within ACC that was recognised, it was known, it was reported, it was discussed—possibly at greater length than it should have been—until the change was made. But credit where it was due: the people who made the change should be applauded for having done so, and that, I think, would be a better use of the House’s time in considering what could be done to improve the ACC regime than merely requiring a certain reporting standard or format by way of primary legislation.

So, I think, with the point having been made that no regulatory impact statement can be found to support the claims on which the bill is based in the first instance, it is difficult to take that seriously. But, as I say, there should be no reason that any such gaps cannot already be identified, and if they can, then, of course, they should be rectified. Such outcomes should be the aim of this Government, and, indeed, any Government, and we would urge the Government to concentrate its energies and finite resources—and I say that because every Government has finite resources. Priorities must be made, decisions must be taken for what the energy of the House of Parliament as well as the Government, more generally, should be directed towards. This is not the best use of those resources, and so, on this side of the House, in the National Party, we can’t support it.

And I will just add, if you’ll indulge me for a moment: the Warriors are playing this weekend against the Bulldogs, and I hope they don’t receive a disproportionate share of 50/50 calls against them, as has often been the case observed by such long-suffering fans as myself and others. And I make that point under parliamentary privilege because I can, and I think it’s important. Thank you.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I think what we’ve been listening to this afternoon from the National Party is a whole lot of denial. There’s denial that there is a problem in the ACC when everybody knows that there is a problem, there’s a denial that Māori face inequity, and what’s most worrying is there is a denial that evidence-based research makes for good policy, and that’s really worrying. It sounds like their solution is to sit around, maybe have a chat, think up some policy, but not to look at the evidence base for it and require the rigour and the discipline of getting the data that is needed to make meaningful change.

So ACC is problematic. There are inequities, and I would refer to an article in the New Zealand Medical Journal, “injuries”—I’m sorry, the heading is slightly cut off, but it’s “injuries differ between Māori and non-Māori? Findings from a cohort study of injured New Zealanders”. There’s some really good research that’s been done by a number of experts, and I won’t read all their names, but what that research found was that Māori are more likely to experience serious injury, less likely to lodge claims for serious injuries, and—most worryingly—be less likely to be referred.

I think that third pillar of it is something that is deeply worrying because this is people having their fate put in trusted medical practitioners. If there are reasons why significant anomalies exist in the referral rates, then that certainly is information that we need to have. The researchers in that article have suggested a number of systemic issues which we know exist across the health system, including lower rates of Māori access to quality healthcare; the treatment costs; the ability to get transport to seek treatment; other disparities, including the ability to get childcare or sick leave; sometimes poor communication; or limited culturally safe practice, which means that it has a knock-on effect of reducing access.

Most compelling in this report is a finding by the researchers. They say—and I quote—“it is imperative to establish routine systems for collecting data about needs, treatment pathways and outcomes.” It is imperative, they say, and it needs to be routine. The best place to require that is in legislation because this is about governance. It is about having a statutory and a mandatory requirement to get the data that is needed so that the agency that doesn’t know what it doesn’t know is required to get that information. That is how we will put sunlight on to this.

That is how we will get the information that we need to ensure that the system that is there for all New Zealander is, in fact, providing that. It’s very clear from the evidence so far that it is not. There is a clear problem. I am deeply worried by the denial that has come from the Opposition on this bill. I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 73

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Whaitiri; Kerekere.

Noes 40

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management) on behalf of the Minister of Forestry: I present a legislative statement on the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I move, That the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Bill be now read a third time.

This bill amends the Forests Act 1949 to establish a new regulatory system that enables the forestry and wood-processing sector to provide domestic consumers and export markets with greater assurance that the New Zealand timber products they are purchasing are from legal sources. It also oversees timber products imported into New Zealand to ensure they are legally harvested.

I wish to begin by thanking those who have worked hard to progress this bill through to this stage. I appreciate the considerable effort from members of the Primary Production Committee. I want to thank my colleagues for their engagement with the bill during the recent committee of the whole House stage. It was a productive debate that demonstrated the robustness of this bill.

I also want to acknowledge the extensive and useful feedback received from stakeholders in the development of this bill over the past three years. It is gratifying to note the support we have had from both sides of the aisle for this legislation, not only here in the House but also throughout the select committee process. This speaks volumes about the need for this legislation. We have delivered a bill that will ensure that New Zealand domestic and export timber products have been sourced from legally harvested timber, and we have reduced the risk of importing timber products that have not been legally harvested.

As has been discussed previously, the intent of the bill is twofold. Firstly, the intention of the bill is to be able to provide assurance that New Zealand is committed to trading only in legally harvested timber. The introduction of a legal harvest assurance system for timber products is a tangible step New Zealand can take to support the international efforts to curb the trade in illegally harvested timber products. At the same time, it provides importers and our domestic processors and exporters with a Government assurance framework to support their businesses that will demonstrate that they have completed due diligence on the legal harvest of the timber products that they are trading.

Secondly, New Zealand exporters need to demonstrate timber legality in an increasing number of export markets. Corporate timber producers can use third-party certification schemes, but these are generally not a cost-effective assurance mechanism for small-scale forest owners, who are providing an increasing portion of the annual harvest. For these owners, it would mean that their export logs would be covered under this bill.

Our major trading partners, including Australia, Indonesia, Japan, and the Republic of Korea, increasingly expect others to have a regulatory system. This bill will bring us in line with these countries to ensure the protection of New Zealand’s forestry sector.

Officials have also moved amendments to the bill through a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) during the committee of the whole House. The Supplementary Order Paper improves the cost-effectiveness of the proposed legal harvest assurance system for regulated parties. The paper further ensures the bill operates well with the new professional registration systems for log traders and forestry advisers that are currently being implemented through Part 2A of the Forests Act. The changes made in the SOP are mainly on technical issues and are aligned with original policy intent. These changes are needed to improve the workability of the new legal harvest assurance system and make sure it complements the existing registration systems for log traders and forestry advisers.

In the months and years to come, it will remain important for Government to continue working with industry to ensure the bill is implemented as intended. This bill allows for up to three years of commencement and a further 12 months for compliance. Although the Ministry for Primary Industries will administer the bill, Te Uru Rākau—New Zealand Forestry Service will be facilitating the implementation of the bill. During this time, officials will consult and engage with industry to develop regulations that are practical yet robust. I commend this bill to the House.

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

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It never ceases to amaze me that yesterday, when we had a lot of National Party members’ bills going through the House, the Government spent 10 minutes speaking on each slot, and today the Minister spent about four speaking on this bill.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: That’s right.

IAN McKELVIE: Very good speech, though, Minister. I’ll have to add the fat to the bill. It gives me pleasure to speak on the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill. Interestingly, it amends the Forests Act 1949, so no wonder it needs amending: it’s older than I am. I think that, historically, New Zealand industry has performed pretty well in this respect, because most of our native or indigenous forest is covered by other Acts than this one. So there are pretty strict regulations around a lot of that product.

But this one, as the Minister said, is necessary because it brings us into line with our trading partners and, in fact, with a fair proportion of the rest of the world. It’s certainly necessary because not every country has, I guess, the integrity in their forestry system that we do. So I think it was certainly necessary.

One of the ironies of this bill, of course, is that we export about $6.3 billion worth of wood products from New Zealand. But interestingly, we import about $2.3 billion worth, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. I think that one of the challenges for our industry—which is not quite part of this bill—in the future will be, and it’s moving quite quickly in that respect now, to get our exotic forestry and wood into a state that then we don’t need to import the amount of wood we do.

The reason for it is that we have historically had to treat most of our exotic forestry in New Zealand, and there are now processes that mean we don’t have to use chemicals to treat it and we can produce a product very similar to some of the extraordinary hardwood and some things we import from around the world. So, hopefully, the need to import quite such a large amount of wood product from around the world will diminish as we get better at manufacturing and producing product from our own exotic forestry to fill that need in the New Zealand system.

So the bill’s, basically, there to stop—well, not to stop, so much as to manage—the risk around illegal harvest and what I suppose would be, in many parts of the world, the exploitation of our native wood or forestry systems. So, in New Zealand, of course, we are fortunate that we do have such a large percentage of our forestry as exotic, and it grows very quickly and it’s very easily replenished; in other words, you cut it down and 25 years later you’ve got it back again. And that’s a pretty good system and it’s certainly a sustainable system for the future.

So the bill gives quite a number of powers, as the Minister said. I want to talk about three different issues related to it, but one of the powers it gives is the power of warrantless entry and inspection—and you would hope that that would be used very minimally in New Zealand. On a number of other bills going through the House in the past few years, we’ve had quite large discussions about this very topic, which of course is challenging for many people.

But I want to talk about a couple of other amendments the Primary Production Committee made. One of them: first processing. And when you think about the way we harvest our forestry nowadays, once upon a time we had a whole lot of men—well, they were men in those days—with chainsaws going around in the forest and a couple of massive great big tractors pulling those logs out. It was easy to work out that wasn’t processing. But nowadays, we have these massive machines, effectively, go to the forest, strip the tree, get it ready to put on the truck, and nail it on the truck to do the whole thing. So they had to insert a definition of “first processing” because it could easily be construed that first processing was occurring in the plantations; it’s not, of course—well, you could argue it was. So a definition—this is included in this bill to describe what “first processing” is. So I thought that was quite an interesting little piece of work that had to be done.

The next thing I want to talk about is the definition of “legally harvested”. We had a submitter who felt that in the course of the definition of “legally harvested”, we should be including, I suppose, suspect behaviour by logging contractors and trucking contractors, which I found quite interesting. What that submitter meant by that was where they either don’t pay you or don’t do the job properly or don’t complete the job. That, of course, wasn’t quite appropriate to be put into this bill, but it was an interesting issue and he wanted that included in the definition of “legally harvested”. And I suppose you could argue a case for that, but it would be very difficult to put parameters around that.

There’s also offences for providing false or misleading information, and there are offences related to log traders. Of course, every bill we put in place in New Zealand has to have an offence included in it, so that was part of this bill as well.

So I think, on the whole, the bill achieves what it set out to achieve, which is to put us on an equal footing with our trading partners around the world and to ensure that our wood exports are done with integrity and done what’s termed in here, of course, as “legally”.

One other issue I just want to raise very briefly in respect of this—and it isn’t covered by this because it’s covered by other legislation—is there’s quite a lot of wood exported out of New Zealand, or has been over the years. When you think about what’s been going on with these cyclones in the last few months, there’s an awful lot of native trees lying in our riverbeds and things like that. Historically, some of those sort of trees—and kauri in the North was an example of it—have been dug up at later dates and then exported in various forms.

This bill doesn’t cater to that because it’s catered for elsewhere. But it is an interesting issue when you think about the amount of wood that’s lying around in some of our riverbeds now—and some of that wood will be extremely valuable were it able to be harvested and exported. That will be something we need to watch in the future, but, as I said, there is legislation covering that already and, hopefully, that’s able to continue to be policed.

So we support the bill. We think it’s a good piece of legislation and I think the select committee did a pretty good job of getting to the point it’s got to. Thank you.

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to rise and take a call this afternoon on the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill. Before I begin, I just want to join my colleagues from across the House over the last few days who have expressed their sympathies in acknowledging the family and friends of the student who passed away in the tragedy in Whangārei. I would also like to add to that that my thoughts are with the families who were affected by the tornado that touched down in Awatuna in South Taranaki earlier this week as well. I know that the community is wrapping around them.

With that, I’d like to begin my contribution on the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill today by acknowledging the work of the Minister the Hon Peeni Henare to bring the bill here through Parliament. I want to acknowledge my colleagues on the Primary Production Committee from across the House—we’re a very collegial committee, and that was definitely the case in working through this bill as well. I’d like to thank the submitters who took their time to submit on the bill. As a result of those submissions, we did see improvements in this bill as it was reported back to the House in the second reading. And then further improvements were made at the committee of the whole House stage as well, following further reflection from the select committee on the suggestions made by some of the submitters. So it’s really good to see that the Minister and officials took up the committee’s recommendations, and we’ve seen those improvements made. On that note, I do want to thank the officials from the Ministry for Primary Industries for their work on the bill, and the drafters as well.

So, as the Minister said, this bill is about ensuring that our log traders, our primary processers, importers, and exporters are registered, that they’re doing due diligence on the timber that they’re handling to make sure that it has not been illegally harvested. Why is that important? Because ultimately it’s a reflection on “Brand New Zealand Inc.” We want to make sure that, hand on heart, the timber we are exporting has been legally harvested, that those who are harvesting it and trying to export it have a legal right to do so. Likewise, we want to make sure that the timber that we import and bring into New Zealand to use is also legally harvested. We want to play our part in the international community to reduce the flow of illegally harvested timber throughout the world. This bill is a tangible step that we can take to support those international efforts to reduce the trade of illegally harvested timber and timber products.

It is also a bill that will bring us into line with our trading partners. So several of our trading partners in the APEC communities, including Australia, the US, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and China—they are countries that we trade with; we trade about 85 percent of our timber products with these countries. These countries have either already implemented a similar regime in their respective countries or they’re in the process of doing so. So it’s important that we ensure for our own timber exporters and importers that we are bringing our system into line as well to protect the trade that we have and protect our exporters.

I want to touch on the definition of “legally harvested” because this is something that we as a committee spent a long time considering. It’s also—as we heard from Mr McKelvie across the House there—something that we had a number of submissions on. So the definition of “legally harvested”—it is the core component of the bill, and under the bill it will see that trees or woody plants are legally harvested if they are harvested by a person who has the right to harvest the trees and the person does not contravene the relevant harvest laws that apply in the place where the harvest occurs. So that can either be harvesting here in New Zealand or harvesting overseas. There are two exceptions to that in the legal harvest system: so it doesn’t apply to a person who trades in indigenous timber as that timber is already regulated under Part 3A of the Forests Act. But a person who does deal with indigenous timber may opt in, dealing in the domestic supply chain—they can voluntarily opt in to this legal harvest scheme if they can see commercial benefit to doing so. So I think it’s great that they’ve got that choice.

The other thing that we spent a long time considering as a committee is the harvest information. So the bill has been designed so that harvest information is generated from the person at the source of the harvest, and then it flows the whole way through the supply chain to the exporter to give that certainty that the timber or the wood product is legally harvested. With that, it is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. At this relatively late stage in terms of the legislative process for this bill and, indeed, this late stage in the parliamentary week, I have probably only a short contribution to make, and probably a small contribution to make as well. It’s not an area in which I am particularly well versed, but suffice to say, like everyone in this House should, I do recognise the significance of the forestry sector for New Zealand—most obviously we use its products ourselves. Obviously, there is a significant export component. At the heart of this bill is an understanding that, also, we import timber on occasion. Mr McKelvie, my friend and colleague, has given a good explanation of the importance of the local industry in the sense that that will reduce our reliance on overseas-produced timber. Of course, related to that point is that at the heart of the bill is our determination as a House to ensure that the reputation of New Zealand’s forestry sector is protected, it’s upheld, it’s strengthened, because we rely on that as “New Zealand Inc.”, taking that broad view as Steph Lewis has just referenced in her own contribution, which is important for the country as a whole.

So we’ve heard already about how safeguarding market access for New Zealand forestry exports will be improved by the passage of this bill, and the international reputation of New Zealand forestry also strengthened, and, of course, the two are connected, because, as those overseas who might wish to have our products in their various dwellings and other buildings and so forth, they need to be confident of the provenance and have the quality assurance that New Zealand timber is exactly that. If we can do our part in preventing also the international trade in illegally harvested timber, then that’s a very good thing too.

So just thinking about what’s at stake: obviously a large amount of employment—some 35,000 people, I understand, are employed within this country, and some $6.3 billion annually. I’d be remiss if I didn’t note the importance of the forestry sector, particularly for regions that were hit badly by Cyclone Gabrielle. The regions have taken a hit, in that sense, not only because of uncertainty about land use, decision making around what happens next in the cyclone recovery and rebuild and resilience-related decisions that need to be made going forward but particularly in relation to slash or other wood matter that has clearly played its part in accentuating the destruction of—and, indeed, in some cases it seems to have been threatening to life and limb of New Zealanders, or anyone, actually, for that matter; any human being who happened to be in the area at the time and had the misfortune to be swept away, either themselves or physically encumbered or had property destroyed by timber or forestry by-product.

So that is not to tar the whole industry with that brush. It’s important that we understand exactly what has happened. There is a review into this matter ongoing; in fact, it was already to have been completed some 11 days ago, I think, and with the 12-day extension having been granted, it will be as soon as tomorrow, we hope and expect that we will have some findings from that review as commissioned by the Government. So that’s a side note, I suppose, given that this bill is preoccupied with more general matters and the importance of the reputation, and so forth, in that sense of establishing exactly where and what the timber is and where it’s come from, and so forth.

I do note that earlier in the discussion—it would have been at second reading and then in the committee of the whole House stage—the House considered a point that had been made during the select committee process. I understand it was after submissions had formally closed, perhaps for reasons of administrative oversight I don’t understand that well in terms of what had happened process-wise. But, in any case, it appears, though, the New Zealand Law Society made quite an interesting constitutional point, which was eventually considered by the Primary Production Committee and then by the committee of the whole House, and that point was incorporated in the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper which was duly passed. So the bill that we have in front of us reflects that valuable advice that the Law Society had given. Roughly speaking, it was to do with the fact that clause 6 of the bill protects persons outside of the Public Service, and the concern of the Law Society was that Parliament might inadvertently be giving protection from liability that usually attaches to the Crown, rather than to individual persons or actors, whereby that some of those functions were delegated. So I won’t get into the detail of how that was mitigated, suffice to say that was considered, and I think that’s appropriate and useful.

So, having no further concerns or other concerns, or, indeed, any concerns, we continue to support, in this way, the forestry sector, the Government in putting forward the bill, and we commend it to the House.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill. We’ve already heard about the intent of this bill to show that we’re committed to trading only in legally harvested timber.

I need to thank Mr McKelvie for making me feel a little nostalgic and reminding us of the legislation from 1949, when my grandad was a harvester and a miller—not me! The smell of sawdust comes back to my nostrils when I think of him, because I spent many summers as a child in the Marlborough Sounds waiting for him to come down. He’d bring logs down—as Mr McKelvie said, chainsaws and pulleys. I’m not quite sure this would meet health and safety requirements these days, but running around his sawmill where the blades were bigger than I was, and rail tracks—it was a wonderful place to be, and, you know, that long history of forestry is something that I pay homage to today. This is the next step in making sure that our forestry industry is something that is futureproofed and something that we can remain very, very proud of.

One of the things this bill does is it creates a due diligence system that will shut the door on illegally harvested timber. It’ll provide a more productive and integrated and efficient supply chain, one that has integrity that and is critical for our reputation as exporters of trusted high-quality timber products.

It’s really important that we establish this new regulatory system so that our harvesters no longer have to rely on third-party certification schemes. It’s not cost-effective, especially for our smaller operators, and so it was great to be able to recognise that need that they had.

It isn’t just about our exporters; this bill also recognises our contribution to the global situation about making sure that we participate in that global fight against deforestation and illegally harvested timber around the world. Our wonderful ambassadors that I engage with from South America remind us that this legislation will be gratefully received by indigenous populations in South America. And just a reminder of the scale of that is that between 2010 and 2020, there were 2.6 million hectares of deforestation, which directly impacts on our indigenous populations in South America. So this has impacts not just for our small harvesters and producers in New Zealand but globally. It’s a really important thing.

I want to just finish off by thanking those from the sector who really contributed to the work at select committee. I guess that recognises that complexity when you’re trying to support both our local small entities right through to that global fight to stop deforestation and illegal harvesting. I think this is another really good sign to the world that we are leaders: we’re not scared to rise up to the challenges that face our exporters, our timber industry, and our food and fibre sector, and to ensure that we have a just transition to international trade and production that is world leading.

It was a long and complicated process, and I feel very grateful to have been on the select committee, one of the hard-working select committees, that made sure that this bill was as good as it could possibly be. It is a really great sign, I think, that we could work across all of the parties to find something that works, because we all know how important it is that we support our food and fibre producers for domestic production but also for exports. It is because of that that I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption on the next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 16 May 2023. Pō mārie.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 4.56 p.m.